Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JERRY COPELAND, JOHN WHITT, )
and JAMES DUTTON, )
on behalf of themselves and a class )
of those similarly situated )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 3:20-CV-154-JD-MGG )
WABASH COUNTY, INDIANA; and the )
WABASH COUNTY SHERIFF, in his official )
capacity, )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION AND ORDER
On February 19, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to enjoin the practices of Wabash County Jail and the Wabash County Jail Sheriff in his official capacity. [DE 1]. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, have sued Wabash County and the Wabash County Sheriff (“Defendants”), alleging that the conditions of confinement resulting from the overcrowded and understaffed Wabash County Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [DE 3]. On September 16, 2020, the Court denied the motion finding that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet the commonality and typicality requirements under Rule 23(a). [DE 24]. On December 12, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed Motion for Class Certification and filed declarations from sixteen inmates from Wabash County Jail. [DE 25]. The Plaintiffs also filed a motion to submit additional evidence and filed four exhibits with the motion. [DE 34]. The Court grants the supplemental motion and has considered the additional evidence. The Defendants remain opposed to the certification of the Plaintiffs’ proposed class. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is granted.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A more thorough review of the background of this case may be found in the Court’s previous order filed on September 16, 2020, but a short summary is provided here. The Wabash County Jail is located in Wabash, Indiana and was constructed in 1979, with some renovations completed in 2006. [DE 1 at 3]. The Plaintiffs allege that the jail is “old, overcrowded, and understaffed, and as a result it is a place where violence between prisoners is common and dangerous conditions prevail.” Id . at 1. The jail contains seventy-two permanent, operational beds. Id . at 3. Plaintiffs allege that the jail is above its rated capacity 100% of the time and has been above capacity since 2016. Id . As a result of the allegedly overcrowded conditions, adequate classification of the inmates, which the Plaintiffs argue is essential to protecting the safety of both prisoners and staff, is impossible since there is no room to keep inmates with mental and physical disabilities separate from inmates without disabilities. Id . at 4. The Plaintiffs allege that there are not enough seats or tables for the inmates to sit at during mealtimes, so many inmates sit on the floor to eat their food. Id . at 4-5. There is no outdoor recreational area at the jail, only an indoor recreation room which is unavailable for use on a regular basis since it is used to house inmates. Id . at 5. Since there is no bathroom in the recreation room, inmates are “given cups in which to urinate and then dump down a drain in the floor of the room,” which is unsanitary, and inmates complain of the smell. Id . Inmates are also regularly housed in the library, which also does not have a toilet or running water. . As a result of the overcrowded conditions, the Plaintiffs also allege that assaults between prisoners are frequent and inmates with medical or mental health conditions are housed in the general population. Id . at 6. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that there is insufficient staff at the jail to adequately monitor all of the inmates. .
Similar to their previous motion, Plaintiff Jerry Copeland who has been incarcerated in the jail since July of 2019 and Plaintiff John Whitt who has been incarcerated in the jail since October of 2019, continue to allege that the chronic overcrowding of the Wabash County Jail leads to many problems for the inmates. [1] The problems include an insufficient number of beds for all of the inmates, limited recreation opportunities, increased fighting among the inmates, the failure to either properly classify or separate the inmates by classification, insufficient monitoring by prison staff, and an inadequate amount of food. Each of the Plaintiffs claim they have fully exhausted the jail’s grievance system. [DE 1 at 7-9]. [2] Collectively, the Plaintiffs claim that the overcrowding of the jail produces dangerous conditions, which results in the denial of basic human needs and minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities amounting to punishment. Id. at 9.
Along with their renewed motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs filed the declarations of sixteen inmates detailing their experiences with overcrowding in the Wabash County Jail. [DE 25-1-16]. They filed three more declarations with their reply brief. [DE 32]. And finally, the Plaintiffs filed an additional three declarations and one set of interrogatory responses with their motion to supplement, which the Court considered here. [DE 34]. Specifically, the inmate Declarations reveal the following:
• There is an insufficient number of beds in the jail for all the inmates and therefore many inmates are forced to sleep on mattresses or boats on the floor.
• Due to the overcrowding of the jail, inmates are housed in both the library and indoor recreation room, which lack running water or a working bathroom. The inmates are reliant on the guards to let them out to use a bathroom.
• The inmates are not offered opportunities for recreation on a regular basis. • The overcrowding of the jail leads to increased stress and tension among the inmates, which causes fighting among the inmates.
• The jail staff members do not regularly monitor the inmates.
