On April 28, 1977, plaintiffs filed a class action suit against officials at the Richmond County Jail ("Richmond") in Augusta, Georgia. The United States District Court in the Southern District of Georgia certified the class and subsequently created sub-classes. After a year of litigation, the parties negotiated a stipulation, and the court entered a consent decree in 1978. A year later, plaintiffs filed a motion for a judgment of contempt because of inadequate medical treatment of an inmate. The District Court (Judge Dudley Bowen) denied plaintiffs' motion. Brown v. Beck, 481 F. Supp. 723 (S.D. Ga. 1980).

By late 1996, the defendants had still not complied with the consent decree, and the District Court (Judge Bowen) issued an Order directing the transfer of prisoners to alleviate overcrowding, and also ordered the hiring of additional staff. In September of 1997, plaintiffs moved for a show cause order, asking the Court to order defendants to show why further relief should not be granted and why defendants should not be held in contempt. The Court granted the motion and set a show cause hearing. At the hearing, the Court (Judge Bowen) ordered defendants to submit daily reports to the Court until further notice. Four days later, on September 29, 1997, the Court issued an Order establishing a timetable for the mandatory decrease in jail population, to be achieved by the year's end, and setting deadlines for the establishment of programs aimed at maintaining a clean environment and conducting operational maintenance of the facility. The Court further ordered that daily reports on the inmate population were to be made to the Court until further notice. A few months later, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for interim attorneys' fees.

On December 19, 1997, the defendants moved to dismiss and close the case. In their motion, defendants stated that on November 19, the Augusta-Richmond County Detention Center opened and inmates from Richmond were transferred to that facility. As a result, the overcrowding at Richmond had been remedied. Defendants also contended that they had cured all deficiencies and made all repairs as set forth in the Court's September 29 Order. Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion. At a February 2, 1998 hearing, the Court granted defendants' motion, dismissing the case. The Court also granted plaintiffs' final motions for attorneys' fees.

Lauren Cutson - 05/20/2005
Dan Whitman - 11/02/2014


compress summary