×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Order Requiring Plan For Compliance With JJDPA Non-appealable
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed an
appeal by Iowa state officials challenging a district court's order
requiring officials to devise and submit for approval a plan for achieving
compliance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA).
Under the JJDPA, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 5601-5672, states can receive
formula grants for programs related to the juvenile justice system and
juvenile delinquency. States seeking these grants are required by § 5633 to
propose a plan for complying with the purposes of the JJDPA and to provide
annual performance reports detailing their compliance.
Plaintiffs, juveniles confined in the juvenile section of the Webster
County (Idaho) Jail, brought class action against the state, the county and
individual defendants alleging that the state plan requirements delineated
at § 5633 created rights that were enforceable under § 1983, or
alternatively, gave rise to an implied cause of action.
Specifically, plaintiffs challenged the state's compliance with three
requirements of § 5633: "The deinstitutionalization of status offenders";
"The ban on regular contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults";
and, "The jail removal mandate," which forbids the confinement of juveniles
in adult jails. Plaintiffs sought declatory, compensatory and equitable relief.
The district court, Hendrickson v. Griggs, 672 F.Supp. 1126 (ND Iowa 1987),
ordered state officials to submit a plan for compliance with the JJDPA, and
they appealed. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court's order
requiring submission of a plan for compliance with the JJDPA was a
non-appealable interlocutory order as it did not "contain injunctive relief
apart from the requirement that the state submit a plan," nor did the court
"specify a method for achieving compliance." See: Hendrickson v. Griggs,
856 F.2d 1041 (8th Cir. 1988).
appeal by Iowa state officials challenging a district court's order
requiring officials to devise and submit for approval a plan for achieving
compliance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA).
Under the JJDPA, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 5601-5672, states can receive
formula grants for programs related to the juvenile justice system and
juvenile delinquency. States seeking these grants are required by § 5633 to
propose a plan for complying with the purposes of the JJDPA and to provide
annual performance reports detailing their compliance.
Plaintiffs, juveniles confined in the juvenile section of the Webster
County (Idaho) Jail, brought class action against the state, the county and
individual defendants alleging that the state plan requirements delineated
at § 5633 created rights that were enforceable under § 1983, or
alternatively, gave rise to an implied cause of action.
Specifically, plaintiffs challenged the state's compliance with three
requirements of § 5633: "The deinstitutionalization of status offenders";
"The ban on regular contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults";
and, "The jail removal mandate," which forbids the confinement of juveniles
in adult jails. Plaintiffs sought declatory, compensatory and equitable relief.
The district court, Hendrickson v. Griggs, 672 F.Supp. 1126 (ND Iowa 1987),
ordered state officials to submit a plan for compliance with the JJDPA, and
they appealed. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court's order
requiring submission of a plan for compliance with the JJDPA was a
non-appealable interlocutory order as it did not "contain injunctive relief
apart from the requirement that the state submit a plan," nor did the court
"specify a method for achieving compliance." See: Hendrickson v. Griggs,
856 F.2d 1041 (8th Cir. 1988).
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