![aspira judicial consent decree aspira judicial consent decree](https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/339171521_Law-Making_Activity_in_the_Case_Law_of_the_Constitutional_Court_of_Ukraine/links/5e42bf90299bf1cdb91f9b12/largepreview.png)
The suit was later consolidated with another class action brought on behalf of female inmates at Michigan prisons alleging denial of a right of access to the courts. In May 1977, female inmates in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections filed a class action suit against the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, members of the Michigan Corrections Commission, and other prison officials alleging that female inmates at Michigan prisons were not being provided educational and vocational training opportunities which were being provided to male inmates, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The reader interested in all of the details may wish to consult Glover v. Instead, what follows is a recitation of so much of the history of the controversy as is necessary for an understanding of the specific issues before us today. We decline to burden this opinion with still another account of the lengthy factual and legal history of this case. Finally, plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees as awarded by the district court. We also conclude that the district court's order requiring defendants to appoint a special administrator to develop a remedial plan is not an excessively intrusive remedy. For the reasons we shall discuss, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding defendants in contempt for noncompliance with the court's 1981 order. 89-2421, defendants appeal the attorneys' fees award for services plaintiffs' counsel performed in 19. 89-2191, defendants, the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, members of the Michigan Corrections Commission, and other prison officials, appeal the district court's order finding defendants in civil contempt and ordering remedies for failing to provide those opportunities as ordered by the court ten years ago. These consolidated appeals from eleven-year-old prisoner rights litigation are concerned with the district court's effort to require the Michigan corrections authorities to provide to female prison inmates educational and vocational opportunities comparable to those offered to male inmates. Kennedy, Circuit Judge, and Edwards, Senior Circuit Judge, delivered separate opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Ryan, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. Kennedy and Ryan, Circuit Judges, and Edwards, Senior Circuit Judge. Attorney Gen., Susan Przekop-Shaw, ARGUED, Office of the Attorney General, Corrections Division, Lansing, Michigan. Hughes, Office of the Attorney General of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan, Richard M. Labelle, ARGUED, Detroit, Michigan, Charlene M.
![aspira judicial consent decree aspira judicial consent decree](https://www.somo.nl/nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2010/06/Publication_3550-nl.jpg)
77-71229 John Feikens, Senior District Judge. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan No. FRANK BEETHAM RICHARD NELSON GLORIA RICHARDSON DOROTHY COSTEN RONALD KEIM, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS MARY GLOVER, LYNDA GATES, JIMMIE ANN BROWN, JANE DOE, MANETTE GANT, JACALYN M. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT The Court of Appeals upheld the civil contempt finding for the defendants disobeying previous orders and requiring defendants a special administrator in the case. The Court of Appeals held that the district court had abused it's discretion in finding the DOC in contempt for not implementing work pass and vocational programming as these were not included in the lower court's final order in 1981. On appeal the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The instant case here is an appeal by the Michigan DOC defendants after being found in contempt by the district court for failing to comply with it's previous orders mandating equal education access for female prisoners. The case has wound its way up and down the courts ever since and the lower court had found in 1981 that the womens right to equal protection had in fact been denied and ordered the appropriate relief.
![aspira judicial consent decree aspira judicial consent decree](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SzKWdbRBp5c/hqdefault.jpg)
1991) is a class action suit originally filed in 1978 by female Michigan state prisoners claiming violation of their right to equal protection because they were not provided with educational vocational training programs comparable to those of male prisoners. Women Prisoners Entitled To Equal Education Share: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on G+ Share with email