Long-Running Consent Decree Again Extended at Troubled Baltimore Jail
On October 18, 2024, the federal court for the District of Maryland granted a motion to modify a years-old consent decree in a decades-old class-action challenge to conditions at Baltimore’s Central Booking and Intake Center (CBIC).
As PLN reported, the original decree was granted in 1993, bringing under the Court’s oversight a settlement agreement reached with Defendant officials at what is now the state Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS); the most recent version of the decree dates to 2016. [See: PLN, March 2017, p.50.]
It established 10 substantive provisions set to terminate when the jail achieved “substantial compliance with all substantive provisions” or four years after the agreement date. When that condition had not been met in 2020, Plaintiffs successfully moved to extend the agreement. As the case has dragged on, it has been punctuated by Defendants’ motions to limit court-ordered enforcement and monitoring, only to be thwarted by their own lackluster compliance record.
Meanwhile, Maryland lawmakers passed a bill in 2019 requiring local detention facilities to offer drugs for relief of opioid withdrawal symptoms, in response to studies and reports indicating that prisoners released from jail faced heightened risk of overdose—with Baltimore being one of the most dangerous cities in this regard. Methadone and buprenorphine were bought to be dispensed by prescribers in the jail, who were employed by medical services contractor Centurion Health.
In early 2024, DEA diversion investigators—law enforcement officers who investigate the theft and fraudulent transfer of controlled pharmaceuticals—discovered that 92,486 methadone pills and 4,976 doses of buprenorphine had disappeared from CBIC and were unaccounted for. Both drugs are powerful opioid medications used for pain relief and to alleviate the symptoms of physical withdrawal in opioid addicts.
The alarming scale of the diversion prompted the DEA to impose a “memorandum of agreement,” requiring additional reporting and accounting requirements, with fines for state officials if the requirements are not met. The former deputy chief of staff for the DEA, Jim Crotty, emphasized that such agreements are rare, “only taken and reserved for the most serious offences.” Obligations imposed included quarterly audits, regular inventories, and reporting to the DEA of “any professional, civil or criminal actions pending or taken against” the CBIC. See: In re Cen. Booking & Intake Center, DEA (2024).
In the order from the district court following later that same year, Judge Matthew J. Maddox again granted Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the consent decree. “Over the last eight years of monitoring,” he wrote, “Defendants have achieved substantial compliance with only two of the ten substantive provisions of the Agreement.” They said that they were compliant with all 10 provisions, of course. But Court-appointed monitors submitted reports that “tell a different story,” the judge declared.
“In institutional reform litigation, modification of a consent decree to extend the period of enforcement may be justified by a significant and unanticipated degree of noncompliance with its terms,” Judge Maddox continued. He agreed with Plaintiffs that the Defendants’ “‘exceptional magnitude’ of noncompliance warrants modification.” Accordingly, the agreement was extended until June 30, 2026. See: Duvall v. Moore, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189585 (D. Md.).
Additional source: Baltimore Banner
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
Duvall v. Moore
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189585 |
| Level | District Court |