Hadix, et al v. Johnson, et al

Filing 1470

OPINION AND ORDER Denying Request to Reopen the Class Action re 1469 Docket Annotation. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EVERETT HADIX, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 80-73581
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

v.

PERRY M. JOHNSON, et. al,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE REQUEST TO REOPEN THE CLASS
ACTION AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A NEW COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court regarding a letter request filed by C. Pepper Moore,
an inmate incarcerated at the Ryan Correctional Facility in Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff
Moore asks to reopen a 1980 class action lawsuit in which he was a member. For the
reasons that follow, the request to reopen the class action is DENIED. Plaintiff is
directed to file a new lawsuit.
I. Background
This prisoner civil rights class action began in 1980, when twenty-three inmates
filed a lawsuit to challenge a number of conditions of confinement at the State Prison of
Southern Michigan—Central Complex (the “SPSM—CC”). The case was assigned to
this Court’s predecessor, Judge John Feikens. A detailed history of the case can be found
at Hadix, et al. v. Johnson, et al., 694 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. Mich. 1988).
In August, 1981, Judge Feikens certified the class, defined as “all prisoners who
1

are, or will be, confined at the [SPSM—CC].” Judge Feikens approved a proposed
consent decree on May 13, 1985. In doing so, Judge Feikens noted that likely structural
changes in the SPSM—CC might involve renaming parts of that facility. Judge Feikens
clarified that “the facility at issue in this lawsuit, [the SPSM—CC], including the
Reception and Guidance Center, shall be defined as ‘all areas within the walls of ... the
[SPSM—CC] at the time this cause commenced and all areas which will supply support
services under the provisions of this Consent Judgment, e.g. food service and Boiler Plant
operations.’” (Order Accepting Consent J., Dkt. # 213). Under the Consent Decree,
Judge Feikens retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the judgment. ( Id.); See also
Hadix v. Johnson, 712 F. Supp. 550 (E.D. Mich. 1989).
Certain sections of the Consent Decree were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Michigan (“Western District”), by orders dated
June 5, 1992; March 18, 1999; July 12, 2000; and November 15, 2000. (See Dkts. # 835,
1342, 1421, 1432).
On June 27, 2001, Judge Feikens terminated the remaining portions of the consent
decree that were still before him. Hadix v. Johnson, No. 80-73851, 2001 WL 812217
(E.D. Mich. June 27, 2001).
Only certain subsections of the Consent Decree, concerning medical care,
remained open in the Western District of Michigan before Judge Robert J. Jonker. Judge
Jonker reopened to a limited extent certain provisions regarding mental health care,
through a preliminary injunction entered November 13, 2006. See Hadix v. Caruso, No.
2

4:92–CV–110; 2009 WL 891709 (W.D. Mich. March 31, 2009). In 2009, the Western
District of Michigan terminated the consent decree with respect to the Dialysis Unit at the
Ryan Correctional Facility, where Plaintiff Moore is currently incarcerated. Id. at * 13-15.
Judge Jonker, in fact, advised Plaintiff that if he had any further complaints about any
medical treatment at the Ryan Facility, “[C]orrection of any constitutional violations
associated with the provision of care in the Dialysis Unit must be pursued through new,
separate litigation.” Id. at * 15.
Plaintiff sent a letter to this Court, claiming that numerous employees at the Ryan
Correctional Facility in Detroit, Michigan violated Section VI, Paragraph 13 of the
Consent Decree, which concerns class members’ rights to possess and store legal papers
and law books in their cells. Although unclear, Plaintiff may also be claiming that he is
being denied medical care at the Ryan Facility. Plaintiff apparently seeks to reopen the
class action.
II. Discussion
Plaintiff is not entitled to reopen the class action for two reasons.
First, with certain exceptions pertaining to medical care issues, Judge Feikens
terminated the Consent Decree in 2001, including the provisions of the Consent Decree
regarding the possession of legal papers and law books by inmates.
Secondly, the Ryan Correctional Facility, where Plaintiff Moore is currently
incarcerated, is not considered a “Hadix facility” subject to the Consent Decree. When
Plaintiff Moore was transferred to the Ryan Correctional Facility, he no longer remained
3

a member of the class for the Hadix case. As Hadix prisoners move to non-Hadix
facilities, they leave the Hadix class. Cf. Hadix v. Caruso, 297 Fed. Appx. 504, 506–07
(6th Cir. 2008)(Consent Decree does not apply to non-Hadix facilities to which former
Hadix prisoners are transferred)); See also Hadix v. Caruso, 420 Fed. Appx. 480, 489 (6th
Cir. 2011)(the facility in which the sole remaining named plaintiff resided, the Ryan
Correctional Facility, no longer constituted a Hadix facility, leaving no named Hadix
class members). Plaintiff Moore’s transfer to the Ryan Correctional Facility has removed
him from the class action. Accordingly, Plaintiff Moore cannot reopen this class action.
If Plaintiff believes that his constitutional rights were violated at the Ryan Correctional
Facility, he is directed to file a new prisoner civil rights complaint.
III. ORDER
Plaintiff Moore’s request to reopen the Class Action [Dkt. # 1469] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff filing a new civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 18, 2014

4