Case: Newkirk v. Sheers

2:92-cv-04237 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Filed Date: July 22, 1992

Closed Date: 1994

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 22, 1992, nine pre-trial detainees who had been arrested in connection with a non-violent civil disobedience protest filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the conditions of their confinement at the Schuylkill County Prison. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered violations of their constitutional rights in that: (1) they were subjected to strip and body cavity searches pursuant to a blanket strip search policy implemented by Schuylkill County; (2) they were required to double-up in cells designed for one inmate and were forced to sleep on mattresses on cell floors; and (3) they had restricted access to telephones during an initial 48-hour "lockdown" period.

Discovery ensued and, on August 3, 1993, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On September 16, 1993, the District Court (Judge Franklin S. Van Antwerpen) granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with respect to the strip search and "double-celling" claims and granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the restricted telephone use claim. Specifically, with respect to the strip search claim, the Court found that (a) the County's blanket strip and body cavity search policy violated Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights, (b) the County was liable for adopting the policy, and (c) the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to these claims. Similarly, with respect to the double-celling claim, the Court found that (a) the practice violated Due Process and (b) qualified immunity was not a viable defense. With respect to the restricted telephone use claim, however, the Court found that the practice did not violate constitutional rights. Newkirk v. Sheers, 834 F.Supp. 772 (E.D.Pa. 1993).

Shortly after the Court's ruling, the parties entered into a Consent Decree, which the Court approved on January 12, 1994. Details of the Decree were not reflected by the PACER docket, and we have no further information regarding its terms.

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (2/24/2008)

People

Judge(s)

Van Antwerpen, Franklin Stuart (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Einhorn, Gordon A. (Pennsylvania)

Shadowen, Steve D. (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Defendant

Schwalm, David Lee (Pennsylvania)

Judge(s)

Van Antwerpen, Franklin Stuart (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Einhorn, Gordon A. (Pennsylvania)

Shadowen, Steve D. (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Defendant

Schwalm, David Lee (Pennsylvania)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

2:92-cv-04237	Docket (PACER)	Jan. 12, 1994	Jan. 12, 1994 Docket
22 2:92-cv-04237	Opinion and Order	Sept. 16, 1993	Sept. 16, 1993 Order/Opinion 834 F.Supp. 772

show / hide documents

Docket

Last updated March 23, 2025, 9:16 a.m.

