Case: Goff v. Harper
4:90-cv-30365 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
Filed Date: July 6, 1990
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On July 6, 1990, an inmate at Iowa State Prison filed a lawsuit against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa alleging Eighth and Eleventh Amendment violations. Plaintiff specifically alleged the defendants' disciplinary procedures and policies violated inmates' constitutional rights.
On December 14, 1993, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting that certain prison officials not be involved in any of his disciplinary matters. The court (Judge Donald E. O'Brien) granted the injunction and defendants appealed. In May and August of 1994, plaintiff's case went to trial. In November 2004, plaintiff filed a second request for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to prohibit prison officials from denying inmates in lockup a time reduction from their lockup time. The district court granted the injunction and prison officials once again appealed. This court stayed the appeal until the district court issued its final ruling in the case.
On June 2, 1995, Goff moved for class certification, which was granted on September 13, 1995. The class was comprised of past, present or future inmates confined in Iowa State Prison lockup. On July 26, 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Judge Theodore McMillian) found that the district court had abused its discretion and vacated the injunction and remanded the case. Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 1995). A second trial was held in March and May of 1996.
After the second trial, the district court (Judge O'Brien) granted the motion of Goff and the other inmates to amend the Complaint alleging constitutional violations concerning mental health and lack of exercise for those confined to lockup.
On June 5, 1997, the district court (Judge O'Brien) filed an order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to constitutional violations by the Iowa State Penitentiary. The court found four constitutional violations: 1) the violation of substantive due process resulting from the extraordinarily long lockup sentences; 2) the violation of the Eighth Amendment resulting from the inadequate mental health treatment received by mentally ill and mentally disordered inmates; 3) the violation of the Eighth Amendment resulting from the deprivation of exercise for inmates in lockup during the winter months; and 4) the violation of the Eighth Amendment resulting from the pandemonium and bedlam the mentally stable inmates must suffer because they are intermingled with the mentally ill inmates who either cannot or do not control their behavior. The court directed prison officials to file a plan to remedy the constitutional violations at Iowa State Prison.
On August 4, 1999, after consideration of three other plans, the court (Judge O'Brien) approved the fourth plan filed by prison officials. Goff v. Harper, 59 F. Supp.2d 910 (S.D. Iowa 1999). The court also found that a 200-bed special needs unit, once fully constructed and staffed, would remedy the Eighth Amendment violations. In the process of establishing a plan to correct the alleged violations, prison officials found existing consent decrees at Iowa State Prison that may require them to seek court permission to implement their plan. Because of the earlier consent decrees, Prison Officials filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On September 20, 1999, the district court (Judge O'Brien) denied their motion. Defendants appealed, and on December 19, 2000 the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Donald Pomery Lay) held that Court would remand case to District Court to determine whether prison's restrictions upon inmates' rights were reasonable. Goff v. Harper, 235 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2000).
On October 15, 2001, the district court (Judge O'Brien) filed an order stating that it did have subject matter jurisdiction and that the injunctive relief set forth in the fourth plan was necessary to protect inmates' constitutional rights. On November 21, 2001, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sua sponte vacated its December 19, 2000, judgment and issued an expedited briefing schedule. Goff v. Haprer, 272 F.3d 1114 (8th Cir. 2001). However, the reinstated appeal was closed by the court on January 30, 2002.
On January 20, 2004 the court (Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters) withdrew a motion to reopen without prejudice. The docket ends on June 7, 2006. We have no further information on this case.
On February 2, 2009, a class member filed a motion to reopen the case.
On February 19, 2009, the case was reassigned to District Judge Ronald E. Longstaff.
On March 4, 2009, the court appointed Mears Law Firm to represent the plaintiffs.
On July 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
On August 3, 2009, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on an Application for Preliminary Injunction. The court evaluated a pro se motion for preliminary injunction filed by inmates. The movants claimed that conditions in Cellhouse 319, which houses inmates in disciplinary detention or administrative segregation, violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. They sought a preliminary injunction to close Cellhouse 319 as a segregation unit. However, the court noted significant procedural and substantive obstacles to granting this relief. The application was filed in a closed case where the court had twice previously rejected Eighth Amendment challenges to Cellhouse 319 conditions. Additionally, there was a procedural difficulty because this related to a Rule 60(b) motion to reopen that the court previously recommended rejecting. The court also identified standing issues, noting that the inmates had not been in Cellhouse 319 since December 2007, and the other inmate had been in a different cellhouse since April 30, 2009. Ultimately, the court recommended denial of the preliminary injunction application without prejudice.
On September 2, 2009, the court adopted the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denied the motion to reopen the case and the motion for preliminary injunction.
On January 19, 2010, the inmates filed a motion for temporary restraining order after defendants confiscated all of the inmate's legal materials related to this case and two other pending federal cases, as well as removing all paper and envelopes from the inmate.
On January 21, 2010, the inmate filed motion to find defendants in contempt and a motion to appoint counsel.
On March 26, 2010, the court denied the motion for temporary restraining order and found that the inmate failed to meet the threshold requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). Specifically, the court determined that the inmate failed to submit an affidavit showing immediate or irreparable harm and failed to show why defendants should not be allowed to answer. The court also noted that Wycoff's interests were being addressed in the separate case Wycoff v. Dursky by Judge Gritzner, making further consideration duplicative.
On September 1, 2010, the court denied the remainder of the plaintiff's motions. The court denied all pending motions and found that plaintiffs were "re-asserting claims similar to those that were dismissed by this case one month prior" and had "failed to raise a basis for re-opening this case, and fail to raise a colorable claim of contempt." The court directed that any new constitutional claims should be pursued through a separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
On July 24, 2012, a different inmate filed a motion for temporary restraining order and permanent injunction.
On July 26, 2012, the court denied the motion for temporary restraining order. The court found that the inmate failed to provide sufficient basis for reopening the long-dormant case and did not clearly allege facts demonstrating imminent irreparable injury as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). The court suggested that Hays could consider filing a new action if he believed his constitutional rights were being violated.
On February 27, 2013, the court entered an order directing the State to check on the safety of the inmate.
Case reassigned to Chief Judge John A. Jarvey and Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters.
On August 2, 2021, the inmate filed a motion for contempt of court.
On August 26, 2021, the court denied the motion for contempt.
On September 15, 2021, the inmate filed a motion for reconsideration and the court denied it on September 20, 2021.
As of April 2026, there has been no further action in this case.
Summary Authors
Emilee Baker (10/16/2006)
Haleigh Knowles (4/22/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11637890/parties/goff-v-harper/
Jarvey, John Alfred (Iowa)
Dodd, Richard D (Iowa)
Langley, Allen (Iowa)
Thompson, Tim (Iowa)
Wallace, H. Loraine (Iowa)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11637890/goff-v-harper/
Last updated April 22, 2026, 2:04 p.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 6, 1990
Case Ongoing: Perhaps, but long-dormant
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All past, present and future inmates confined in the Iowa State Penitentiary Lockup.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
State
Iowa State Penitentiary
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Iowa 4:90-cv-30365
Southern District of Iowa 4:90-cv-50365
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 96-01018
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 99-03217
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 94-03915
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of Goff v. Harper, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/661/ (last updated 4/22/2026).