# Glover v. Johnson > Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · August 22, 1988 · 855 F.2d 277 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8963529 ## Case - **Full name:** Mary GLOVER Lynda Gates Jimmie Ann Brown Mannetta Gant Jacalyn M. Settles, and several Jane Does on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Perry JOHNSON, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections Florence R. Crane G. Robert Cotton Thomas K. Eardley, Jr. B. James George, Jr. Duane L. Waters, Michigan Corrections Commission William Kime, Director Bureau of Programs Robert Brown, Jr., Director, Bureau of Correctional Facilities Frank Beetham, Director, Bureau of Prison Industries Richard Nelson, Director, Bureau of Field Service Gloria Richardson, Superintendent, Huron Valley Women's Facility Dorothy Costen, Director of Treatment, Huron Valley Women's Facility and Clyde Graven, Sheriff, Kalamazoo County, Individually, and in their official capacities - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - **Decided:** August 22, 1988 - **Citations:** 855 F.2d 277 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Engel - **Judges:** Engel, Merritt, Ryan - **Cited by:** 129 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8963529 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that, with regard to preliminary injunction, a district court abuses its discretion if it fails to make specific findings regarding the various factors it is required to consider - noting that “before a district court undertakes to override the prerogative of state correctional authorities ... it must assure itself that no less intrusive means of bringing about compliance with constitutional requisites is available” and holding that principle of federali… ## Opinion text ENGEL, Chief Judge, concurring. I concur fully in Judge Ryan’s thoughtful opinion. I add these thoughts only to caution that the court’s reference to per capita allocation of costs not be overread but be considered in the overall context in which it was intended. Equal protection is not the same as identical treatment, for identical treatment may indeed result in very unequal protection. Nor is exact mathematical parity of financial per capita expenditure to be similarly equated. All of these factors may be important considerations as Judge Ryan has so carefully pointed out, and in this I fully concur. I write separately only to emphasize that evidence of comparable per capita expenditure is not an end in itself but may be one consideration — by no means controlling — in the more difficult task of determining first whether equal protection of the law has been denied and, if so, in determining how most effectively that deprivation can be cured. In the context here, it is obvious that regardless of the equal protection clause, there are many and significant differences between the sexes and there is nothing humanity can do about them even if we would. For one thing, the proportion of women in penal institutions is far smaller than that of men. There are physical differences. There are physiological differences. There are probably differences in the nature of the crimes for which men and women find themselves incarcerated and *289 there may in consequence be differences in the relative dangerousness to the public posed by such inmates. The task of an even-handed penological system responsible for the confinement of both sexes is to adjust realistically to such differences without temptation to use them to mask latent bias or uncorroborated assumptions. The very difference between the sexes may mean in a given situation that the delivery of rehabilitative services may necessarily require the varied expenditure of monies because of natural differences in the sexes or in their conditions of confinement. In short, I would not like to think that anything we have said here is construed to require or encourage an oversimplistic approach to what is in reality a difficult task requiring a full measure of judicial thought. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8963529. Public record. Not legal advice.