Case: Newkirk v. Sheers

2:92-cv-04237 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Filed Date: July 22, 1992

Closed Date: 1994

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 22, 1992, nine pre-trial detainees who had been arrested in connection with a non-violent civil disobedience protest filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the conditions of their confinement at the Schuylkill County Prison. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered violations of their constitutional rights in that: (1) they were subjected to strip and body cavity searches pursuant to a blanket strip s…

On July 22, 1992, nine pre-trial detainees who had been arrested in connection with a non-violent civil disobedience protest filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the conditions of their confinement at the Schuylkill County Prison. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered violations of their constitutional rights in that: (1) they were subjected to strip and body cavity searches pursuant to a blanket strip search policy implemented by Schuylkill County; (2) they were required to double-up in cells designed for one inmate and were forced to sleep on mattresses on cell floors; and (3) they had restricted access to telephones during an initial 48-hour "lockdown" period.

Discovery ensued and, on August 3, 1993, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On September 16, 1993, the District Court (Judge Franklin S. Van Antwerpen) granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with respect to the strip search and "double-celling" claims and granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the restricted telephone use claim. Specifically, with respect to the strip search claim, the Court found that (a) the County's blanket strip and body cavity search policy violated Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights, (b) the County was liable for adopting the policy, and (c) the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to these claims. Similarly, with respect to the double-celling claim, the Court found that (a) the practice violated Due Process and (b) qualified immunity was not a viable defense. With respect to the restricted telephone use claim, however, the Court found that the practice did not violate constitutional rights. Newkirk v. Sheers, 834 F.Supp. 772 (E.D.Pa. 1993).

Shortly after the Court's ruling, the parties entered into a Consent Decree, which the Court approved on January 12, 1994. Details of the Decree were not reflected by the PACER docket, and we have no further information regarding its terms.

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (2/24/2008)

People


Judge(s)

Van Antwerpen, Franklin Stuart (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Einhorn, Gordon A. (Pennsylvania)

Shadowen, Steve D. (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Defendant

Schwalm, David Lee (Pennsylvania)

Judge(s)

Van Antwerpen, Franklin Stuart (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Defendant

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:92-cv-04237

Docket (PACER)

Jan. 12, 1994

Jan. 12, 1994

Docket
22

2:92-cv-04237

Opinion and Order

Sept. 16, 1993

Sept. 16, 1993

Order/Opinion

834 F.Supp. 834

Docket

Last updated March 5, 2024, 3:08 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Complaint. filing fee $ 120 receipt # 377029 (mrs) (Entered: 07/22/1992)

July 22, 1992

July 22, 1992

Summons(es) issued Forwarded to: given to counsel 07/22/92 (mrs) (Entered: 07/22/1992)

July 22, 1992

July 22, 1992

Standard Case Management Track. (mrs) (Entered: 07/22/1992)

July 22, 1992

July 22, 1992

2

MOTION BY DEFENDANT PAUL SHEERS, DEFENDANT FRANKLIN L. SHOLLENBERGER, DEFENDANT MARYANN CONWAY, DEFENDANT JOSPEH F. MCCLOSKEY, DEFENDANT LOIS WALLAVER, DEFENDANT CLAUDE SHIELDS, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY HOLDEN, DEFENDANT DONALD KERNS, DEFENDANT DAVID KURTZ, DEFENDANT RAYMOND LORENT, DEFENDANT E. CUTLER TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12, BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 08/21/1992)

Aug. 21, 1992

Aug. 21, 1992

3

Memorandum by PLAINTIFF INGRID NEWKIRK, PLAINTIFF LAURA YANNE, PLAINTIFF ROBIN LORD, PLAINTIFF HEIDI PRESCOTT, PLAINTIFF ROBIN WALKER, PLAINTIFF ANN KOONS, PLAINTIFF SUE BREBNER, PLAINTIFF TERESA GIBBS, PLAINTIFF JENNY WOODS, PLAINTIFF DANA FORBES in opposition to [2-1] MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12 certificate of service. (jc) (Entered: 09/08/1992)

