Williams v. McKeithen

121 F. Supp. 2d 943, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15182, 2000 WL 1521512
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Louisiana
DecidedOctober 3, 2000
DocketCIV.A. 71-98-B-M1, CIV.A. 97-MS-B-M1, CIV.A. 97-665-B-M1, CIV.A. 97-666-B-M1, CIV.A. 97-667-B-M1, CIV.A. 97-668-B-M1, CIV.A. 98-804-B-M1, CIV.A. 98-886-B-M1, CIV.A. 98-947-B-M1, CIV.A. 00-246-B-M1
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 F. Supp. 2d 943 (Williams v. McKeithen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. McKeithen, 121 F. Supp. 2d 943, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15182, 2000 WL 1521512 (M.D. La. 2000).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

POLOZOLA, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court for final approval of the Joint Settlement Agreement for Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Rehabilitation and Juvenile Justice Issues (“Settlement Agreement”) which was filed with the Court on September 7, 2000 in the above captioned cases. 1 Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court set a time period for filing objections to the agreement. The Court also set a hearing for October 3, 2000 to consider any objections filed to the Settlement Agreement. A review of the record reveals that no objections have been filed. Since no objections have been filed, there is no need for the Court to conduct a hearing on the Settlement Agreement.

Therefore, the Settlement Agreement is hereby approved by the Court. These cases will be administratively closed until further order of the Court. It shall not be necessary for the parties to file any additional monthly or incident reports with the Court. However, the parties shall continue to send these reports to the Court’s expert.

This is a historic day for the State of Louisiana, the parties, and this Court. By approving this Settlement Agreement, the Court has now transferred to the State of Louisiana FULL RESPONSIBILITY for running its adult and juvenile prisons in a constitutional manner. It is this Court’s belief that the State of Louisiana is now capable of running its own prisons in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Constitution and laws of the United States without the assistance of a federal judge. However, should those in charge of *945 the Louisiana prison system fail or refuse to comply with this Settlement Agreement or otherwise fail to operate its juvenile prison system in a constitutional manner, this Court will be forced to reopen the case. Thus, my final statement to the State of Louisiana is very simple — run your own juvenile prisons in a constitution-aj manner or a federal judge will be re-qmred to do so for you.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ATTACHMENT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL, DENTAL, MENTAL HEALTH, REHABILITATION AND JUVENILE JUSTICE ISSUES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction (¶ 1 - ¶ 9) .945

II. Definitions (¶ 10 - ¶ 19).948

III. Juvenile Justice (¶ 20 - ¶ 75) .949

IV. Medical, Dental and Mental Health (¶ 76 - ¶ 116) .966

V.Quality Assurance (¶ 117 - ¶ 121).972

VI.Compliance and Monitoring (¶ 122 - ¶ 141).975

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This Agreement is entered among the following: the United States Department of Justice as identified in ¶ 10 (the “DOJ”), the private plaintiffs as identified in ¶ 14 (the “Plaintiffs”), and the State, as defined in ¶ 19 below. This Agreement settles and resolves four lawsuits (the “Lawsuits”) concerning the juvenile justice, medical, dental, mental health, and rehabilitative services in the State of Louisiana’s secure juvenile facilities. The four Lawsuits settled by this Agreement are: (1) Williams v. McKeithen, Civ. No. 71-98 (including the following sub-dockets opened in that action: In Re: Juvenile Facilities, Civ. No. CH 97-MS-001-B; In Re: Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, Civ. No. CH 97-0665-B-M1; In Re: Jetson Correctional Center for Youth, Civ. No. CH 97-0666-B-M1; In Re: Swanson Correctional Center for Youth, Civ. No. CH 97-0667-B-M1; In Re: Louisiana Training Institute —Bridge City, Civ. No. CH 97-0668-B-M1; and In Re: Jena Juvenile Justice Center, Civ. No. CH 98-0804-B-M1); (2) Brian B. v. Stalder, Civ. No. 98-0886-B-1; (3) A.A. v. Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Civ. No. 00-246-CMI; and (4) United States v. Louisiana, Civ. No. 98-0947-B-l. In order to resolve the juvenile justice, medical, dental, mental health, and rehabilitation issues in this litigation, the parties have entered into this Agreement, which, if complied with within the time frames specified below, will result in the dismissal of the Lawsuits, except as provided in ¶ 9 below. The terms of this Agreement shall apply to the secure juvenile facilities operated by or on behalf of the State and any other secure juvenile facility opened *946 during the life of the Agreement. All parties agree and recognize that the obligations contained in this Agreement and any remedies flowing therefrom are limited to conditions within the secure juvenile facilities and do not follow the juvenile after his/her final discharge from the facility. This provision shall not prevent the DPSC from continuing its current practice of providing short-term medications. This Agreement shall not increase or decrease any rights that juveniles held in secure facilities, on parole, or on probation supervision may or may not have upon their release from secure facilities.

2. As part of this Agreement, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DPSC”) shall revise as necessary its policies and procedures to ensure that they are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.

3. The State denies any allegations upon which the Lawsuits are based. The State has entered this Agreement’ in order to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation.

4. The United States’ Jena Agreement and the Private Plaintiffs’ Jena Agreement, both entered on or about April 13, 2000, are terminated and are of no further effect. The State agrees not to house juveniles at the Jena Juvenile Justice Center in Jena, Louisiana during the term of this Agreement.

5. Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, the parties shall jointly move the Court for an Order to conditionally dismiss the Lawsuits except as provided in ¶ 9 below. Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, the parties shall jointly move the Court for an Order terminating and rescinding all existing, orders, judgments or decrees that purport to address conditions of confinement in Louisiana’s secure juvenile facilities, except as set forth in this paragraph:

a. Consent orders. The effect of the following consent orders is stayed until either: (a) final dismissal of these actions, at which time all consent orders shall be terminated and shall have no prospective effect; or (b) 120 days following entry of an order reopening these actions:

April, 1996 Order (Bridge City Correctional Center),
November 14, 1996 Order (Swanson Correctional Center for Youth-Monroe),

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 F. Supp. 2d 943, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15182, 2000 WL 1521512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-mckeithen-lamd-2000.