• There is no appropriate classification of the inmates, which causes problems among the inmates.
The Plaintiffs ask, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, this Court to enter an injunction requiring the Defendants to take all steps necessary to ensure the conditions of confinement at the Wabash County Jail comply with the United States Constitution. [DE 1]. The Plaintiffs define the class as “all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the Wabash County Jail.” [DE 3 at 1].
In its previous order, the Court found the numerosity and adequacy requirements of Rules 23(a)(1) and (a)(4) to be met. [DE 24]. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that the facts relevant to those requirements have not changed and thus still find that the Plaintiffs have met the numerosity and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a). In their Renewed Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiffs now assert that the commonality and typicality requirements are met as well. [DE 25 at 5]. Defendants argue that there is no commonality of claims concerning conditions of confinement for which there was exhaustion of administrative remedies and also argue that if a class is certified that the claims that are allowed to proceed be confined to those raised in the grievances filed by Plaintiffs Copeland and Whitt. [DE 30]. The Court addresses both arguments below.
II. DISCUSSION The Court will first address whether the requirements for class certification have been met under Rule 23. The Court notes that the Defendants do not contest the typicality requirement, thus the only requirement at issue here is the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a)(2). Recognizing the need to complete a rigorous analysis when evaluating class certification claims, the Court will briefly address the other requirements as well. After addressing class certification, the Court will address the Defendants’ argument that the Plaintiffs’ claims should be confined to those raised in the grievances filed by the Named Plaintiffs.
A. Requirements for Class Certification
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the certification of class actions
in federal court. Rule 23(a) also ensures that the named plaintiffs are appropriate representatives
of the class whose claims they wish to litigate.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
,
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). If each of these prerequisites are met, a court must also find that at least
one of the subsections of Rule 23(b) is satisfied. In this case, the Plaintiffs seek class certification
under sub-section (b)(2), which applies when “the party opposing the class has acted or refused
to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding
declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). The
Plaintiffs, as the party seeking class certification, assume the burden of demonstrating that
certification is appropriate.
Trotter v. Klincar
,
A. Determination of Class Certification
Next the Court must again determine if the Plaintiffs have met the requirements for class
certification under Rule 23(a). When reviewing whether the requirements have been met, a
district court has broad discretion to determine whether certification of a class action lawsuit is
appropriate.
Arreola
,
Plaintiffs in this case define the proposed class as all persons currently confined, or who will be confined in the future, in the Wabash County Jail. [DE 3 at 1]. For the Court to certify the proposed class, the Plaintiffs must establish that each of the Rule 23(a) elements have been met and that at least one of the Rule 23(b) elements has been satisfied. The Court now turns to examine the Proposed Class under the Rule 23(a) requirements.
1. Numerosity
The first requirement under Rule 23(a) is that the purported class must be “so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). To be impracticable,
joinder need not be impossible, but instead must be shown to be inconvenient and difficult.
See
Robidoux v. Celani
,
Previously, the Court found that the Plaintiffs’ class was so numerous as to make joinder
impracticable due to the class including unidentifiable future members and due to the inherently
transitory nature of the potential class members.
See Ind. Prot. and Advocacy Servs. Comm’n v.
Comm’r, Ind. Dept. of Corr
., No. 1:08-CV-01317-RLYJMS,
2. Commonality
The second requirement under Rule 23(a) is that the plaintiff must show that “there are
questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). “Concerning the
commonality requirement, claims of individual class members may arise from a ‘common
nucleus of operative fact,’ which is usually satisfied where the defendant engaged in
standardized conduct towards members of the proposed class.”
Olson v. Brown
,
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs asserted that the jail “is old, overcrowded, understaffed, and as a result it is a place where violence between prisoners is common and dangerous conditions prevail.” [DE 1 at 1]. They alleged that when a jail exceeds its capacity, it is difficult to adequately classify prisoners, which is essential to protecting the safety of both prisoners and staff. Id . at 4. For example, “inmates with mental and physical disabilities should be separated from those without those disabilities, prisoners who are prone to be preyed upon should be separated from predators, and prisoners who have had previous problems with each other should be separated.” Id . The overcrowding leads to “a great deal of tension” between the prisoners as there is little space to maneuver around each other and there are not enough seats and tables for the prisoners to eat their meals. . The Plaintiffs argued that the prisoners get into more disputes due to the lack of space to store personal property, due to the small number of showers available, and that general tensions are high due to the large number of prisoners being held in a small space. Id . at 5. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the recreation room and the library, which do not have a toilet or running water, are used to house inmates and this prevents other inmates from being able to use the recreation room for exercise, which further exacerbates tensions in the jail. Id . Finally, the Plaintiffs alleged there is insufficient staff to adequately monitor the inmates, which leads to frequent assaults between prisoners and is aggravated by the overcrowded conditions of the jail. Id . at 6.
