On November 27, 1990, prisoners from various Pennsylvania prisons filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs, who were represented in part by the Disabilities Law Project and the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, asked the Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by severe overcrowding of inmates, claiming that the defendants detained approximately 18,500 individuals in institutions that were only equipped to handle 13,000 inmates. The plaintiffs claimed that this overcrowding resulted in mental damage to inmates, physical violence, rioting, inadequate staffing, and excessive use of force. The plaintiffs also claimed that the prison system's classification procedures were in disarray, there was a huge lack of work, educational, and rehabilitation programming. They alleged that there were deficiencies in health and psychiatric care, that there were problems with a spread of HIV/AIDS and drug use. They alleged that environmental conditions were unlivable, including insufficient ventilation, excessive noise, rodent and insect infestation, leaking walls and ceilings, uneven heat, insufficient lighting, unsafe electrical wiring, deteriorating plumbing, mold and mildew in the showers, deteriorating floors, unsanitary food services, contamination of improperly stored food, inadequate water supply, and lack of hygiene and sanitation services. They claimed that they were unconstitutionally denied access to the courts because the defendants failed to provide them with attorneys, paralegals, or professionally trained persons to assist inmates with the filing of civil rights complaints, and because they failed to update the prison law libraries.

On March 5, 1992, the District Court (Judge Jan E. DuBois) certified a plaintiff class of "all persons who are now or will in the future be confined by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in a facility other than SCI-Muncy or SCI-Pittsburgh, both of which are subject to other court orders." On September 29, 1992, the District Court (Judge DuBois) granted the plaintiff class motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering them to implement clinical and administrative guidelines for the prevention and management of tuberculosis. Austin v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., No. 90-7497, 1992 WL 277511 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 29, 1992).

On January 7, 1993, the District Court (Judge DuBois) denied the motion of plaintiff class to add five medical and mental health care contractors as defendants, finding that the contractors had not acted in bad faith. Austin v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., No. 90-7497, 1993 WL 9042 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 7, 1993).

In August 1994, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and filed it with the District Court. The agreement purported to represent agreement between the parties as to all areas of dispute. On January 6, 1995, the District Court (Judge DuBois) approved the settlement agreement and adopted it as a consent decree. The Court also awarded $1.4 million to the plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees. On the same day, the parties stipulated their agreement to have the case dismissed, and the District Court agreed to dismiss the lawsuit and close the case. Austin v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections, 876 F.Supp. 1437 (E.D.Pa. 1995).

Kristen Sagar - 10/03/2007


compress summary