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	July 22, 1992	Complaint. filing fee $ 120 receipt # 377029 (mrs) (Entered: 07/22/1992)	PACER
	July 22, 1992	Summons(es) issued Forwarded to: given to counsel 07/22/92 (mrs) (Entered: 07/22/1992)	PACER
	July 22, 1992	Standard Case Management Track. (mrs) (Entered: 07/22/1992)	PACER
2	Aug. 21, 1992	MOTION BY DEFENDANT PAUL SHEERS, DEFENDANT FRANKLIN L. SHOLLENBERGER, DEFENDANT MARYANN CONWAY, DEFENDANT JOSPEH F. MCCLOSKEY, DEFENDANT LOIS WALLAVER, DEFENDANT CLAUDE SHIELDS, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY HOLDEN, DEFENDANT DONALD KERNS, DEFENDANT DAVID KURTZ, DEFENDANT RAYMOND LORENT, DEFENDANT E. CUTLER TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12, BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 08/21/1992)	PACER
3	Sept. 4, 1992	Memorandum by PLAINTIFF INGRID NEWKIRK, PLAINTIFF LAURA YANNE, PLAINTIFF ROBIN LORD, PLAINTIFF HEIDI PRESCOTT, PLAINTIFF ROBIN WALKER, PLAINTIFF ANN KOONS, PLAINTIFF SUE BREBNER, PLAINTIFF TERESA GIBBS, PLAINTIFF JENNY WOODS, PLAINTIFF DANA FORBES in opposition to [2-1] MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12 certificate of service. (jc) (Entered: 09/08/1992)	PACER
4	Sept. 9, 1992	Acknowledgement of service as to DEFENDANT MARYANN CONWAY 7/29/92 (mc) (Entered: 09/10/1992)	PACER
5	Sept. 9, 1992	Acknowledgement of service as to DEFENDANT JOSPEH F. MCCLOSKEY, DEFENDANT LOIS WALLAVER 8/19/92 (mc) (Entered: 09/10/1992)	PACER
6	Sept. 9, 1992	Acknowledgement of service as to DEFENDANT PAUL SHEERS, DEFENDANT FRANKLIN L. SHOLLENBERGER, DEFENDANT CLAUDE SHIELDS, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY HOLDEN, DEFENDANT DONALD KERNS, DEFENDANT DAVID KURTZ, DEFENDANT RAYMOND LORENT, DEFENDANT E. CUTLER, DEFENDANT J. KLING, DEFENDANT W. NASADOS, DEFENDANT LAUBACH, DEFENDANT MEDINSKY, DEFENDANT NEIDIG, DEFENDANT DEANGELO, DEFENDANT SHARTZER, DEFENDANT HECKMAN, DEFENDANT SCHWARTZ, DEFENDANT MICKALOWSKI "no date given". (mc) (Entered: 09/10/1992)	PACER
7	Sept. 15, 1992	ORDER THAT THE [2-1] MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANTS' RIGHT TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEN DISCOVERY IS COMPLETE. PLAINTIFFS HAVE REQUESTED THE RIGHT TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT TO ASSERT CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS IN THEIR PERSONAL, AS WELL AS OFFICIAL CAPACITIES. WE DEEM PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST AS A MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND GRANT LEAVE TO DO SO WITHIN TWENTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. ( SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN ) 09/16/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 09/16/1992)	PACER
8	Oct. 6, 1992	Amended complaint by PLAINTIFF INGRID NEWKIRK, PLAINTIFF LAURA YANNE, PLAINTIFF ROBIN LORD, PLAINTIFF HEIDI PRESCOTT, PLAINTIFF ROBIN WALKER, PLAINTIFF ANN KOONS, PLAINTIFF SUE BREBNER, PLAINTIFF TERESA GIBBS, PLAINTIFF JENNY WOODS, PLAINTIFF DANA FORBES , amending [1-1] complaint, certificate of service. (jc) (Entered: 10/08/1992)	PACER
9	Nov. 5, 1992	ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TEN DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 11/06/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 11/06/1992)	PACER
10	Nov. 5, 1992	STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TEN DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. ( SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN ) 11/06/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 11/06/1992)	PACER
11	Nov. 16, 1992	Answer by PAUL SHEERS, FRANKLIN L. SHOLLENBERGER, MARYANN CONWAY, JOSPEH F. MCCLOSKEY, LOIS WALLAVER, CLAUDE SHIELDS, TIMOTHY HOLDEN, DONALD KERNS, DAVID KURTZ, RAYMOND LORENT, E. CUTLER, J. KLING, W. NASADOS, NEIDIG, DEANGELO, SHARTZER, HILDA LAUBACH, SANDI MEDINSKY, KATHLEEN SHARTZER, PATRICIA HECKMAN, BARBARA SCHWARTZ, CAROL A. MICKALOWSKI, to amended complaint, certificate of service (jc) (Entered: 11/17/1992)	PACER
12	Dec. 18, 1992	NON-JURY PRETRIAL ORDER THAT ALL DISCOVERY DUE FOR 7/12/93, FOLLOWING WHICH THIS CASE SHALL BE PLACED IN THE TRIAL POOL IN THE LEGAL INTELLIGENCER ; ETC. (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 12/21/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED BY CHAMBERS. (fe) Modified on 12/21/1992 (Entered: 12/21/1992)	PACER
13	June 4, 1993	Stipulation of counsel for taking telephone depositions pursuant to Rule 30(b)(7), Cert. of Service. (kw) (Entered: 06/07/1993)	PACER
14	July 19, 1993	ORDER THAT THE PARTIES WILL MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO DRAFT A STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS TO ACCOMPANY THEIR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHALL FILE THESE DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT NO LATER THAN 7/26/93 ; THE COURT WILL REFRAIN FROM PLACING THIS CASE INTO THIS TRIAL POOL BUT MAY DO SO IF THE STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS IS NOT FILED BY THE ABOVE DATE. (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 7/20/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 07/20/1993)	PACER
15	July 30, 1993	ORDER THAT THE PARTIES WILL MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE COUNT XI OF PLFF'S COMPLAINT AND TO DRAFT A STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS ON THE REMAINING CLAIMS BY 8/2/93; IF AGREED UPON, THE STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS AND THE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COURT NO LATER THAN 8/3/93 . (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 8/2/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 08/02/1993)	PACER
16	Aug. 3, 1993	MOTION BY DEFENDANTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT , BRIEF, CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 08/03/1993)	PACER
17	Aug. 3, 1993	Stipulated statement of facts, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 08/03/1993)	PACER
18	Aug. 3, 1993	MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 08/04/1993)	PACER
19	Aug. 10, 1993	STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT ALL CLAIMS OF PLFF, ANNE KOONS BE DISCONTINUED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ALL CLAIMS AGAINST MARY ANNE CONWAY IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; COUTS II, IV, VII, VIII, IX AND X OF PLFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; COUNT I OF PLFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, ETC.; THE PARTIES SHALL NOTIFY THE COURT WHEN THE REVISED RECREATIONAL POLICY OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY PRISON HAS BEEN APPROVED BY PA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND THE SCHUYLKILL COUNTY PRISON BOARD SO THAT THE COURT MAY DISMISS COUNT XI OF PLFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT. (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 8/11/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 08/11/1993)	PACER
20	Aug. 16, 1993	Brief by defts in opposition to plffs' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 08/16/1993)	PACER
21	Aug. 19, 1993	Memorandum by PLAINTIFF INGRID NEWKIRK, PLAINTIFF LAURA YANNE, PLAINTIFF ROBIN LORD, PLAINTIFF HEIDI PRESCOTT, PLAINTIFF ROBIN WALKER in opposition to DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMEN, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 08/20/1993)	PACER
22	Sept. 16, 1993	OPINION AND ORDER THAT PLFFS' AND DEFTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE EACH GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART CONSISTENT WITH THE FOREGOING OPINION, ETC.; IF THE PARTIES WISH TO PRESENT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, A NON-JURY TRIAL OR HEARING SHALL BE SCHEDULED BY THE DEPUTY CLERK TO DETERMINE FURTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF AND ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT. (SIGNED BY JUDGE FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 9/17/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 09/17/1993)	PACER
23	Jan. 12, 1994	CONSENT DECREE WITH COURT APPROVAL. THIS CASE IS CLOSED AND ANY OPEN MOTIONS ARE DISMISSED. (SIGNED BY J. FRANKLIN S. VAN ANTWERPEN) 1/12/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 01/12/1994)	PACER
	Jan. 12, 1994	Case closed (kv) (Entered: 01/13/1994)	PACER

show / hide docket entries

Case Details

State / Territory:

Pennsylvania

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Strip Search Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 22, 1992

Closing Date: 1994

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Nine female pre-trial detainees arrested during a peaceful protest who claim that they were denied meaningful access to telephones, forced into overcrowded cells, and subjected to unconstitutional strip-searches.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

County

Schuylkill County

Schuylkill County, PA

Facility Type(s):

Government-run