Jane Doe v. District of Columbia

PC-DC-0006-0001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JANE DOE Minimum Security Facility Lorton, Virginia, 22079,

SALLY ROE

)

o

Minimum Security Facility

)

Lorton, Virginia 22079,

) Civil Action No.

KAREN ZOE

)

Medium Security Facility

Lorton, Virginia 22079,

JOHN DOE Central Facility Lorton, Virginia 22079,

SAMUEL ROE Medium Security Facility
Lorton, Virginia 22079,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. In this civil rights action, five prisoners who are

infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (hereinafter referred to as "HIV")1 and are incarcerated in District of

Columbia correctional facilities seek damages, injunctive and

declaratory relief for injuries they suffered when correctional

officials unlawfully and without permission revealed their HIV

1HIV is the virus presumed to cause Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (hereinafter referred to as "AIDS").

status to other prisoners and to correctional staff. These breaches of the plaintiffs1 confidentiality were the result, inter alia, of a poiicy of the defendant to fail to properly train correctional officials concerning the maintenance of the confidentiality of prisoner medical records and of the custom and practice of the defendant to fail to maintain such records in a confidential manner.
2. In addition, plaintiffs Karen Zoe and Samuel Roe were unlawfully denied participation in prison work programs solely on the basis of the fact that they are infected with HIV. The denial of the plaintiffs' rights was caused, inter alia, by a policy of the defendant to fail to properly train correctional staff concerning HIV infection, and a custom and policy of the defendant to discriminate unlawfully against HIV-infected prisoners.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 3. This lawsuit raises claims under the United States Constitution and under federal law. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 2201, 29 U.S.C. § 794a, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs also raise pendent claims under state law which arise out of a common nucleus of material fact with their federal claims.

PARTIES2 4. Plaintiff jane Doe is a female prisoner.of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections who, at all times relevant hereto, was confined to the Minimum Security Facility in Lorton, Virginia. 5. Plaintiff Sally Roe is a female prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections who, at all times relevant hereto, was confined to the Minimum Security Facility in Lorton, Virginia. 6. Plaintiff Karen Zoe is a female prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections who, at all times relevant hereto, was confined to the District of Columbia Detention Facility. 7. Plaintiff John Doe is a male prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections who, at all times relevant hereto, was confined to the District of Columbia Detention Facility. 8. Plaintiff Samuel Roe is a male prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections who, at all times relevant hereto, was confined to the Medium Facility in Lorton, Virginia.
2 The plaintiffs seek to maintain their confidentiality and have filed this lawsuit under pseudonyms. The plaintiffs1 names have been submitted to the Court along with a motion requesting that their names be maintained under seal. A list of their names will be served on Richard Love, Esquire, Chief of the Correctional Litigation Unit, Office of the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel along with a copy of this complaint.

9. Defendant District of Columbia is a municipal corporation organized pursuant to the District of Columbia Self Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Pub. I». No. 93198, 87 stat. 774 (1973). Defendant District of Columbia operates the Department of Corrections as an agency of government.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF 10. Jane Doe; In late November 1991, at the Minimum Security Facility in Lorton, Virginia, Correctional Officer Cynthia Champion and Correctional Officer Dugger confronted a friend of Ms. Doe. These officers advised Ms. Doe's friend that Ms. Doe is infected with HIV and guestioned why, in light of her infection, the friend continued to associate with Ms. Doe. 11. As a result of this incident, Ms. Doe's HIV status became common knowledge among prisoners and correctional officers at the Minimum Security Facility. 12. The conduct of Officers Champion and Dugger served no peneological purpose. 13. As a result of these officers' actions, Ms. Doe suffered humiliation, embarrassment and extreme emotional distress. 14. Sally Roe: Sally Roe is confined to the Minimum Security Facility in Lorton, Virginia. 15. The medical staff at the facility fails to maintain her medical records in a secure or a confidential fashion. Moreover,

when she consults with, or is examined by, medical staff, other prisoners and correctional officers are permitted in the examining room despite her requests for privacy.
16. The failure to maintain her records in a confidential manner, and the failure to provide her with confidential medical consultations and examinations has resulted in the disclosure of Ms. Roe's HIV status to correctional officers and to prisoners.
17. There is no peneological purpose served by refusing to maintain medical information concerning Ms. Roe in a confidential manner.
18. As a result of the disclosure of her HIV status, Ms. Roe has suffered humiliation, embarrassment and extreme emotional distress.
19. Karen Zoe: During the fall of 1991, Ms. Zoe was assigned to a prison detail to work in the officers' dining hall at the District of Columbia Detention Facility. Prior to assuming this position, Ms. Zoe had been examined by District of Columbia Department of Corrections medical staff and was given written authorization to work in the officers' dining hall. There was no peneological or public health reason that Ms. Zoe could not hold this position.
20. On information and belief, Correctional Officer Jenkins examined the file kept by the Department of Corrections concerning Ms. Zoe and learned that she is infected with HIV. No peneological purpose was served by permitting Officer Jenkins to have access to information concerning Ms. Zoe·s medical status.

