On Feb. 12, 1976, an inmate at the Iowa State Penitentiary filed a lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 against prison officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Central Division. The inmate, represented by the Prisoners Assistance Clinic, challenged the constitutional validity of the "close management policy" (the procedural method of determining whether a prisoner should remain in administrative solid lockup) adopted by the prison.

The District Court (Judge William Stuart) held that the system for review of inmates in administrative solid lockup needed revision and ordered the prison to submit guidelines for determining in a rational manner whether an inmate should be retained in administrative solid lockup. But, as the parties neared agreement on the necessary revisions, the United States Supreme Court decided Herwitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 450 (1983). The defendants, believing Herwitt changed the relevant law, reraised several issues in the District Court. The District Court held that close management inmates were entitled to frequent review hearings, that inmates were entitled to written notice of impending review hearings, and that inmates had a right to call witnesses at close management review hearings. Clark v. Brewer, 578 F.Supp. 1501 (S.D. Iowa 1983). The order was subsequently modified on February 14, 1984. Clark v. Nix, 578 F.Supp. 1515 (S.D. Iowa 1984).

The defendants appealed and the plaintiff cross appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Judge George G. Fagg) affirmed in part and reversed in part. The U.S. Court of Appeals held that reclassification hearings did not need to be as frequent as the District Court's order required, that inmates would not presumptively be allowed to call witnesses for these hearings, and that inmates need not be informed of criteria that would guarantee their release from close management. Otherwise, the order was affirmed. Clark v. Brewer, 776 F.2d 226 (8th Cir. 1985).

The docket for this case begins when the case was reopened in September 1991, apparently on a contempt motion and a request for relief by the plaintiffs. At this point, several other inmates were allowed to intervene, though it does not appear that the court certified a class of plaintiffs. According to the docket, one plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on November 21, 1991, but the District Court (Judge Charles R. Wolle) denied the motions on December 23, 1991 and, oddly, again in March 1992. In October 1992, the plaintiffs moved for disbursement and were granted $603.75. On April 5, 1993, the District Court ordered the case to be closed as there were no remaining issues to be decided.

Nonetheless, according to the docket, the plaintiffs moved four years later, on December 23, 1997, for appointment of counsel and for an order to show cause why the parties were not in contempt of the prior order. On December 30, 1997, the court ordered respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. Upon defendant's opposition to the motion for order to show cause, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for appointed counsel. However, the plaintiffs' request for relief was ultimately denied without prejudice. This is odd, but no addition information is available. Plaintiffs moved for reimbursement of out of pocket expenses and on June 14, 2000 were granted $163.10 and the case was administratively closed.

Rebekah Henn Sullivan - 08/11/2005


compress summary