Beginning in 1995, inmates in Protective Segregation (PS) status filed a series of lawsuits, pro se, to enjoin the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) from implementing a plan to screen its PS population for transfer to general population (GP) units. The lawsuits were brought under Section 1983 in the District of Arizona; they charged violation of the 8th amendment.

In December 1995, the District Court for the District of Arizona stayed and consolidated the individual cases as Does v. Stewart, and appointed private counsel for the inmates. On February 22, 1996, counsel filed an amended class action complaint on behalf of all PS inmates seeking equitable relief, primarily requesting that the ADOC implement a plan ""to ensure that Protective Segregation prisoners' safety is protected."" In April 1996, the Court certified the PS inmates as a class. Following trial the Court, in a December 1996 memorandum opinion and order, permanently enjoined ADOC from transferring PS inmates to general population. In April 1997, the Court altered the order, to allow ADOC to submit a plan detailing the safe transfer of PS inmates to GP.

Nearly three years later, in February 2000, the ADOC filed a Proposed Remedial Plan. Under the revised process ADOC committed to the following, among other steps: PS-related decisions would be ""clearly documented, well-reasoned, and appropriately reviewed""; multi-level reviews would be allowed; and a PS Administrator and multi-disciplinary PS Committee would review all PS placement and removal decisions. Fundamental to the plan was recognition that PS is not a punitive status and that PS inmates would be provided the same privileges and programs as similarly classified GP inmates.

This plan was accepted by plaintiffs and included in a July 2000 settlement agreement. The settlement agreement requested that the Court conditionally dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and place the lawsuit on the Court's inactive docket prior to final dismissal. Final dismissal could not occur before the first annual review by a jointly appointed Monitor. The settlement agreement named Steven J. Martin as a monitor, and required him to file quarterly reports with the Court regarding ADOC's compliance with the Plan. The settlement agreement provided for final dismissal after the monitor found ""substantial compliance.""

Following the filing of the Third Monitor Report on June 25, 2001, the monitor indicated to the ADOC he would likely recommend the monitoring period be terminated in December of 2001. The lawsuit was dismissed in June 2002.

Eoghan Keenan - 04/16/2005


compress summary