FORM 1

FORM TO BE USED BY A PRISONER IN FILING A COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

KAREN RENEE CIUJTCIIFIELD
1307 SEVEN LOCK'S III). Montgomery County Detention Center Rockville, Maryland 20854

(Enter t h e f u l l name, a d d r e s s , d a t e of b i r t h , and i n s t i t u t i o n number of the plaintiff in this action)

VS.
Jolin E. Wright, Warden
Montgomery County Detention Center 1307 Seven Lock's Rd. Rockville, Maryland 20854

CIVIL ACTION NO,

(Enter t h e f u l l name and t h e a d d r e s s of t h e d e f e n d a n t ( s ) in this action)

I. Previous Lawsuits:

A. Have you begun other actions in s t a t e or federal court

court dealing with the same facts involved in t h i s action or

otherwise r e l a t i n g to your imprisonment?

YES [

]

NO [XXXX ]

B. If your answer to A is yes, describe that action in the spaces below. (If there is more than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on the reverse side of this page).

1. Parties to the previous action:
Plaintiff N/A

Defendant(s) N / A

Crutchfield v. Wright JC-MD 003-001

Page 2
2. Court (if Federal Court, name the district; if a state court, name the city or county) N/A

3. Docket Number 4. Name of the Judge to whom the case was assigned
5. Disposition (for exampl e: Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed ? Is it stil 1 pending?)

6. Approximate date of f iling the lawsuit N/A

7. Approximate date of the disposition

N/A

I I . Place of Present Confinement Montgomery County Detention Center beven Lock's kd.
KocKvme, Maryland <zu»;>'t
Prior I n s b a t u t i o n a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Numbers unknown

A. Is there a state prison grievance procedure in this

institution?

Yes (

]

No [ XXXXX ]

1. If your answer is yes:

a) Did you file a grievance regarding your complaint,

proceeding under the Administrative Remedy Procedure

which is set forth at DCR 185-2?

Yes (

]

No [ XXXXX ]

b) If your answer i s y e s , what s t e p s did you take and what was t h e r e s u l t ? Went to Warden's call line on numerous o c c a i s s i o n ' s , but recieved no r e l i e f .

c) I f your answer i s n o , e x p l a i n why you d i d n o t f i l e , see above

Page 3

B. If there is no prison grievance procedure in the

institution, didL you complain to the prison authorities?

YES IXXXXX ]

No [

]

1. IE your answer is yes:

a. What steps did you take? Talked to the Warden, but

received no relief.

. ,,, .

. ,

, . -

b. What was the result?

no relief

III. Statement of Claim (State here as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe how each defendant is involved. Include also the names of other persons involved, dates and places. Do not give any legal arguments or cite any cases or statutes. If you intend to allege a number of related claims, number and set forth each claim in a separate paragraph. Attach an extra sheet, if necessary for each copy of the complaint submitted.

Supporting Facts

see attached pages

IV. Relief (State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for you Make no legal arguments. Cite no cases or statutes.)
see attached pages

SIGNED THIS

^ day of

SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF

If you wisli to proceed H4 FORMA PAUPERIS, complete form #2

STATLMJNT QV CLAIM
'Hie plaintiff is being housed in an administrative segregation unit in the Montgomery Comity Detention Center, because the plaintiff has been tested positive for Il.i.V. virus (Aid's), by the Warden, Jolm I;. Wright, of the Montgomery County Detention Center and/or the Warden's agent's and employee's, under color of state law, in violation of the plaintiff's Civil Right's and the following United State's Constitutional Right's:
1. The Eighth (8th) Amendment ri^ht to be free from cruel and unusual punislunent. By placing the plaintiff in segregation it is cruel and unusual because, including but not limited to, it take's plaintiff out of general population where she can talk and be around other prisoner's. And it force's the plaintiff to sit in a small cell where she is not free to walk around and exercise like inmate's in general population.
2. The fourteenth (14th) Amendment right to Due Process of Law prior to the imposition oC punisJunent. The Plaintiff is being punished by this institution prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with IXic Process of Law, because, plaintiff has been placed in segregation, without IXJC Process of Law, because of her medical problem's.
That in light of Turner v. Saflcy, 107 S.Ct. 2254 (1987), the Defendant should find an alternative to placing the Plaintiff in segregation because of her medical condition. With there being sixty-four (64) cell's in the female population section of this institution, seperated in four (4) equal
Page 4

section's, and there being only thirty (30) to thirty"five (35) female prisoner's housed in this institution on a daily hasis, and there being a minimum of three (3) female II,I,V. patient's in this institution, this institution, at de ininimis cost, could and should house said II.J..V. patient's, and in particular the plaintiff, in one of the four (4) a P.ore-mentioned female section's of this institution at no added risk to the security and health consideration's of this institution.
RELlIiF
V/IIIIRLil'ORE, plaintiff respectfully request's that this honorabLe court enter a judgement granting the plaintiff;
1. A declaratory judgement that the defendant's act's, policies and practice's herein described and complained of violated plaintiff's right's under the United State's Constitution.
2, A preliminary and permanent Injunction which; A, Prohibit's the defendant's, their successor's in office, agent's
and employee's and all other person's in active concert and participation with them from placing the plaintiff in segregation because of her medical condition.
B. Proliib.it1.1; the defendant's, their successor's in office, agent's and employee's and all other person's in active concert and participation with them from transferring the plaintiff to any other institution, without plaintiff's express consent, during the pendency of this law suit, or other wise retaliating against the plaintiff in any other manner.
Page 5

