Olson v. Brown
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103511
N.D. Ind.2012Background
- Plaintiff Olson seeks class certification for a jail-wide class at Tippecanoe County Jail relating to alleged Indiana Administrative Code violations and federal constitutional rights.
- Defendant Brown moves for judgment on the pleadings; court will address class certification first, then merits under Seventh Circuit guidance.
- Plaintiff’s claims include jail policies on grievance responses, law library access, and mail handling (courtesy of 210 IAC provisions) and First/Fourteenth Amendment freedoms regarding mail.
- Court identifies three constitutional claims (free speech, access to courts with attorney mail, and access to courts with court mail) and two state-law claims (library access and grievance policy) as potentially class-wide.
- Court notes uncontested facts about Olson’s incarceration at TCJ from Aug 29, 2008 to Jan 15, 2009, his grievances, denial of law library access, and mail-handling incidents, plus extensive affidavits from other inmates supporting similar claims.
- Court discusses the jail’s population statistics and the broad scope of the alleged policies, informing numerosity and future-members considerations, including the inherently transitory nature of inmates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class satisfies Rule 23(a) numerosity | Numerosity met due to jail capacity and 53 supporting affidavits | Not explicitly challenged for all claims; potential issues with certain mail claims | Numerosity satisfied for jail-wide claims; not clearly satisfied for every sub-claim (court-mail claim treated separately) |
| Whether common questions and typicality exist for the class claims under Rule 23(a)(2)-(3) | Common questions arise from standardized jail practices (grievances, mail handling, law library) and Olson’s claims are typical | Some federal claims (court-mail) may lack typicality; merits-based distinctions possible | Commonality and typicality met for the First Amendment and attorney-mail claims; not satisfied for the court-mail access claim |
| Whether Olson is an adequate class representative under Rule 23(a)(4) | Olson credibility and diligence adequate; counsel competent; exhaustion defenses unlikely to bar cert. | Olson’s criminal conviction may undermine credibility and representation on some issues | Olson adequate; not barred by his prior conviction; exhaustion defenses not central at certification |
| Whether certification is proper under Rule 23(b)(2) | Injunctive/declaratory relief available class-wide due to indivisible relief | Potential variations in relief for individuals; some claims may not be uniform | Certification granted under Rule 23(b)(2) for jail-wide and subclass on attorney-mail access; court-mail access claim excluded from subclass |
| Whether a jail-wide class and a subclass are appropriate and whether class counsel should be appointed | Class and subclass defined to cover broad and attested harms; qualified counsel needed | None raised against appointment; concerns focused on representative | Class and subclass certified; Gavin Rose and Kenneth Falk appointed as class counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (rigorous analysis required for Rule 23 class certification)
- Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2010) (mail-handling claims tied to access to courts; confidentiality considerations)
- Olson v. Brown, 594 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2010) (mootness/standing context guiding class certification decisions)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (rigorous analysis and Rule 23 prerequisites before merits)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1974) (merits consideration can overlap with class certification analysis)