On May 14, 1991, an inmate at the Washington Special Commitment Center (SCC) at McNeil Island, Washington, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Washington State Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. SCC was a treatment center for sexually violent criminals, and the plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights had been violated by various conditions of his confinement, including inadequate mental health treatment.

On March 28, 1994, the jury decided in favor of the defendants on all but one of the plaintiff's claims. The jury found that the defendants had failed to provide the plaintiff with constitutionally adequate mental health treatment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Judge William L. Dwyer) appointed Janice K. Marques to be Special Master and issued an injunction requiring the defendants to bring the SCC treatment program into compliance with constitutional standards. By October 15, 1996, the district court (Judge Dwyer) had permitted ten other male SCC inmates to intervene as plaintiffs for the limited purpose of participating in the administration and enforcement of the injunction. In doing this, the court consolidated the following cases with this action: Sharp v. Weston, Pedersen v. Hill, Hall v. Quasim, and Petersen v. Dehmer.

On February 15, 1996, and January 3, 1997, the plaintiffs asked the district court to hold the defendants in contempt for failure to comply with the court's order. The defendants replied by asking the court to dissolve the injunction. On February 5, 1997, the district court (Judge Dwyer) denied both motions. The court concluded that progress had been made, but that more remained to be done before full compliance was achieved.

On May 2, 1997, the district court noted that Laura McCollum had recently been committed to SCC as the facility's first female inmate, and granted her leave to intervene in the lawsuit. McCollum asked the court to enforce the injunction with regard to her by placing her in a treatment facility where she would not be the sole female resident, where she would not be housed with males, and where her treatment plan would not require her to participate in therapy with male sex offenders. On June 10, 1997, the district court (Judge Dwyer) granted her motion and ordered the defendants move her to a facility with the aforementioned specifications. The defendants appealed that order.

On October 20, 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judge William W. Schwarzer) reversed the district court's decision to allow McCollum to intervene in the case, determining that she was not sufficiently similarly situated to the male plaintiffs to allow her to intervene. Cunningham v. David Special Commitment Center, 158 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1998).

On November 15, 1999, the district court (Judge Dwyer) held the defendants in contempt of court for failure to take all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the 1994 injunction. As a sanction, the court ordered the defendants to pay into the registry of the court $50 per day per resident, beginning on May 1, 2000, unless the court determined that injunction compliance was complete or substantially complete before that day. The court later moved that date to May 8, 2000.

On May 5, 2000, the district court (Judge Dwyer) held that, despite having made progress, the defendants continued to provide constitutionally inadequate mental health treatment to the plaintiffs. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the injunction, and partially granted the plaintiff's motion for contempt sanctions. In light of the progress that had been made, the court modified the contempt order, ruling that the monetary sanctions would accrue as previously determined, but that the court would not order those sanctions to be payable unless the defendants ceased to comply with the court's orders. Turay v. Seling, 108 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (W.D. Wash. 2000). The defendants appealed. On November 30, 2000, the Ninth Circuit (Judge Michael Daly Hawkins) affirmed the district court's decision. Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2000).

The defendants again asked the district court to dissolve the injunction. On December 20, 2000, the district court (Judge Dwyer) found that the defendants were still not in compliance with the injunction and denied the defendants' request. The defendants appealed. On June 27, 2001, the Ninth Circuit (Judge James Robert Browning, Judge John Clifford Wallace, and Judge Thomas G. Nelson) dismissed the appeal, finding that they did not have jurisdiction over it. Turay v. Anderson, 12 F. App'x 618 (9th Cir. 2001).

On September 20, 2001, the district court (Judge Dwyer) accepted the resignation of Special Master Janice K. Marques. On January 18, 2002, the case was reassigned to Judge Barbara J. Rothstein due to Judge Dwyer's declining health. On July 6, 2004, the case was reassigned to Judge Ricardo Martinez. The court continued to hold annual compliance hearings and review status reports through March 2007. On March 23, 2007, the district court (Judge Ricardo S Martinez) granted the defendants' motion to dissolve the injunction in its entirety, and dismissed the case. Turay v. Richards, No. C91-0664RSM, 2007 WL 983132 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 23, 2007).

On January 29, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dissolution of the injunction. The court held that, despite "discouraging trends" in the facility's treatment program, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reinstate injunctive relief or in vacating the remaining condition of the consent decree, as the present conditions comported with acceptable professional standards. Turay v. Richards, No. 07-35309, 2009 WL 229838 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2009), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 826 (2009).

Kristen Sagar - 06/13/2006
Dan Whitman - 03/06/2015


compress summary