Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=126&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:08:40+00:00

Document:
In 1971, inmates of the Suffolk County Jail (also known as the Charles Street Jail) in Boston, Massachusetts filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action against the Sheriff of Suffolk County, the Commissioner of Correction for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Mayor of Boston, and several City Councilors. After the parties agreed to a partial judgment and the court held a short trial on the merits, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge W. Arthur Garrity) entered an injunction that ordered defendants to stop double-bunking the inmates, to construct a new jail by 1976, to provide physical examinations of inmates upon intake, to provide inmates with personal hygiene items, to allow inmates free time out of cells, not to open inmates' mail, and to increase visitation and telephone access. Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F. Supp. 676 (D. Mass. 1973). Defendants appealed, and the First Circuit affirmed, Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Eisenstadt, 494 F.2d 1196 (1st Cir. 1974), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Hall v. Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail, 419 U.S. 977 (1974). Defendants were unable to complete construction of the new jail by the ordered date, and just days before the order called for the closing of the old jail, the parties negotiated a settlement, which became a formal consent decree in 1979.
While the opening of the new jail was pending in 1990, the Sheriff moved to modify a consent decree so that the cells in the new prison, which were designed for single occupancy, could house two inmates at a time. The district court (Judge Robert Keeton) denied the defendant's motion. Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Kearney, 734 F. Supp. 561 (D. Mass. 1990). The First Circuit affirmed in a per curium opinion. Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Kearney, 915 F.2d 1557 (1st Cir. 1990). The Supreme Court granted the defendant's writ of certiorari, vacated, and remanded the decision for reconsideration. After losing several appeals, the defendant revised his motion to modify the consent decree, and the district court modified the decree to allow alteration of up to 100 cells to permit double occupancy. Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Rufo, 844 F. Supp. 31 (D. Mass. 1994).
In 1996, the sheriff moved to terminate all prospective relief pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and the commissioner moved to vacate the consent decree. The district court granted the sheriff's motion in part and denied the commissioner's motion. Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Sheriff of Suffolk Co., 952 F. Supp. 869 (D. Mass. 1997). The First Circuit affirmed most of the decision but directed the district court to terminate the consent decree and enter a modified judgment. Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649 (1st Cir. 1997). In 1998, the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for certiorari, Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Rouse, 524 U.S. 951 (1998), and later denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail v. Rouse, 524 U.S. 970 (1998).
According to the docket from PACER, litigation continued concerning attorney's fees, and in 1999, the district court closed the case.
The Oyez Project, Rufo, Sheriff Of Suffolk County v. Inmates Of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992).
The Oyez Project: Rufo, Sheriff Of Suffolk County v. Inmates Of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.