Case: Parton v. White

2:81-cv-00019 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

Filed Date: May 11, 1981

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 11, 1981, three individuals in custody at the Missouri Training Center for Men in Moberly, Missouri, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the Missouri Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs, represented by Gateway Legal Services, alleged that their constitutional rights had been violated by overcrowding at the prison. On December 18, 1983, the parties entered into a consent decree, and on December 30…

On May 11, 1981, three individuals in custody at the Missouri Training Center for Men in Moberly, Missouri, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the Missouri Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs, represented by Gateway Legal Services, alleged that their constitutional rights had been violated by overcrowding at the prison.

On December 18, 1983, the parties entered into a consent decree, and on December 30, 1983, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Judge John Regan) approved the consent decree and terminated the case.

On January 25, 1996, the defendants asked the court to modify the consent decree, allowing them to permanently increase the inmate population at the prison. On October 15, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Judge David Noce) permanently modified the consent decree, allowing the defendants to increase the prison population to 1800 prisoners. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.

On February 11, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a per curiam opinion affirming the district court's decision to modify the consent decree. Parton v. White, 203 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2000). The plaintiffs appealed this decision, and on October 30, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari and declined to consider the case. Cooper v. White, 531 U.S. 963 (2000).

After two decades of inactivity, an individual under the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections filed a pro se motion to intervene and enforce the consent decree agreement on February 18, 2022. The movant stated that the original plaintiffs were “no longer available” and alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Among the allegations were food service violations, an unsafe work environment, inadequate health care, and poor living conditions. The Movant also filed a motion for injunctive relief to preclude the defendant from transferring the Movant in retaliation and to remedy the living conditions. 

On August 8th, 2022, the court denied the motion to intervene because the movant lacked standing as a non-party to the consent decree. Parton v. White, No. 2:81-cv-00019-DDN (E.D. Mo. Aug. 24, 2022). To that end, Judge Noce also denied the motion to enforce the consent decree as moot. Id.  

This case has been administratively closed since December 30, 1983, and has otherwise been dormant since 2000.  

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (3/31/2006)

Benjamin Houri (12/17/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/19427288/parties/parton-v-white/


Judge(s)

Arnold, Richard Sheppard (Arkansas)

Beam, Clarence Arlen (Nebraska)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Chackes, Kenneth (Missouri)

Ferry, Michael (Missouri)

Attorney for Defendant

Johnston, David (Missouri)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

2:81-cv-00019

Docket (PACER)

May 22, 2001

May 22, 2001

Docket

98-01074

Reported Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Feb. 11, 2000

Feb. 11, 2000

Order/Opinion

203 F.3d 552

00-05824

Memorandum Decision

Cooper v. White

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2000

Oct. 30, 2000

Order/Opinion

531 U.S. 963

118

2:81-cv-00019

Memorandum and Order

Parton et al. v. White et al.

Aug. 24, 2022

Aug. 24, 2022

Order/Opinion

2022 WL 3646161

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/19427288/parton-v-white/

Last updated April 11, 2026, 4:56 a.m.

ECF Number Date Description Link
97 Feb. 18, 2022

Intervene

RECAP
98 March 17, 2022

Pro Se Motion

RECAP
99 March 21, 2022

Affidavit

RECAP
100 March 23, 2022

Leave to

RECAP
101 March 28, 2022

Pro Se Motion

RECAP
102 April 1, 2022

Pro Se Motion

RECAP
103 April 8, 2022

Order (will rule a motion and set/satisfy a schedule)

RECAP
104 April 8, 2022

Clerk's Reassignment Order (NON-CJRA)

RECAP
April 8, 2022

Order Receipt

105 April 18, 2022

Mail Returned

RECAP
106 April 20, 2022

Pro Se Motion

RECAP
107 April 21, 2022

Request (NOT TO BE USED AS A MOTION)

RECAP
108 April 27, 2022

Order (will rule a motion and set/satisfy a schedule)

RECAP
April 27, 2022

Order Receipt

April 27, 2022

Remark

109 May 20, 2022

Appoint Counsel

RECAP
110 June 3, 2022

Entry of Appearance

RECAP
111 June 3, 2022

Dismiss Case

RECAP
112 June 3, 2022

Memorandum in Support of Motion

RECAP
113 Aug. 1, 2022

Response to Motion

RECAP
114 Aug. 2, 2022

Reply to Response to Motion

RECAP
115 Aug. 10, 2022

Entry of Appearance

RECAP
116 Aug. 11, 2022

Withdraw as Attorney/Firm

RECAP
Aug. 12, 2022

A Docket Text Order

Aug. 16, 2022

Order Receipt

118 Aug. 24, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions of movant Jermaine Cortez Pate to intervene and to reopen the proceedings (Docs. 97 and 98 ) are denied with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions of movant for injunctive relief (Docs. 102 and 106 ) are denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions of movant to enforce the consent decree, to modify the consent decree, and for appointment of counsel (Doc. 100 , 101 , 106 , 109 ) are denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of defendants to dismiss (Doc. 111 ) is denied as moot. An appropriate Judgment Order is issued herewith.. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 8/24/22. (KJS)

Clearinghouse
119 Aug. 24, 2022

Judgment - (Generic - will NOT rule a motion or term case/party)

RECAP
Aug. 24, 2022

Order Receipt

Case Details

State / Territory:

Missouri

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 11, 1981

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

prisoners at the Missouri Training Center for Men in Moberly, Missouri

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State

Missouri Department of Corrections

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Other Dockets:

Eastern District of Missouri 2:81-cv-00019

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 98-01074

Supreme Court of the United States 00-5824

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Issues

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Male

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Crowding (General)

Crowding: Pre-PLRA Population Cap

Recommended Citation