The plaintiffs alleged that the state (1) was deliberately indifferent to their serious health needs and safety; (2) denied them meaningful access to the courts; (3) failed to provide due process in classification and disciplinary proceedings; (4) denied them equal protection in the availability of programs; and (5) denied them freedom of religion. The plaintiffs also alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to the provision of services and programming to disabled prisoners.
Prior to trial, the parties entered into a stipulation suspending discovery in return for corrective action addressing the plaintiff’s allegations. The State, for instance, agreed to move all WCC prisoners to a new facility. The State further agreed to provide safe living quarters, adequate medical care, access to the courts and other programming options. The Plaintiffs were represented by Stuart Adams and Marjorie Rifkin of the ACLU National Prison Project. See: Kay Many Horses v. Racicot, USDC, D. Mont., No. cv-93-37-BU-P6H (1994).
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
Kay Many Horses v. Racicot
|Cite||USDC, D. Mont., No. 2:1999-cv-00037-PGH-RMH (1994)|
No other information is currently available.