Florida Prison Solitary Confinement Challenge Ends
The Southern Poverty Law Center, Florida Legal Services and the Florida Justice Institute said that the denial of class certification left individual plaintiffs "unable to achieve their goal of systemic, statewide injunctive relief" to curb solitary confinement.
January 13, 2023 at 12:45 PM
3 minute read
After more than three years of legal battling, the Florida Department of Corrections has fended off a lawsuit over the use of solitary confinement in prisons.
U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor last month issued an order dismissing the case at the request of organizations representing inmates. The Department of Corrections on Thursday touted the dismissal and said the organizations paid more than $210,000 to the department in legal costs.
"While I respect other reasonable viewpoints on the use of restrictive housing, decisions must inherently be left up to experienced corrections leaders who are ultimately responsible for managing the nation's most dangerous criminals — not activist groups representing frequently distorted, inaccurate, and deficiently supported ideologies that risk serious threat to staff and the majority of the inmate population alike," Corrections Secretary Ricky Dixon said in a statement.
Attorneys for the Southern Poverty Law Center, Florida Legal Services and the Florida Justice Institute filed a motion in September to dismiss the case. That came after Winsor in July declined to certify a class action in the lawsuit.
The motion said the denial of class certification left individual plaintiffs "unable to achieve their goal of systemic, statewide injunctive relief" to curb solitary confinement.
But the dismissal was not finalized until last month as the organizations and the department fought over legal fees and costs. The parties filed a joint motion Dec. 16 saying they had reached agreement on costs, though that document did not include the $210,000 figure that the department announced Thursday.
The lawsuit, filed in May 2019, alleged that the department's use of solitary confinement violated the constitutional rights of inmates, including inmates with disabilities. It named individual plaintiffs and sought approval as a class action.
But Winsor ruled in July that the plaintiffs had not met legal tests for a class action, including not providing specific details about relief they sought.
"Plaintiffs' inability to specify the injunctive relief sought necessarily means they have not shown a single injunction would benefit all class (or subclass) members. … And plaintiffs cannot sidestep this rule by requesting an injunction so broad that it technically covers the entire class but that would compel different conduct as to each class member," Winsor wrote.
He also wrote the plaintiffs had not shown "commonality" in their claims.
"The problem is that plaintiffs have not presented evidence that all (or even most) class members face the same conditions or combination of interrelated conditions," Winsor wrote.
In a news release Thursday, the Department of Corrections disputed the underlying claims in the lawsuit, including the plaintiffs' definition of solitary confinement.
"The use of restrictive housing is not 'one size fits all,' and a number of variables impact its necessity within prison systems," Dixon said. "It is ill-advised to allow public interest groups to unreasonably limit the options of corrections professionals in dealing with violent inmates."
The end of the Department of Corrections case came after U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in September dismissed a lawsuit challenging the use of solitary confinement in Florida juvenile-justice facilities. Hinkle issued the order after attorneys for the plaintiffs and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice reached an agreement to end the lawsuit, which was filed in 2019.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Year-End Tax Planning: How Real Estate Investors Can Leverage Qualified Opportunity Funds
5 minute read'Horror of Horrors': Florida Judges Spar Over En Banc Review in Binance Ruling
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
- 2The Elliott Management vs. Southwest Airlines Faceoff: Who Won and What Determined the Outcome?
- 3November Court of Appeals Roundup
- 4Trellis Launches Trellis AI, a New Suite of Automated Litigation Tools
- 5How Secure Is the AI System Your Law Firm Is Using?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250