Sept. 4, 1992

Sept. 4, 1992

4

Acknowledgement of service as to DEFENDANT MARYANN CONWAY 7/29/92 (mc) (Entered: 09/10/1992)

Sept. 9, 1992

Sept. 9, 1992

5

Acknowledgement of service as to DEFENDANT JOSPEH F. MCCLOSKEY, DEFENDANT LOIS WALLAVER 8/19/92 (mc) (Entered: 09/10/1992)

Sept. 9, 1992

Sept. 9, 1992

6

Acknowledgement of service as to DEFENDANT PAUL SHEERS, DEFENDANT FRANKLIN L. SHOLLENBERGER, DEFENDANT CLAUDE SHIELDS, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY HOLDEN, DEFENDANT DONALD KERNS, DEFENDANT DAVID KURTZ, DEFENDANT RAYMOND LORENT, DEFENDANT E. CUTLER, DEFENDANT J. KLING, DEFENDANT W. NASADOS, DEFENDANT LAUBACH, DEFENDANT MEDINSKY, DEFENDANT NEIDIG, DEFENDANT DEANGELO, DEFENDANT SHARTZER, DEFENDANT HECKMAN, DEFENDANT SCHWARTZ, DEFENDANT MICKALOWSKI "no date given". (mc) (Entered: 09/10/1992)

Sept. 9, 1992

Sept. 9, 1992

7

ORDER THAT THE [2-1] MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANTS' RIGHT TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEN DISCOVERY IS COMPLETE. PLAINTIFFS HAVE REQUESTED THE RIGHT TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT TO ASSERT CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS IN THEIR PERSONAL, AS WELL AS OFFICIAL CAPACITIES. WE DEEM PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST AS A MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND GRANT LEAVE TO DO SO WITHIN TWENTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. ( SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN ) 09/16/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 09/16/1992)

Sept. 15, 1992

Sept. 15, 1992

8

Amended complaint by PLAINTIFF INGRID NEWKIRK, PLAINTIFF LAURA YANNE, PLAINTIFF ROBIN LORD, PLAINTIFF HEIDI PRESCOTT, PLAINTIFF ROBIN WALKER, PLAINTIFF ANN KOONS, PLAINTIFF SUE BREBNER, PLAINTIFF TERESA GIBBS, PLAINTIFF JENNY WOODS, PLAINTIFF DANA FORBES , amending [1-1] complaint, certificate of service. (jc) (Entered: 10/08/1992)

Oct. 6, 1992

Oct. 6, 1992

9

ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TEN DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 11/06/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 11/06/1992)

Nov. 5, 1992

Nov. 5, 1992

10

STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TEN DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. ( SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN ) 11/06/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 11/06/1992)

Nov. 5, 1992

Nov. 5, 1992

11

Answer by PAUL SHEERS, FRANKLIN L. SHOLLENBERGER, MARYANN CONWAY, JOSPEH F. MCCLOSKEY, LOIS WALLAVER, CLAUDE SHIELDS, TIMOTHY HOLDEN, DONALD KERNS, DAVID KURTZ, RAYMOND LORENT, E. CUTLER, J. KLING, W. NASADOS, NEIDIG, DEANGELO, SHARTZER, HILDA LAUBACH, SANDI MEDINSKY, KATHLEEN SHARTZER, PATRICIA HECKMAN, BARBARA SCHWARTZ, CAROL A. MICKALOWSKI, to amended complaint, certificate of service (jc) (Entered: 11/17/1992)

Nov. 16, 1992

Nov. 16, 1992

12

NON-JURY PRETRIAL ORDER THAT ALL DISCOVERY DUE FOR 7/12/93, FOLLOWING WHICH THIS CASE SHALL BE PLACED IN THE TRIAL POOL IN THE LEGAL INTELLIGENCER ; ETC. (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 12/21/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED BY CHAMBERS. (fe) Modified on 12/21/1992 (Entered: 12/21/1992)

