Case: Kindred v. Duckworth

1:76-cv-00459 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Filed Date: Aug. 17, 1976

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 1976, inmates of the Indiana Reformatory at Pendleton filed a class action suit in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against prison officials. The inmates alleged various constitutional violations at the institution, including the policies regarding confidential inmate mail. In 1977, the District Court entered a consent decree and judgment directing the way the institution should handle inmate mail at all Indiana prisons. Bradberry v. Phend, No. IP 76-459-C, Consent …

In 1976, inmates of the Indiana Reformatory at Pendleton filed a class action suit in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against prison officials. The inmates alleged various constitutional violations at the institution, including the policies regarding confidential inmate mail. In 1977, the District Court entered a consent decree and judgment directing the way the institution should handle inmate mail at all Indiana prisons. Bradberry v. Phend, No. IP 76-459-C, Consent Decree and Judgment (S.D. Ind. Mar. 21, 1977). This allowed for inmates to have private access to their confidential legal mail unless officials had reasonable grounds to believe that contraband was contained in the mail. If the mail were believed to contain contraband, it would be opened in the presence of officials and the inmate and then handed over to the inmate when it was determined to be free of illicit materials. In 1979, the Indiana legislature enacted a statute with almost identical language to the 1977 decree.

After the enactment of the statute, defendant Duckworth implemented a new policy at a facility not covered by the decree by which all confidential legal mail would be subjected to being opened by prison officials, albeit, in the presence of the recipient inmate. This policy withstood legal challenge under both the Constitution and the Indiana statute. McChristion v. Duckworth, 610 F. Supp. 791 (N.D. Ind. 1985).

In 1989, Duckworth became superintendent of the Indiana Reformatory. Notwithstanding the decree's contrary rule, in 1992, defendant implemented the same policy of opening mail that he had at his earlier post.

Plaintiff moved for an immediate hearing to enforce the 1977 decree, hold defendant and other prison officials in contempt, and other unnamed relief. The District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Judge William Steckler) denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, Bradberry v. Duckworth, No. IP 76-459-C, Entry denying Motion for Contempt Order and Other Relief at 2-3 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 27, 1992), on the theory that the decree could not, as a matter of law exceed constitutional requirements.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit (Judge Albert Engel) reversed and remanded the District Court's decision. The court held the state should have filed a motion for modification of the decree under Red. R.Civ.P. 60(b); it instructed the District Court to determine whether continued enforcement of the 1977 decree was necessary. Kindred v. Duckworth, 9 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 1993). There is no further information on the outcome of this case.

Summary Authors

John Maksymonko (8/8/2005)

People


Judge(s)

Easterbrook, Frank Hoover (Illinois)

Engel, Albert Joseph (Michigan)

Kanne, Michael Stephen (Indiana)

Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorney for Defendant

Arthur, David A. (Indiana)

Hilles, Kermit R. (Indiana)

Judge(s)

Easterbrook, Frank Hoover (Illinois)

Engel, Albert Joseph (Michigan)

Kanne, Michael Stephen (Indiana)

Attorney for Plaintiff

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

92-03803

Reported Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Nov. 9, 1993

Nov. 9, 1993

Order/Opinion

9 F.3d 9

Docket

Last updated March 26, 2024, 3:11 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Indiana

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 17, 1976

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

inmates of the Indiana Reformatory at Pendleton

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Indiana Reformatory (Pendleton), State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Free Exercise Clause

Freedom of speech/association

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1977 - None

Issues

General:

Mail

Type of Facility:

Government-run