This case was brought in 1976 in the federal district court for the District of Maryland under Section 1983 by inmates at the Baltimore City Jail against both state and city officials of the Baltimore, Maryland prison system. The plaintiffs complained of overcrowding and conditions of confinement at the Baltimore City Jail, which resulted in a consent agreement setting capacity limitations, eliminating double-celling and providing other services.

In April 1981, the case was consolidated with Collins v. Schoonfiled, a class action brought by pre-trial detainees of the Baltimore City Jail that had earlier resulted in an interim decree setting standards of confinement. Some of the conditions at issue in the Collins case were over quality of food and medical care, religious freedom, access to books and other reading materials, jail facilities and policies that had an adverse affected on representation by counsel, and unnecessary restrictions on non-legal visits and phone calls. The decree was revised in 1984, 1986 and 1988. In 1991, the State assumed control of the Baltimore City Jail requiring further modifications to the decree. These modifications were agreed upon in the 1993 Revised Consolidation Decree. The 1993 decree established requirements for housing, inmate services, communications, access to courts, grievances and discipline. The decree also required the designation of a Director of Court Compliance to monitor the implementation of the decree. The case was reassigned to Judge J. Frederick Motz and in 1994, for reasons that are not evident, given the new docket number 94-cv-02541. (The docket under the new number begins: "MEMORANDUM "DIRECTING" Clerk to institute new case beginning with pleading #619 in case JFM−76−1255 and to close civil action JFM−76−1255. ( signed by Judge J. F. Motz 9/9/94 ) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/04/1994).")

At some point prior to 1994, the National Prison Project of the ACLU agreed to represent plaintiffs.

In 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to address the excessive heat at the Women's Detention Center of the Baltimore City Detention Center. On August 16, 2002, Judge Andre M. Davis granted a temporary restraining order addressing the issue. On August 22, 2002, Judge Motz issued a consent order that required the defendants to implement a "comprehensive protocol for intake screening to identify detainees who are susceptible to heat-related injury."

In late 2003, the plaintiffs asked the court to restore the case to the active docket. Thereafter, on April 23, 2004, the defendants filed a renewed motion to terminate the revised consolidated decree. On August 31, 2004, Judge Motz restored the case to the active docket. Subsequently, the parties began conducting discovery and preparing for a hearing with regard to the defendants' motion. The parties acknowledged that the defendants had made improvements, such as the air conditioning at the Women's Detention Center, and that the parties desired and expected further improvements.

In 2009, the parties reached a partial settlement agreement (PSA), and Judge Motz approved the agreement on November 10, 2009. The agreement covered all areas of dispute, except for how to protect detainees with high security or high-medium security classifications from heat injury. The parties agreed to let the court resolve that issue. On April 6, 2010, Judge Motz approved the final partial settlement agreement (PSA).

In 2011, the case was reassigned to Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander, who approved an amendment to the partial settlement on May 8, 2012, settling all of the substantive matters and conditionally dismissing the case. On April 7, 2014, Judge Hollander denied the plaintiff's motion that the defendants were liable for the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. Duvall v. O'Malley, 2014 WL 1379787 (D. Md. Apr. 7, 2014).

The PSA provided that, if the defendants failed to achieve compliance with its substantive agreements, Plaintiffs could file a motion to reopen the case within two years of the time of court approval. The PSA allows the defendants to oppose a reopening of the case, but only on the ground that the defendants had achieved compliance with its contested provisions. Under the amended PSA, the time for the plaintiffs to file a motion to reopen was June 30, 2013. But later, the parties stipulated to extensions of the PSA to June 3, 2015; the court approved those extensions on April 10, 2014, and March 24, 2015.

On October 23, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of noncompliance, formally informing the defendants of their contention that the jail remained noncompliant with the agreement, and entering into settlement discussions. No settlement was forthcoming, and on June 2, 2015, the day before the expiration of their right to reopen, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case, restore it to the active docket, and grant a preliminary injunction compelling improvements in several areas posing acute dangers to prisoner safety. The plaintiffs alleged a litany of noncompliant incidents, and argued that the failures not only violated the PSA but also the Eighth Amendment.

The parties entered in settlement talks and asked the court to stay the proceedings in the case. On October 26, 2015, the court (Judge Ellen L. Hollander) granted the parties' motion to stay.

On December 23, 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval. Under the settlement, Maryland agreed to overhaul the jail’s health care system and make major improvements to the facilities, including accommodations for people with disabilities. To ensure compliance with the settlement, the parties agreed that the jail’s progress would be assessed by independent monitors. The Court would dismiss the case when all the requirements have been met, or in four years unless the Court finds that jail conditions still violate federal law. The defendants also agreed to pay $450,000 in attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiffs.

On January 4, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, and on June 28, 2016, the court approved the final settlement and attorneys' fees and costs. The court retained jurisdiction over the case as provided in the settlement agreement.

On February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case to enforce the settlement agreement in response to the defendants’ lack of compliance regarding the medical or mental health provisions. The next day, the court granted the motion. In March, the parties had a mediation session with the judge and monitors regarding health care policies, procedures, staffing, and oversight mechanisms. This meeting led to the defendants hiring a new Chief of Health Strategy and Operations and Chief of Compliance and Integrity in early April 2018. Additionally, the defendants adopted a new electronic health record system, created new examination rooms for medical and mental health screening, and met with physicians from the University of Maryland Medical System to assist in reviewing current medical practices. These changes were intended to improve the defendants’ ability to comply with the settlement, as explained in the September 7, 2018 status report.

Following the September 7, 2018 status report, the parties filed motions to extend time as the defendant’s continued their efforts to comply with the settlement agreement.

A settlement conference was held on May 16, 2019 and the parties mutually agreed to an extension of the settlement agreement. On May 28, 2019, the court ordered extending the timeline of the settlement agreement by two years, to terminate on June 22, 2022, unless the defendants reach substantial compliance prior or the plaintiffs obtain an order to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case was withdrawn and ordered moot as well. As of January 2020, the settlement agreement was still in place, the court retained jurisdiction, and this case was ongoing.

Eoghan Keenan - 05/25/2005
Jessica Kincaid - 04/01/2016
Abigail DeHart - 10/22/2016
Emma Himes - 11/27/2019


compress summary