Dec. 18, 1992

Dec. 18, 1992

13

Stipulation of counsel for taking telephone depositions pursuant to Rule 30(b)(7), Cert. of Service. (kw) (Entered: 06/07/1993)

June 4, 1993

June 4, 1993

14

ORDER THAT THE PARTIES WILL MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO DRAFT A STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS TO ACCOMPANY THEIR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHALL FILE THESE DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT NO LATER THAN 7/26/93 ; THE COURT WILL REFRAIN FROM PLACING THIS CASE INTO THIS TRIAL POOL BUT MAY DO SO IF THE STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS IS NOT FILED BY THE ABOVE DATE. (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 7/20/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 07/20/1993)

July 19, 1993

July 19, 1993

15

ORDER THAT THE PARTIES WILL MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE COUNT XI OF PLFF'S COMPLAINT AND TO DRAFT A STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS ON THE REMAINING CLAIMS BY 8/2/93; IF AGREED UPON, THE STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS AND THE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COURT NO LATER THAN 8/3/93 . (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 8/2/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 08/02/1993)

July 30, 1993

July 30, 1993

16

MOTION BY DEFENDANTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT , BRIEF, CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 08/03/1993)

Aug. 3, 1993

Aug. 3, 1993

17

Stipulated statement of facts, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 08/03/1993)

Aug. 3, 1993

Aug. 3, 1993

18

MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 08/04/1993)

Aug. 3, 1993

Aug. 3, 1993

19

STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT ALL CLAIMS OF PLFF, ANNE KOONS BE DISCONTINUED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ALL CLAIMS AGAINST MARY ANNE CONWAY IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; COUTS II, IV, VII, VIII, IX AND X OF PLFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; COUNT I OF PLFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, ETC.; THE PARTIES SHALL NOTIFY THE COURT WHEN THE REVISED RECREATIONAL POLICY OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY PRISON HAS BEEN APPROVED BY PA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND THE SCHUYLKILL COUNTY PRISON BOARD SO THAT THE COURT MAY DISMISS COUNT XI OF PLFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT. (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 8/11/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 08/11/1993)

Aug. 10, 1993

Aug. 10, 1993

20

Brief by defts in opposition to plffs' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 08/16/1993)

Aug. 16, 1993

Aug. 16, 1993

21

Memorandum by PLAINTIFF INGRID NEWKIRK, PLAINTIFF LAURA YANNE, PLAINTIFF ROBIN LORD, PLAINTIFF HEIDI PRESCOTT, PLAINTIFF ROBIN WALKER in opposition to DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMEN, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 08/20/1993)

Aug. 19, 1993

Aug. 19, 1993

22

OPINION AND ORDER THAT PLFFS' AND DEFTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE EACH GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART CONSISTENT WITH THE FOREGOING OPINION, ETC.; IF THE PARTIES WISH TO PRESENT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, A NON-JURY TRIAL OR HEARING SHALL BE SCHEDULED BY THE DEPUTY CLERK TO DETERMINE FURTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF AND ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT. (SIGNED BY JUDGE FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 9/17/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 09/17/1993)

Sept. 16, 1993

Sept. 16, 1993

23

CONSENT DECREE WITH COURT APPROVAL. THIS CASE IS CLOSED AND ANY OPEN MOTIONS ARE DISMISSED. (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 1/12/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 01/12/1994)

Jan. 12, 1994

Jan. 12, 1994

Case closed (kv) (Entered: 01/13/1994)

Jan. 12, 1994

Jan. 12, 1994

Case Details

State / Territory: Pennsylvania

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Strip Search Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 22, 1992

Closing Date: 1994

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Nine female pre-trial detainees arrested during a peaceful protest who claim that they were denied meaningful access to telephones, forced into overcrowded cells, and subjected to unconstitutional strip-searches.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Schuylkill County, PA (Schuylkill), County

Schuylkill County (Schuylkill), County

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

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: 1994 - 0

Issues

General:

Phone

Search policies

Strip search policy

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Crowding / caseload

Affected Sex or Gender:

Female

Type of Facility:

Government-run