Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=912&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:32:18+00:00

Document:
On April 24, 1972, Bobby Battle, an inmate at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, filed a lawsuit pro se in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Oklahoma corrections officials. On March 15, 1973, the district court granted the United State's motion to intervene pursuant to Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2. Battle was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma and private counsel and the case was eventually certified as a class action. In 1973, before the case went to trial, a riot occurred at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester.
On May 30, 1974, the district court (Judge Luther L. Bohanon) found that several conditions in the prison violated the constitution. Battle v. Anderson, 376 F.Supp. 402 (E.D.Ok. 1974). These included racial segregation, the punishment of detainees prior to disciplinary hearings, conditions of confinement, use of chemical agents in punishment, medical care, denial of publications, and denial of opportunity to gather for religious services. Judge Bohanon issued an order addressing all of these areas. The order included provisions requiring defendants to cease using race in its classification system, to cease disciplining inmates by placing them in 72-hour solitary confinement, to cease the unjustified use of chemical agents, and to provide inmates opportunities to engage in group religious services.
In June of 1977, the district court ordered defendants to reduce populations at two state penal facilities, the facility at McAlester and the Oklahoma State Reformatory at Granite, by transferring inmates to other institutions. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeal for the Tenth Circuit (Judge James Emmett Barrett) affirmed. Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1977).
In December of 1981, the State of Oklahoma requested relief from a provision of a previous order that prohibited the double celling of inmates. On January 12, 1982, the district court entered an order permitting double celling at four facilities. On April 23, 1982, the district court vacated that order to allow double celling throughout the entire state, but noted that the order was not permanent. On October 12, 1982, the court entered an order requiring the state to submit a plan for returning to single celling conditions.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's orders and held that the district court should maintain jurisdiction over the Oklahoma prison system until it can assure that there are no constitutional violations and that there is no expectation that further violations will occur. Battle v. Anderson, 708 F.2d 1523 (10th Cir. 1983).
On December 30, 1983, the district court (Judge Frank Howell Seay) dismissed the case after determining that conditions were constitutional, even though there were several areas of previous court orders where defendants were not in compliance. These were access to courts, racial integration, and equal protection guarantees for women. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals examined each of these subjects. Battle v. Anderson, 788 F.2d 1421 (10th Cir. 1986). It affirmed the dismissal regarding all issues except racial discrimination. The dismissal was vacated and remanded for further proceedings regarding that issue.
On May 11, 1993, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision of the district court to allow an inmate to file a separate action against the defendants. Battle v. Anderson, Nos. 92-7086, 92-7101, 1993 WL 152672 (10th Cir. May 11, 1993).
The PACER docket, which begins in 1996, indicates that litigation continued for several years. On January 26, 2001, Judge Michael Burrage granted defendants' motion to terminate under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

References: § 1983
 § 2000
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.