Along with their renewed motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs filed Declarations from other inmates that include consistent allegations that the Wabash County Jail is chronically overcrowded. [DE 25:1-16; 32:1-3; 34:1-3]. All of the declarations state that day rooms are commonly used to house additional inmates, or that inmates are forced to sleep on boats or mattresses on the floor due to the insufficient number of beds available. [Id.]. A majority of the declarations describe increased tensions and stress due to overcrowding, which leads to regular fighting among the inmates. [DE 25-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16]. Similarly, almost all the declarations complain of no outdoor recreation and extremely limited indoor recreation opportunities. [DE 25-1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16]. This is likely because the Wabash County Jail does not have outdoor recreation facilities [DE 30-1 at 5] and because inmates are regularly housed in both the library and indoor recreation room [DE 25-1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15]. The Defendants admit that “the rec room has been used to house inmates due to the COVID-19 virus” while the library is now used as a commissary room. [DE 30 at 5-6]. Inmates that were housed in the library or indoor recreation room complained of the lack of running water or facilities to use the restroom. [ .]. Most of the declarations from the inmates also complained of the lack of classification of inmates within the jail describing how sex offenders and gang members were not adequately classified or separated from the remaining inmates. [DE 25-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16]. Finally, almost all the declarations complain of jail staff members not monitoring what is going on among the inmates in the cell blocks. [DE 25-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16].
The exhibits supplied by the Defendants in response to the renewed motion show that Wabash County Jail has a history of being over capacity. The 2020 Jail Inspection Report indicates that the jail has seventy-two operational jail beds but housed eighty-nine adult inmates at the time of the inspection. [DE 30-2 at 5]. The report also indicated that eighty-six inmates were being housed out of the county. The report demonstrates that there is physical exercise available indoors, but no outdoor recreation. [ Id . at 11]. The Jail Inspection Report also raises questions as to whether there is sufficient staffing of the jail—the Report indicates that the required number of staff was determined by a study completed in 2014. [DE 30-2 at 10]. The Report also shows that the meals served in the jail are approved by a qualified dietician, but that the menu was last approved in January of 2019. [ Id . at 8]. Sheriff Ryan Baker’s Declaration states that there were twenty-seven recorded fights among inmates over the 12-month period ending in December of 2020. [DE 30-1 at 3]. Sheriff Baker’s Declaration also addressed the fighting claims of two inmates, Mr. Whitt and Rance Tait, explaining that Mr. Whitt was the instigator of his fight and that Mr. Tait refused medical treatment in two incidents where he was involved in a fight. [ . at 3-4 and DE 30-6, 7, 8, 9]. Finally, the Defendants’ responses to the second set of interrogatories demonstrates that the jail has a history of being over capacity in terms of the maximum population held in the jail for every month since January of 2019. [DE 34-4 at 2-4].
In their response brief, the Defendants argue that other than the lack of recreation claim,
there is no commonality of claims concerning conditions of confinement for which there was
exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Defendants argue that “while the commonality
requirement may be met with respect to lack of recreational opportunities, the court should not
endorse pursuit of a class remedy based upon conditions of confinement . . . for which there were
never grievances . . . .” [DE 30 at 8]. The Defendants then admit that the “jail is modestly
overcrowded, as it has a rated capacity of 72 and houses 91 inmates.” [ .]. The Defendants are
right that simply proving that a jail is overcrowded is insufficient to constitute a constitutional
violation, but the conditions of confinement may be found to be unconstitutional. Moreover,
“[v]arious prison conditions do not exist in isolation. Rather, challenged conditions must be
viewed in the light of other prison conditions that may aggravate or mitigate the effect of the
challenged conditions.”
Wellman v. Faulkner
,
Moreover, class certification cannot be defeated simply because there are some factual
variances among the proposed members.
Rosario v. Livaditis
,
Here, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have carried their burden in establishing the
commonality requirement. As the Plaintiffs’ declarations indicate and several of the Defendants’
exhibits show, the Wabash County Jail is engaged in a practice of overcrowding the jail, which
leads to numerous conditions of confinement that causes inadequate and potentially dangerous
living conditions for the inmates. “Those policies and practices, moreover, are defined with
sufficient precision and specificity; they involve particular and readily identifiable conduct on
the part of the defendants[,]” thus the Plaintiffs have supplied sufficient evidence demonstrating
the commonality requirement.
