ILNews

Federal judge certifies class-action suit against jail

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has certified a class-action suit against the Lake County sheriff and others brought by a group of pretrial detainees who were held in the county jail in conditions they claim were unconstitutional.

Chief Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Indiana granted the motion Wednesday in Richard Flood, et al. v. Roy Dominguez, individually in his capacity as sheriff of Lake County, Ind., et al., No. 2:08-CV-153.

The plaintiffs claimed detainees are consistently left in overcrowded holding cells for long periods of time. The holding cells are temporary homes for arrestees before they are moved to permanent housing. The cells range in size from 15-by-15-feet to 20-by-30-feet, have no beds or mattress, one toilet, and hold multiple detainees at a time.

All of the plaintiffs were left in a holding cell for at least 24 hours; some potential class members claim they were held for 3 to 45 days. The plaintiffs argue the conditions of these cells are unsanitary - “the walls and floor are often covered with bodily fluids, each holding cell has one toilet, which is often backed up and rarely has toilet paper; and Jail personnel do not provide detainees any means to clean themselves,” wrote the chief judge.

Their core complaint is that the jail doesn’t provide these detainees beds or something to sleep on. They also argue that food portions are inadequate and they must fight for food, the cells are consistently cold, there’s no ventilation, and bright lights are constantly on.

The class covers all detainees of Lake County, Ind., jail who were confined in the jail’s holding cells for more than 24 hours on or after May 13, 2006.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT