ZeynZeyn

Our Lawsuits

Rasho v. Baldwin is a class action case on behalf of all Illinois prisoners with mental health issues. Our claim is that Illinois punishes mental illness instead of treating it, and that what treatment it does provide is grossly inadequate. UPDATE: Rasho recently settled, which will lead to sweeping changes in the Illinois Department of Corrections. Read more about it here.

Lippert v. Baldwin is a putative class action that relates to the inadequate medical treatment provided to all Illinois prisoners. Last summer, a court-appointed expert issued a 400-page report detailing the many failings of the medical care provided to prisoners.

Boyd v. Baldwin is a class action case about the overcrowded living conditions in Vienna Correctional Center. Men have literally been stuffed in every corner a bed can fit in. 100 men have to share two toilets; they have no jobs; and the warehouse they are forced to live in either has no windows, or windows that have been boarded over.

Douglas v. Baldwin is a class action challenging Illinois’ excessive use of solitary. Illinois locks up too many people in solitary, many for petty offenses, keeps them in solitary far too long, in conditions amounting to torture.

Holmes v. Baldwin is a class action case brought on behalf of deaf and hard of hearing prisoners in Illinois. We allege that Illinois fails to provide interpreters for medical appointments, religious services, disciplinary hearings, and many other vital interactions with staff. Illinois also fails to provide hearing aids or other assistive devices to those who are hard of hearing.

Ross v. Gossett is a putative class action brought on behalf of prisoners at Menard, Illinois River, Big Muddy River, and Lawrence Correctional Centers alleging that the Orange Crush tactical team used excessive force, including physical and sexual abuse, when it conducted mass shakedowns in the Spring of 2014.

Morales v. Finley is a putative class action case alleging that adults facing revocation of their parole are denied due process. Specifically, they are not provided with a lawyer, even though they are facing imprisonment, they are left to languish for months without any hearing at all, and they are sent back to prison without the state proving that they violated their parole.

MH v. Finley is a class action case in which we established that children facing incarceration because they allegedly violated the terms of their parole were denied due process. As of January, 2015, kids are now provided with lawyers at the state’s expense. We continue to monitor implementation of the court’s orders.

Chancy v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board is a putative class action alleging that Illinois has not implemented an evidence-based risk assessment to be used in deciding whether to parole older “C Number” prisoners, in direct violation of Illinois law.