Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=768&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:38:52+00:00

Document:
NOTE: There are two separate cases, in two separate districts, under the caption Hadix. This summary and documents are for the Eastern District of Michigan case, 2:80-cv-73581-JF, filed in 1980. As explained below, in 1992, the Eastern District judge, John Feikens, split that case in two, and sent part of it (the part relating to medical and mental health care, and eventually fire safety) to the Western District, where it received the docket number 4:92-CV-110. The Western District case is included in the Clearinghouse as PC-MI-19.
On September 18, 1980, prisoners at the State Prison of Southern Michigan filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Michigan Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, alleging that their rights had been violated by unconstitutional conditions at the prison. The plaintiffs complained that the prison was overcrowded, infested with cockroaches, plagued by flying and nesting birds, full of bird droppings and feces, non-ventilated, smelly, and unsanitary. The prisoners also complained of deficiencies in the areas of plumbing, security, grievance procedures, work opportunities for prisoners, physical protection of prisoners, recreation, mental health, classification procedures, lighting, insulation, health care, noise level, staff training, food availability and preservation procedures, mail handling, visitation, fire safety, rehabilitation programs, parole procedures, educational opportunities, library services, clothing allowance, and dental care.
On February 13, 1985, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Judge John Feikens) entered a consent decree in the case, settling the issues of sanitation, safety, health care, fire safety, overcrowding, security, food service, management and operations, and mail. The decree stated that the remaining issues (access to courts, classification procedures, grievance procedures, and visitation) were to be resolved by the court after a hearing on the merits.
In June 1986, a member of the plaintiff class asked the district court to hold the defendants in contempt of the decree for depriving him of property without a hearing. On July 1, 1986, the court (Judge Feikens) ordered the defendants to return the prisoner's property and to hold an administrative hearing before taking any of his property away from him. The defendants appealed. On March 17, 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Judges Albert Joseph Engel, Robert B. Krupansky, and David A. Nelson) issued a per curiam opinion reversing the district court's decision and remanding the case for further consideration. Hadix v. Johnson, No. 86-1701, 1988 WL 24204 (6th Cir. March 17, 1988).
On July 1, 1988, following a bench trial, the district court (Judge Feikens) held that the inmates had been unconstitutionally denied access to courts, ordering the prison to modify its library, legal services, and administrative grievance programs. The court further held that plaintiffs' right of access to the courts necessitated the presence of Prison Legal Services (PLS) inside the walls of the prison. Hadix v. Johnson, 694 F.Supp. 259 (E.D.Mich. 1988).
Following this order, the plaintiffs asked the district court for a temporary injunction to prevent the defendants from searching the PLS offices inside the prison. On November 10, 1987, the district court (Judge Feikens) issued the temporary order, enjoining the defendants from searching the PLS offices without PLS civilian personnel being present unless they gave two hours' notice of the search. The defendants appealed. On March 30, 1989, the Sixth Circuit (Judges Nelson, George Clifton Edwards, and Danny Julian Boggs) issued a per curiam opinion affirming the district court's order. Hadix v. Johnson, No. 88-1144, 1989 WL 27984 (6th Cir. March 30, 1989).
Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff class asked the district court to clarify a section of the consent decree dealing with the handling of a prisoner's legal materials. On April 21, 1989, the district court (Judge Feikens) held that the consent decree was not violated by the prison's rule limiting the amount of legal materials that a prisoner could posses to that which could be contained in one footlocker. The court also held that the prison was required to hold administrative hearings on excess legal materials within thirty days of seizure. Hadix v. Johnson, 712 F.Supp. 550 (E.D.Mich. 1989).
The plaintiffs asked the district court to award them attorneys' fees. On June 22, 1990, the court (Judge Feikens) ordered the defendants to pay the full amount of the plaintiffs' attorney fees, less telephone costs. Hadix v. Johnson, 740 F.Supp. 433 (E.D.Mich. 1990). The defendants appealed. On August 29, 1991, the Sixth Circuit (Judges Boyce F. Martin, Jr., Nelson, and Harry Walker Wellford) issued a per curiam opinion vacating the district court's fee award and remanding the case for further consideration on the issue of whether the plaintiffs were the prevailing party in the lawsuit. Hadix v. Johnson, No. 90-1810, 1991 WL 165653 (6th Cir. Aug. 29, 1991). On remand, the district court made further findings of fact and again held that the plaintiffs were the prevailing party. The defendants appealed. On January 23, 1995, the Sixth Circuit (Judges Nelson, Alan Eugene Norris, and Martha Craig Daughtrey) issued a per curiam opinion affirming the district court's decision. Hadix v. Johnson, No. 94-1158, 1995 WL 25416 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 1995).
On April 21, 1992, the defendants asked the district court to relinquish control and supervision of the mental health provisions of the consent decree; the plaintiffs asked the court to adopt the mental health orders entered in USA v. Michigan (No. 1:84-CV-63) (PC-MI-0007) by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Judge Richard A. Enslen). On May 15, 1992, the district court (Judge Feikens) denied both requests. On further consideration, however, on June 5, 1992, the district court relinquished control and supervision of the provisions governing mental health care and medical care, transferring them to the Western District, Judge Enslen, for further proceedings as he deemed appropriate. Hadix v. Johnson, 792 F.Supp. 527 (E.D.Mich. 1992).
