University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Rasho v. Snyder PC-IL-0018
Docket / Court 3:00-cv-00528-DRH-CJP ( S.D. Ill. )
State/Territory Illinois
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Prison Conditions
Case Summary
On January 7, 1999, Illinois state prisoners who had serious mental illnesses filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. These prisoners resided in a "super maximum" security correctional institution in Tamms, Illinois. They ... read more >
On January 7, 1999, Illinois state prisoners who had serious mental illnesses filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. These prisoners resided in a "super maximum" security correctional institution in Tamms, Illinois. They were represented by private counsel and attorneys from Northwestern University School of Law's MacArthur Justice Center and from the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic. Counsel amended the complaint on February 25, 1999, to add and dismiss a few defendants, but all the defendants were officials operating facilities of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and IDOC, itself. Requesting class certification and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants (1) were deliberately indifferent to prisoners' mental health needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) provided, for mentally ill inmates, living conditions that violated those amendments; (3) violated the state mental health code, which created a liberty or property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee; (4) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and (5) violated the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 504. Also on February 25, 1999, the defense filed a motion to transfer venue. On March 31, 1999, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, but that motion had not been ruled upon when District Judge Robert W. Gettleman granted the motion to transfer venue on April 13, 1999, sending the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Boyd v. Snyder, 44 F.Supp.2d 966 (N.D. Il. 1999). There, the plaintiffs, on June 6, 2000, dismissed their case without prejudice and filed a lengthy new complaint in the Southern District of Illinois, adding a defendant but making essentially the same individual and class-based claims on behalf of seriously mentally ill inmates housed or to be housed at Tamms Correctional Center. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, suing the defendants in their individual and official capacities.

Some of the defendants filed motions to dismiss, alleging that plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies as to the moving defendants, had failed to allege physical injuries as required by a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), failed to sufficiently allege personal responsibility for certain alleged injuries or misconduct, failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted as to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, had no due process rights under the Illinois mental health code, and that the defendants were protected from the damages claims in their official capacity by reason of the Eleventh Amendment and also protected by qualified immunity from certain of plaintiffs' claims. U.S. Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud considered the pretrial dismissal motions and issued his report and recommendation on August 2, 2001. His recommendations were adopted in full by District Judge Davis R. Herndon in an unpublished order on September 18, 2001. Accordingly, many of the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, including the alleged ADA violation and the due process claim relying on the state's mental health code, and certain defendants were dismissed from the case or permitted to be proceeded against only in their individual, as opposed to official, capacity.

Plaintiffs' efforts to have their case certified as a class action were rejected by Magistrate Judge Proud's November 6, 2001, unpublished recommendation, which was adopted by District Judge Herndon on March 27, 2002. The district judge's ruling rejected plaintiffs' objections to the magistrate's report, as Judge Herndon elected not to credit plaintiffs' expert statistical analysis about the likely number of seriously mentally ill prisoners at Tamms, instead choosing to rely on defense-submitted records indicating 15 such prisoners were housed at Tamms. Such a number, said the judge in an unpublished opinion, was not so large as to warrant class action treatment. The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider this ruling. The motion led to the judge conducting another hearing, touring the Tamms facility, and reviewing prisoners' mental health records. In an unpublished order on February 28, 2003, Judge Herndon stood by his earlier ruling that denied class action status to the case, stating that the additional sources of information he had considered made him more sure that class action status was unwarranted.

Discovery proceedings and negotiations between the parties had occurred as the months went by. On October 1, 2002, in a pleading referencing a stipulation, one plaintiff dismissed, with prejudice, his allegations against all defendants and the remaining plaintiffs dismissed, with prejudice, their allegations against two particular defendants. We do not have a copy of the stipulation nor otherwise know of its' terms. At various times, the parties and the court addressed the need for protective orders concerning discovery items, such as videotapes of extraction teams removing prisoners from cells or policy statements regarding prisoner transfers, trying to address concerns the court regarded as legitimate that unlimited disclosure of such materials would enable prisoners' plots to thwart security efforts or to manufacture reasons for transfer. Other developments in the case included the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to dismiss, on mootness grounds, a plaintiff who no longer resided in the Tamms facility. The motion was granted by the court on June 10, 2004.

Eventually, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment. By the time the motions were ruled upon, only two plaintiffs and six defendants, together with IDOC, remained as parties and the claim for damages was no longer being pressed. Adopting and expanding upon Magistrate Judge Proud's January 24, 2005, unpublished recommendation that the motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part, Judge Herndon's March 24, 2005, unpublished order overruled defense objections that their motion should have been granted in its entirety. According to the court, genuine issues of material fact remained and warranted trial as to some defendants on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim and the alleged violation of the Rehabilitation Act; however, the IDOC high-level officials and the Tamms warden were dismissed from the case, as the plaintiffs had shown no evidence that these defendants were deliberately indifferent or otherwise at fault in relying on diagnoses by IDOC psychiatrists or psychologists.

