Rose v. Saginaw County

Full title: LINDA ROSE, JENNIFER CRADIT, SYLVIA DENISE BRADDOCK, LISA RENEE…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan. Northern Division

Date published: Jan 25, 2005

Facts

The plaintiffs in this case are twenty-two individuals who claim that they were subjected to an unconstitutional policy by officials at the Saginaw County jail when they were held as pretrial detainees at various times between May 1999 and December 2001. The Saginaw County sheriff instituted a policy and practice of housing uncooperative and disruptive detainees in administrative segregation cells, and jail  personnel would take all of the clothing from such detainees so that they were naked for the time that they spent in administrative segregation. All of the plaintiffs were subjected to this treatment, and some of them allege that they were viewed while naked by jail personnel and inmates of the opposite gender. The defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or alternately for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs have filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The Court heard arguments from counsel in open court on March 16, 2004, and the matter is now ready for decision. The plaintiffs also filed additional procedural motions.

Issue

Decision

The Court finds that there are no material facts in dispute concerning the official policy and practice of confining Saginaw County jail detainees in administrative segregation without clothing or covering of any kind. The Court determines this policy is unconstitutional, and the municipality is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the federal claims and governmental immunity for the state law claims. The plaintiffs have not provided evidence to establish a material fact issue on their claims under the State Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs have not demonstrated a right to relief on any of their recently filed motions.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment [dkt # 90] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment [dkt # 113] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ sixth amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to defendants Charles Brown and all other individual defendants. 

It is further ORDERED that Counts two through six of the plaintiffs’ sixth amended complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to amend their complaint to add additional parties as plaintiffs [dkt # 151] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for an order to add an expert witness [dkt # 153] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [dkt # 155] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that counsel for the parties appear before the Court for a status conference on February 24, 2005, at 3:30 p.m. to discuss a schedule for resolution of the remaining issues in this case. 

Also, Read

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

fifteen + twenty =