C. Require's the defendant, Jolm E. Wright, to submit within ninety (90) day's of this court's order and declaration of the unconstitutional]ty of the defendant's policy and procedure's of placing II.I.V. patient's in segregation a list of proposed procedure's and criteria that comply with
» this court's declaration and order and the Eighth (8th) and l:ourtcenth (14th) Amendment's of the United State's Constitution.
3. And an order from the court that order's the defendant to pay to the plaintiff one (1,000,000.00) million dollar's in punitive and compensetory damage's
4. And any and all such further relief as this honorable court deem's fair and appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,
\ Karen R. CrutchCield 1307 Seven Lock's Rd Rockville, Maryland 20854
cc/file
Page 6

 
 CHAMBERS OF
J. FREDERICK MOTZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
July 20, 1990

(SOI) 9«2 07B3 FTS 012 0782

MEMO TO COUNSEL RE: Crutchfield, et al. v. Wright
Civil No. JFM-88-2308
Dear Counsel:
I have entered the consent decree which you have submitted. I am writing this letter (and making it a part of the court record) to state that by signing this consent decree I am not ruling upon the constitutionality of the procedures which it establishes. I am merely acknowledging that the parties have agreed that the procedures are constitutional. I am making this disclaimer because, as you know, I presently have pending before me litigation involving the policies and procedures concerning the treatment of HIV-positive inmates in the state correctional system, and I do not want my signing of the consent order in these cases to be deemed to be a prejudgment of the issues which remain to be resolved in the other litigation.
I again want to thank you for the responsible manner in which you have handled these cases.
Very truly yours,

cc: Court File

J. Frederick United States District Judge
Crutchfield v. Wright JC-MD-003-002

L Z A ^ ^ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

\ \^ \^<

KAREN RENEE CRUTCHFIELD, et al., *

°t\^ S

Plaintiff

*

^ \ '$£ ^

V. JOHN E. WRIGHT,

* CIVIL ACTION NO.\^%

JFM-88-2308

'

*

%

Defendant

*

* ************

CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiffs, Karen Crutchfield, Tawanda Powell, and Jacqueline Walker, and Defendant, John Wright, through their respective undersigned attorneys, agree to the dismissal of the above-captioned matter and in support thereof state:
1. This case arose from three separate complaints filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland, namely, Case Nos. JFM 88-2392 (Jacqueline Walker v. John Wright),' JFM 88-2351 (Tawanda Powell v. John Wright), and JFM 88-2308 (Karen Crutchfield v. John Wright). The three cases were consolidated as JFM 88-2308 by Order of this Court dated September 15, 1988.
2. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant had violated their respective constitutional rights pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and, therefore, had violated 42 U.S.C. §198 3. The factual predicate for this; claim derived from Plaintiffs' respective placement in an area of the Montgomery

County Detention Center that was segregated from the general population. Plaintiffs had been placed in this manner pursuant
i
to their having tested positive for the HIV virus (AIDS). 3. By July, 1989, the Detention Center had ceased the
practice set forth in paragraph 2, supra. 4. The Policy and Procedure used by the Montgomery
County Detention Center has been revised to remedy the problem addressed by Plaintiffs in their Complaints and, also, to provide further confidentiality regarding any inmates who may have tested positive for the HIV virus.
5. The parties, through their attorneys, agree that the Policy and Procedure 3000-17, effective July 1, 1990, responds to their respective concerns and constitutes a fair and reasonable policy. (A copy of the Policy is attached hereto as Exh. A.) As such, the parties agree that further proceedings in this cause of action are unnecessary.
6. Defendant agrees henceforth to operate the Montgomery County Detention Center in a manner consistent with the terms of Policy and Procedure 3000-17 and the Constitution of the United States.
7. The parties agree that nothing in this Agreement is intended to prevent Defendant from implementing new procedures which benefit Plaintiffs and other inmates similarly situated, and it shall not diminish any substantive rights or procedural protection they may now have or hereafter acquire under state or federal statutes.
-2-

8. This Consent Decree does not resolve the claims of Plaintiffs for attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs may petition the Court for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Defendant reserves the right to contest any petition by Plaintiffs for attorneys' fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, the parties, through their undersigned attorneys, respectfully request that the Court accept this Consent Decree and dismiss this cause with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
CLYDE H. SORRELL County Attorney

Anthony V. Teeiucksjjrtgh Whiteford, Taylor fc/Preston Seven Saint Paul Street Suite 1400 Baltimore, Maryland 21202

inda D. Berk Senior Assistant County
Attorney Bar No. 03903

Susan Goering,Esquire/ American Civil Liberties
Union of Maryland Ten North Calvert Street Suite 405 Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Karen L. Federman Henry Associate County Attorney Bar No. 04068
Attorneys for Defendant 101 Monroe Street Third Floor Rockville, Maryland 2 0850 (301) 217-2600

-3-

1990.

It is so Ordered this JP^/L- day of AL /
L
J. Frederick Motz, Judge /u. s. District^e6urt for the District of Maryland

-4-

 
 District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 1 of 1

U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:88-cv-02308-JFM

CLOSED

Crutchfield v. Wright Assigned to: Judge J. Frederick Motz Demand: $0
Plaintiff Karen Renee Crutchfield TERMINATED: 07/20/1990

Date Filed: 08/08/1988 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

V.
Defendant
John E. Wright TERMINATED: 07/20/1990

Proceedings for case 1:88-cv-02308-JFM are not available

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

05/18/2005 10:54:13

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:88-cv-02308-JFM

Billable Pages: 1

Cost:

0.08

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635563409096593-L_280_0-1

5/18/2005