No trial occurred, however, because the remaining parties settled the case, resulting in its dismissal on May 25, 2005. We have no details of the settlement's terms, nor any information indicating further action occurring in the case.

Mike Fagan - 05/06/2008

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Affected Gender
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Due Process
Assault/abuse by staff
Disciplinary procedures
Disciplinary segregation
Informed consent/involuntary medication
Restraints : chemical
Restraints : physical
Suicide prevention
Medical/Mental Health
Mental health care, general
Suicide prevention
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Causes of Action Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Illinois Department of Corrections
Tamms Correctional Center
Plaintiff Description All prisoners who are/will be incarcerated at Tamms who have serious mental illnesses
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status outcome Granted
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Unknown
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Private Settlement Agreement
Filed 01/07/1999
Case Closing Year 2006
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Court Docket(s)
N.D. Ill.
PC-IL-0018-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Ill.
PC-IL-0018-9001.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
N.D. Ill.
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Re: Transfer] [ECF# 57] (44 F.Supp.2d 966)
PC-IL-0018-0016.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Google Scholar
S.D. Ill.
Complaint [ECF# 1]
PC-IL-0018-0001.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Report and Recommendation [re: Motion to Dismiss Counts I-III] [ECF# 47]
PC-IL-0018-0002.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Report and Recommendation [Re: Motion to Dismiss Complaint] [ECF# 48]
PC-IL-0018-0003.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Memorandum and Order [Re: Motion to Dismiss Counts I-III] [ECF# 53]
PC-IL-0018-0004.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Memorandum and Order [Re: Motion to Dismiss Complaint] [ECF# 54]
PC-IL-0018-0005.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Report and Recommendation [Re: Class Certification] [ECF# 64]
PC-IL-0018-0006.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Memorandum and Order [Re: Class Certification] [ECF# 85]
PC-IL-0018-0007.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Order [re: Protective Order] [ECF# 99]
PC-IL-0018-0014.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Order of Dismissal [ECF# 118]
PC-IL-0018-0011.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Order [re: Motion to Compel] [ECF# 126]
PC-IL-0018-0015.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Memorandum and Order [Re: Class Certification] [ECF# 129] (2003 WL 716578 / 2003 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 2833)
PC-IL-0018-0017.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Order [re: Dismissal of Rasho's Claims] [ECF# 155]
PC-IL-0018-0012.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Report and Recommendation [re: Summary Judgment] [ECF# 175]
PC-IL-0018-0008.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Memorandum and Order [re: Summary Judgment] [ECF# 186]
PC-IL-0018-0009.pdf | Detail
S.D. Ill.
Order of Dismissal [ECF# 192]
PC-IL-0018-0010.pdf | Detail
show all people docs
Judges Gettleman, Robert William (N.D. Ill.) show/hide docs
Herndon, David R. (S.D. Ill.) show/hide docs
PC-IL-0018-0004 | PC-IL-0018-0005 | PC-IL-0018-0007 | PC-IL-0018-0009 | PC-IL-0018-0010 | PC-IL-0018-0011 | PC-IL-0018-0012 | PC-IL-0018-0017 | PC-IL-0018-9001
Proud, Clifford J. (S.D. Ill.) show/hide docs
PC-IL-0018-0002 | PC-IL-0018-0003 | PC-IL-0018-0006 | PC-IL-0018-0008 | PC-IL-0018-0014 | PC-IL-0018-0015
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bowman, Locke E. III (Illinois) show/hide docs
PC-IL-0018-0001 | PC-IL-0018-0016 | PC-IL-0018-9000 | PC-IL-0018-9001
Chapman, James (Illinois) show/hide docs
PC-IL-0018-0001 | PC-IL-0018-0016 | PC-IL-0018-9000 | PC-IL-0018-9001
Heyrman, Mark Joseph (Illinois) show/hide docs
PC-IL-0018-0001 | PC-IL-0018-0016 | PC-IL-0018-9000 | PC-IL-0018-9001
Mandel, Edwin F (Illinois) show/hide docs
Snyder, Jean MacLean (Illinois) show/hide docs
PC-IL-0018-0001 | PC-IL-0018-0016 | PC-IL-0018-9000 | PC-IL-0018-9001
Defendant's Lawyers Anthony, Katherine M. (Illinois) show/hide docs
Corrigan, Terence J. (Illinois) show/hide docs
Frey, R. Shelton (Illinois) show/hide docs
Higgerson, Christopher L. (Illinois) show/hide docs
Marsalek, Diann Karen (Illinois) show/hide docs
PC-IL-0018-0016 | PC-IL-0018-9000
O'Leary, Susan Takata (Illinois) show/hide docs
Siegel, Richard John (Illinois) show/hide docs
PC-IL-0018-0016 | PC-IL-0018-9000
Stauffer, Randall C. (Illinois) show/hide docs

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -