In 1986, a consent decree was implemented in which Washington State agreed to single-bunk the prisoners of the Washington State Reformatory (WSR). The consent decree arose out of a class action lawsuit by an inmate of the WSR who complained about the prison's policy of double-bunking the inmates. In 1988, WSR renovated the prison and began double-bunking the inmates during the renovation. On March 20, 1989, the same inmate spoke out publicly against double-bunking and persuaded numerous inmates to join him in demanding the enforcement of the consent decree. The next day he was placed in administrative segregation, and on March 30, 1989, he was transferred to another State facility.

On March 19, 1990, the inmate, represented by private attorneys, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the prison officials for four alleged violations: 1) the administrative segregation was retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights; 2) his transfer to another facility violated his due process rights; 3) one of the reasons for his being administratively segregated was to punish him for trying to publish a dissenting newsletter; and 4) his equal protection rights were violated when the collaborator of the newsletter was not similarly placed in administrative segregation. The Court (Judge Barbara J. Rothstein) granted summary judgment to the defendants and plaintiff appealed.

In the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judges Thomas Tang, Alexander Kozinski, and Ferdinand Francis Fernandez) remanded plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendants for further proceedings, affirmed the lower court's holdings on the due process and equal protection claims; and reversed the court's finding of summary judgment for defendant. Wright v. Rebeiro, 988 F.2d 127 (Table), 1993 WL 51196 (9th Cir.(Wash.)). The Court also upheld the dismissal of several named defendants. Subsequently, both parties filed numerous motions, postponing the trial date several times, and on February 28, 1997, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and terminated the case. However, it appears from the docket that it was not until May of that year that both parties agreed to a stipulated order of dismissal. In March of 1998, the Court ordered the return of sealed documents to counsel of record.

Rebecca Bloch - 03/18/2006


compress summary