In 1981, inmates in protective custody at Stateville Correctional Center in Illinois, with the assistance of Kirkland & Ellis, filed a class action suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against prison officials. The inmates sued under section 1983 and state laws for ...
read more >
In 1981, inmates in protective custody at Stateville Correctional Center in Illinois, with the assistance of Kirkland & Ellis, filed a class action suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against prison officials. The inmates sued under section 1983 and state laws for alleged violations of their first, eighth, and fourteenth amendment rights arising from the living conditions and institutional programs provided to those inmates in protective custody.
In 1986, after lengthy delays due to challenges to class certification and the pleadings, a bench trial was held. Judge Milton Shadur found for the plaintiffs and after another lengthy delay, ordered the prison to provide programs and living conditions comparable to those afforded to the general population of the prison and awarded as yet undetermined damages to the class. A master was also appointed to review the implementation of this order. Williams v. Lane, 646 F. Supp. 1379 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
The defendants appealed the decision and the Seventh Circuit (Judge Charles Cummings) affirmed the District Court's holding. Williams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867 (7th Cir. 1988).
In January 1990, on the recommendation of the master, the class was finally determined to be those inmates who were confined in the protective custody area from 1982 to 1989 for violations that occurred from 1979 until 1989. In 1991, a settlement agreement was reached providing damages for the plaintiffs. By 1993, the defendants still had not upheld their end of the settlement. The District Court therefore ordered the state comptroller, who was not a named defendant, to pay the damages agreed to by the terms of the settlement. Williams v. Lane, 1993 WL 32680 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 1993).
According to the docket, several latecomers attempted to join the class and were approved. In 1998, an unnamed plaintiff petitioned to hold defendants in contempt but his motion was dismissed without prejudice. The docket does not show any additional activity.
John Maksymonko - 09/07/2005
compress summary