Parsons v. Ryan
,
3. Typicality
The question of typicality is closely related to the question of commonality.
Rosario
, 963
F.2d at 1018. The typicality requirement “is meant to ensure that the named representative's claims
have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large.”
Howard v. Cook Cty.
Sheriff's Off.
, 989 F.3d 587, 605 (7th Cir. 2021) (internal quotations and citation omitted). To
satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3), the court must find that “the claims and defenses
of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(3). The Seventh Circuit has summarized the typicality analysis:
“A claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct
that gives rise to the claims of other class members and her claims are based on the
same legal theory. Even though some factual variations may not defeat typicality,
the requirement is meant to ensure that the named representative's claims have the
same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large.”
Arreola
,
As the Court noted in its previous opinion, if the proposed class was subject to the same
practice as the Plaintiffs—overcrowding of the jail—then this element is met. A claim is typical
if it “arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of
other class members and . . . are based on the same legal theory.”
Rosario
,
4. Adequacy of Representation
Finally, Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. Adequacy of representation is composed of two parts: “the adequacy of the
named plaintiff's counsel, and the adequacy of representation provided in protecting the different,
separate, and distinct interest” of the class members.
Retired Chicago Police Ass’n v. City of
Chi.,
5. Rule 23(b) Requirement
In addition to meeting the class certification requirements under Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs’
proposed class must satisfy the requirements of one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b). The
Plaintiffs only seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and thus the Court considers whether
certification under that subsection is proper. Rule 23(b)(2) covers cases where “the party
opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that
final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a
whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2);
see Lemon v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local No. 139,
AFL-CIO
,
In this case, final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief, if ultimately granted, would be appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Liability will be based on a common question for all the proposed class members. The Defendants will be liable if they have a policy or practice of failing to appropriately address the claims of overcrowding and the corresponding conditions of confinement alleged by the inmates. The resolution of each class member’s claim will hinge on the same operative facts relative to Defendants’ standardized conduct— conduct which can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them. Because a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class, class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2). Therefore, since the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), the Court ORDERS that this case be certified as a class action. The Court certifies a class comprised of all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the Wabash County Jail.
B. Exhaustion Requirements under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
In their response brief, the Defendants argue that if a class is certified, the Plaintiffs
should be confined to the conditions of confinement for which they exhausted administrative
remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e). [DE
30 at 1]. The Act requires an inmate to fully exhaust his administrative remedies before initiating
litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The purpose of the grievance process is to alert prison
officials to any problems that may be occurring so action can be taken to remedy the problems.
See Maddox v. Love
,
As the Defendants note, “[t]here is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the
PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.”
Jones v. Bock
,
III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED. [DE 25]. The class is defined as “all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the Wabash County Jail.” Accordingly, a class consisting of all current and future persons confined in the Wabash County Jail, is CERTIFIED. Plaintiffs Jerry Copeland and John Whitt are appointed as representative plaintiffs of the class so certified. Their current counsel are appointed as counsel for the class. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide notice of this certification to each individual member of the class who can be identified through reasonable effort.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: May 10, 2021
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO Chief Judge United States District Court
Notes
[1] The Renewed Motion indicates that one of the original plaintiffs, James Dutton, is no longer in the jail and thus only Mr. Copeland and Mr. Whitt are moving forward as plaintiffs at this time. [DE 25 at 2 n. 1].
[2] The Defendants’ supplied the grievances filed by the Plaintiffs in Exhibit B. The Exhibit indicates that Plaintiff Copeland filed a grievance about the inability to attend church due to lock down, the amount of food provided, the overcrowding of the jail, and the lack of recreation. Plaintiff Whitt filed a grievance about the overcrowding of the jail leading to altercations among inmates, the roof leaking, the lack of outdoor recreation, the food not having a sufficient amount of calories, the lack of proper classification of inmates within the jail, and the lack of recreation. [DE 14-4; 30-4].
[3] “When determining if joinder of all class members is impracticable, courts often consider many
factors including: the class size; judicial economy arising from the avoidance of a multiplicity of
actions; the ease of identification of members of the proposed class; the geographic dispersion of
class members; the size of each plaintiff’s claim; the financial resources of the class members; the
ability of claimants to institute individual suits; any requests for prospective injunctive relief which
would involve future class members; and any other factors relevant to the practicability of joining
all the class members.”
Young v. Fortis Plastics, LLC
,