Sometime in 1994, a class of inmates at five different correctional institutions in Michigan asked both district courts for injunctive relief against the defendants, alleging that the defendants had violated their constitutional right of access to the courts. The matter was dealt with in the Western District case.
On March 31, 1994, the defendants asked the Eastern District Court to modify the consent decree's requirements for out-of-cell activities. On March 14, 1995, the district court (Judge Feikens) held that none of the defendants asserted reasons warranted modification of the decree and denied the request. Hadix v. Johnson, 879 F.Supp. 743 (E.D.Mich. 1995). The defendants appealed. On September 20, 1995, the Sixth Circuit (Judges Nelson, Norris, and Daughtrey) issued a per curiam opinion vacating the district court's order and remanding the case so that the district court could clarify the reasons for its denial of the defendants' request. Hadix v. Johnson, Nos. 93-1551, 93-1555, 93-1559, 93-1642, 93-1643, 1995 WL 559372 (6th Cir.(Mich.) Sept. 20, 1995.
On June 10, 1996, the defendants asked both the district court and the Sixth Circuit to terminate the consent decree pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). On July 2, 1996, the Sixth Circuit issued an unsigned opinion denying the motion for immediate termination and remanding the issue back to the district court. Hadix v. Johnson, Nos. 94-2008, 96-1422, 1996 WL 370152 (6th Cir. July 2, 1996). on July 5, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Judge Feikens) denied the request for immediate termination of the consent decree. Hadix v. Johnson, 933 F.Supp. 1360 (E.D.Mich. 1996).
On September 10, 1996, the United States Department of Justice asked the Eastern District Court for leave to intervene in the case for purposes of defending the constitutionality of the PLRA, and on September 16, 1996, the district court (Judge Feikens) granted the motion to intervene. The defendants renewed their motion to terminate relief under the automatic stay provision of the PLRA. On November 1, 1996, the district court (Judge Feikens) denied the motion to terminate, holding that the sections of the PLRA in question were an unconstitutional violation of the principle of separation of powers. Hadix v. Johnson, 947 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Mich. 1996). The defendants appealed. On May 20, 1998, the Sixth Circuit (Judge Karen Nelson Moore) held that the automatic stay provision was constitutional and remanded the case back to the district court. Hadix v. Johnson, 144 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 1998). The plaintiffs sought Supreme Court review, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Hadix v. McGinnis, 524 U.S. 952 (1998).
The plaintiffs asked both district courts to grant them attorneys fees for their counsels' unpaid work up to this point in the litigation, and the defendants argued that the PLRA's cap on attorneys fees should apply to any fee award that the judge made. On December 4, 1996, the Eastern District Court (Judge Feikens) awarded the requested fees, holding that the PLRA's cap on attorneys fees applied only to work performed after the Act's effective date. Hadix v. Johnson, 947 F.Supp. 1113 (E.D.Mich. 1996). (Likewise, on May 23, 1997, the Western District Court (Judge Enslen) awarded the requested fees.) Hadix v. Johnson, 965 F.Supp. 996 (W.D.Mich. 1997). The defendants appealed both decisions. On April 17, 1998, the Sixth Circuit (Justice Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy) held that the fee cap imposed by the PLRA did not apply to fee petitions, regardless of whether the work was performed before of after the PLRA's enactment date. The court then partially upheld and partially reversed the fee award, remanding the appeals back to the district courts for further consideration. Hadix v. Johnson, 143 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1998). The defendants sought and obtained Supreme Court review. On June 21, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) held that the PLRA limits attorney fees for postjudgment monitoring services performed after the PLRA's effective date, but does not limit fees for monitoring performed before that date. Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999).
On March 18, 1999, the district court (Judge Feikens) transferred several additional components of the original Consent Decree (regarding water temperatures, housing temperatures and ventilation in the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility, and some issues relating to housing in the Egeler Correctional Facility) to the Western District. The Eastern District explained that the rationale for transfer was that health care was implicated in these provisions. The court then terminated the part of the consent decree requiring supervision of facilities, and informed the defendants that he would terminate the consent decree entirely if they could demonstrate substantial compliance. Hadix v. Johnson, 45 F.2d 584 (E.D.Mich. 1999). Both parties appealed. On October 5, 2000, the Sixth Circuit (Judge Moore) reversed, holding that the district court had not made the necessary findings, and remanded the case back to the district court, ordering that the prisoners must be given an opportunity to submit additional evidence of ongoing violations. Hadix v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2000).
An inmate named Pepper Moore asked the district court to award him money for his costs as well as an incentive award for his role as a class representative. The district court denied those requests, and he appealed. On March 10, 2003, the Sixth Circuit (Judge Moore) affirmed the district court's decision. Hadix v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 895 (6th Cir. 2003). On October 6, 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari, thus closing the case. Moore v. Johnson, 540 U.S. 941 (2003).
By: Harvey L. Black Jr.

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