Philadelphia Held in Contempt of Jail Conditions Settlement, Ordered to Pay $25 Million
On July 12, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held the City of Philadelphia in contempt of a 2022 settlement in which its Department of Prisons (PDP) agreed to improve conditions for city detainees and prisoners. The Court also ordered the city to deposit $25 million into a dedicated fund and use that money immediately to hire guards desperately needed to remedy severe staffing shortages, along with other violations of the settlement agreement.
As PLN reported, Philadelphia’s jails were “failing on nearly every level” when the class-action suit was filed on behalf of PDP detainees and prisoners. [See: PLN, Aug. 2022, p.1.] The suit accused PDP of failing to provide humane conditions, including protections against COVID-19. The city entered into an “arms-length” settlement negotiation after extensive litigation, resulting in a consent decree designed to improve conditions within all city lockups.
However, the city failed to meet its obligations, consistently understaffing its prisons and jails. This in turn caused rampant violence and allowed contraband to flow freely. Thick clouds of smoke from the synthetic drug K2 billowed through some units. The situation was so dire that several guards sought medical treatment for exposure. At least four prisoners were also hospitalized after being stabbed or slashed in fights.
The Court held hearings concerning conditions within the jails and heard from court-appointed monitors responsible for supervising and assisting the city’s compliance with the consent decree. It then found the city in contempt of that agreement, and on August 16, 2024, the Court entered a sweeping remedial order in response to ever-worsening jail conditions.
To address a nearly 50% understaffing crisis within PDP jails, the Court ordered the city to retain an independent recruitment firm to hire new guards. It also directed the city to evaluate whether non-custodial functions, such as classification, information management, etc, could be performed by non-uniformed employees. The order further directed PDP to offer existing guards double-time pay to fill vacant shifts and investigate whether jail employees are paid commensurate with other city employees.
The Court also ordered the city to increase its budgeted to pay YesCare, the private, for-profit firm—and corporate descendant of Corizon Health—contracted to provide healthcare in city lockups, as PLN has also reported. [See: PLN, Nov. 2024, p.29.] Also, the Court directed these extra funds toward ensuring that prisoners and detainees receive prompt and appropriate medical care and treatment.
The Court instructed the city to create and staff an “Access to Care” team tasked with supervising the level of medical care that prisoners receive from YesCare.
Next, the Court ordered the city to hire outside consultants to assist court-appointed monitors with evaluating the effectiveness of prisoner programming provided in PDP’s Restorative and Transitional Services (RTS) Unit. Those consultants must also make recommendations for improvements, but without waiting for such recommendations, the Court further ordered the city to install library terminals in each jail unit within one year.
The Court additionally directed the city to expand services provided by U.S. Facilities, Inc., the contractor responsible for jail maintenance, as needed to improve “the state of the physical plant and long-term capital needs” of each jail. PDP employees were directed to work closely with local police to implement a system for reporting crimes within city jails and to increase crime detection capabilities, including the use of K9s to detect contraband.
Last, and most importantly, the Court ordered the city to “explore realistic, suitable options for relocation of class members to another secure facility,” and to “identify individual members of the prison population being held on a charge other than murder, with no detainers, because of a failure to post bail,” with the goal of determining who can be released with court-imposed conditions.
To implement these changes, the city was directed “to pay the sum of 25 million dollars into the Registry of this Court,” and the Court clerk was authorized to disburse the funds to comply with the contempt order. The case remains pending, and PLN will report on developments as they become available. Class counsel was provided by attorneys with the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, Dechert LLP and Kairys Rudovsky Messing Feinberg & Lin LLP, all in Philadelphia, with additional counsel by attorneys with the Abolitionist Law Center in Philadelphia. See: Remick v. City of Philadelphia, USDC (E.D. Penn.), Case No. 2:20-cv-01959.
Additional source: Philadelphia Inquirer
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Remick v. City of Philadelphia
| Year | 2023 |
|---|---|
| Cite | USDC (E.D. Penn.), Case No. 2:20-cv-01959 |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Settlement |
| Damages | 25000000.00 |