Plaintiffs in the case, individuals and a certified class, at least some of whom are inmates at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on March 6, 1989 to enforce a consent decree dated April 2, 1981. Although it is not clear from the appellate opinion, it appears that this same group of plaintiffs had brought the original suit against the Michigan Department of Corrections sometime in 1976 resulting in the decree designed to ensure prisoners a minimum visitation time. In response to this request for enforcement, Defendants moved to modify or terminate the consent judgment arguing that changed circumstances warranted the modification and/or a major deficiency in the judgment impeded the achievement of its objectives.

A magistrate recommended that Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the consent decree be granted in part and that Defendants' motion to modify or terminate the decree be denied. The district court (Judge George E. Woods) adopted the magistrate's recommendation and Defendants appealed arguing that concern for institutional security amounted to a changed circumstance warranting a modification of the judgment.

The Sixth Circuit in a per curiam opinion (Judges Damon Jerome Keith, Boyce F. Martin, and Robert B. Krupansky) affirmed the district court decision Prisoners Progress Ass'n. v. Johnson, No. 90-1972, 1991 WL 235757 (6th Cir. Nov. 13, 1991). The court noted that nothing in the decree prevented the achievement of its narrow objective: to ensure prisoners a minimum visitation time. Moreover, the court held the defendants failed to prove a decline in security, and so there were no changed circumstances as required by law to modify the decree.

The docket for this case is not available on PACER, and therefore our information ends with the most recent court opinion, dated November 13, 1991.

Sherrie Waldrup - 04/03/2006


compress summary