March 21, 2006

USDC for the Northern District of Ohio

Background: State inmates in super maximum secu-rity prison facility brought class action against cor-rections officials under § 1983 alleging that procedures for transferring them to and retaining them at prison violated due process. The District Court, 189 F.Supp.2d 719, ruled that policy denied due process, and ordered modifications, 204 F.Supp.2d 1024. Prison officials appealed. The Court of Appeals, 372 F.3d 346, affirmed in part, reversed in part and re-manded. Certiorari was granted. The United States Supreme Court, 125 S.Ct. 2384, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. On remand, inmates moved for order extending court's jurisdiction over due process issues for one year, and officials' moved to terminate prospective relief.

Holdings: The District Court, Gwin, J., held that:
(1) court had authority to order state to implement policy granting inmates protections against erroneous assignments;
(2) Supreme Court decision required that state provide inmates with written statement of reasons justifying placement and retention decisions; and
(3) Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) precluded federal district court from ordering state to reduce long-term inmates' security risk levels.

Inmates' motion granted; officials' motion denied.

USDC, Western District of Wisconsin

October 10, 2001

Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction

February 7, 2006

July 7, 2011

Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda

Corrected declaration of Sara Norman in support of plaintiffs' motion to enforce court-ordered remedial plans and to issue order to show cause on contempt

Goodman et al. v. The State of Georgia, et al.

Amicus Curiae Brief Of The American Association On Mental Retardation, The Arc Of The United States, The Bazelon Center For Mental Health Law, The National Mental Health Association, The National Association Of Councils On Developmental Disabilities, And The American Psychological Association In Support Of Petitioners

In the Superior Court for the State of California, Alameda County

July 7, 2011

Plaintiffs' motion to enforce court-ordered remedial plans and to issue order to show cause as to why defendant should not be held in contempt of court

February 25, 2002

USDC for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division

Class of current and former prisoners at high maximum security prison facility brought § 1983 action for injunctive relief against corrections officials, alleging denial of due process in prisoners' placement and retention at facility. The District Court, Gwin, J., held that: (1) inmates had a liberty interest in their conditions of confinement; (2) inmates were entitled to due process protections in decisions to send them to and retain them at facility; (3) inmates were denied due process in decisions to send them to and retain them at facility; and (4) new corrections policies failed to provide adequate due process safeguards.

March 21, 2006

USDC for the Northern District of Ohio

Background: State inmates in super maximum secu-rity prison facility brought class action against cor-rections officials under § 1983 alleging that procedures for transferring them to and retaining them at prison violated due process. The District Court, 189 F.Supp.2d 719, ruled that policy denied due process, and ordered modifications, 204 F.Supp.2d 1024. Prison officials appealed. The Court of Appeals, 372 F.3d 346, affirmed in part, reversed in part and re-manded. Certiorari was granted. The United States Supreme Court, 125 S.Ct. 2384, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. On remand, inmates moved for order extending court's jurisdiction over due process issues for one year, and officials' moved to terminate prospective relief.

Holdings: The District Court, Gwin, J., held that:
(1) court had authority to order state to implement policy granting inmates protections against erroneous assignments;
(2) Supreme Court decision required that state provide inmates with written statement of reasons justifying placement and retention decisions; and
(3) Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) precluded federal district court from ordering state to reduce long-term inmates' security risk levels.

Inmates' motion granted; officials' motion denied.

June 13, 2005

United States Supreme Court

Background: Current and former inmates housed at state supermax prison brought class action against prison officials under § 1983, alleging that state's policy governing placement in the supermax prison did not afford procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, 189 F.Supp.2d 719, ruled that the policy denied due process, and ordered modifications, 204 F.Supp.2d 1024. Prison officials appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 372 F.3d 346, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Prison officials applied for certiorari which was granted.

Holdings: The Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that:
(1) inmates had a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause in avoiding assignment to state's supermax prison, and
(2) state's informal, nonadversary procedures for placement of inmate in supermax prison were ade-quate to safeguard inmate's liberty interest in not being assigned to supermax facility.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

July 7, 2011

Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda

CORRECTED DECLARATION OF SARA NORMAN IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT-ORDERED REMEDIAL
PLANS AND TO ISSUE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ON CONTEMPT