On August 3, 2006, Oklahoma County Public Defender Robert A. Ravitz, filed a Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the State District Court of Oklahoma County on behalf Oklahoma County Detention Center (OCDC) inmates. Petitioner sought to challenge overcrowding and other conditions of inmate detention.

The court (Judge Ray C. Elliot) conducted a hearing on August 23 and 24, 2006. Following the hearing, Judge Elliot issued his order making findings of fact and conclusions of law. Judge Elliot rejected petitioner's overcrowding claim, but found that OCDC inmates were subjected to being triple celled, in violation of the Health Code. He ordered that OCDC discontinue that practice. Judge Elliot further found that OCDC inmates sentenced to the state prison system were being denied timely transfer to the state prison processing center, such that they were denied statutorily mandated opportunities to earn time credits to reduce their state prison sentences and also denied additional clothing provided by the state system. To rectify the situation, Judge Elliot ordered that the OCDC transport and transfer inmates to the custody of the Department of Corrections no later than 45 days after completion of the Judgment and Sentence(s) by the District Court.

The defendants appealed Judge Elliot's ruling to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which stayed the trial court's order on October 23, 2006. However, on February 1, 2007, in an apparently unpublished opinion the appeals court issued an opinion affirming Judge Elliot's ruling and lifting the stay. It found that Oklahoma law required the defendants to deliver prisoners to the state department of corrections within a "reasonable" period of time and that Judge Elliot's order only required the them to comply with this law.

Back in the trial court, Judge Elliot reissued his earlier order that the defendants transfer sentenced prisoners to state custody on February 8, 2007.

It appears from the docket sheet that Judge Elliot held a hearing on March 20, 2007 where he found that the defendants were in compliance with some portions of the order. However, after that point, there is no meaningful action.

There have been no new docket entries since early 2008, so the case is presumably closed.

Dan Dalton - 02/10/2007
Jonah Hudson-Erdman - 09/04/2021


compress summary