The defendant failed to maintain these records in a confidential fashion.
21. On or about November 29, 1991, Officer Jenkins told Ms. Zoe that he knew her HIV status and he arranged for her to be removed from the detail in the officers1 dining room.
22. After removing Ms. Zoe from her detail, Officer Jenkins told other correctional officers that Ms. Zoe was infected with HIV.
23. Ms. Zoe appealed her removal from the detail and was •reinstated approximately one week later.
24. Upon her reinstatement, a number of officers who had learned of Ms. Zoe·s HIV status from Officer Jenkins, or as a result of Officer Jenkins1 breach of Ms. Zoe's confidentiality, complained to Detention Facility officials and requested her removal from the detail.
25. Shortly thereafter, she was again removed from the detail. Upon information and belief, her removal was authorized by David Roach, the Administrator of the District of Columbia Detention Facility. Mr. Roach is a final decisionmaker for the District of Columbia concerning the operation of the Detention Facility.
26. As a result of this incident, Ms. Zoe's HIV status became common knowledge among prisoners and correctional officers at the Detention Facility.
27. The conduct of Officer Jenkins served no peneological purpose.

28. As a result of having her HIV status revealed to other prisoners and to correctional staff, Ms. Zoe suffered humiliation, embarrassment and extreme emotional distress.
29. John Doe; On or about April 8, 1991, while confined to the District of Columbia Detention Facility, Correctional Officer Ashford loudly referred to Mr. Doe as a "smart mouthed faggot" within the hearing of other prisoners. On the same occasion, without justification, Officer Ashford shoved Mr. Doe and chained him to a railing in the common area of his housing unit. The only purpose of chaining him to the railing was to humiliate him in front of other prisoners. Upon information and belief, Officer Ashford•s hostility towards Mr. Doe was motivated by a belief that he was infected with HIV.
. 3 0 . On or about April 15, 1991, Officer Ashford loudly referred to Mr. Doe as a "faggot" and as an "AIDS-carrying freak." Following this incident, other prisoners began to shun Mr. Doe and threatened to kill him if he continued to attempt to associate with them.
31. Following these incidents, Mr. Doe made a formal complaint to the Department of Corrections concerning Officer Ashford's conduct. On or about April 22, 1991, Officer Ashford told Mr. Doe that he was "in hot water" because of Mr. Doe's complaint. He requested that Mr. Doe withdraw it. When Mr. Doe refused to do so, Officer Ashford told him that if there were ever a prison riot, Officer Ashford had a 30-30 bullet with Mr. Doe's "name on it."

32. On or about April 23, 1991, Mr. Doe was interviewed by an official of the Department of Corrections concerning his complaint. This official instructed Mr. Doe to withdraw his complaint, which Mr. Doe refused to do. Upon information and belief, no action has ever been taken on Mr. Doe's complaint.
33. As a result of this incident, Mr. Doe's HIV status has become common knowledge among prisoners and correctional officers.
34. The conduct of Officer Ashford served no peneological purpose.
35. As a result of having his HIV status revealed to correctional officers and to other prisoners, Mr. Doe suffered humiliation, embarrassment and extreme emotional distress.
36. Samuel Roe; On or about October 29, 1991, Mr. Roe was transferred from a halfway house to the District of Columbia Detention Facility.
37. On a form related to Mr. Roe's transfer, officials of the Department of Corrections stated that Mr. Roe is infected with HIV. This form has become a permanent part of Mr. Roe's institutional records and is available for review by correctional staff. This form was signed by John Noble, the administrator of halfway houses. Mr. Noble is the final decisionmaker for the Department of Corrections concerning the operation of halfway houses.
38. There was no peneological purpose served by including Mr. Roe's HIV status on this form.

39. As a result of the statements on this form, Mr. Roe's HIV status has become known to correctional staff and to other prisoners.
40. As a result of having his HIV status revealed to correctional staff and to other prisoners,.Mr. Roe suffered humiliation, embarrassment and extreme emotional distress.
41. On or about November 3, 1991, Mr. Roe requested a prisoner work detail in the Medium Security Facility kitchen.
42. He was denied the kitchen job solely on the basis that he is infected with the HIV virus. There was no peneological or public health reason that Mr. Roe could not hold this position.
CAUSES OF ACTION I. First Cause of Action; Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Right to Privacy, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 43. Plaintiffs have a liberty interest in the confidentiality of their medical records and of private information concerning their health, which is protected by the due process guarantees of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. 44. Defendant District of Columbia violated plaintiffs' constitutionally protected right to privacy by: a. maintaining a policy of failing to train correctional officials concerning prisoners' rights to confidentiality of medical information;

b. maintaining a custom, pattern and practice of violating prisoners' rights to confidentiality of medical information; and
c. the participation in the denial of confidentiality to Ms. Zoe and Mr. Roe by a final agency decisionmaker.
45. Failure to Train Correctional Officials. The District of Columbia Department of Corrections has a policy to fail to properly train correctional officers concerning:
a. prisoners' right to the confidentiality of their medical records in general and of all information relating to their HIV status in particular; and
b. prisoners' right to be free from discrimination in participation in prison programs and work details.
46. Defendant District of Columbia's policy of failing to properly train correctional officers resulted in injury to the plaintiffs.
47. Custom, Pattern and Practice of Failing to Maintain Confidentiality of Records Related to Prisoners Infected with HIV. Defendant District of Columbia has a custom of being deliberately indifferent to the confidentiality of prisoner records related to HIV infection.
48. Plaintiffs were injured as a result of this custom. 49. Wrongful Conduct by Final Decisionmaker. The District of Columbia is liable for the injuries suffered by Karen Zoe and Samuel Roe when their right to privacy was violated because these injuries were caused by the conduct of a final decisionmaker.
10

II. Second Cause of Action, Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 42 U.S.C. §1983.
50. Plaintiffs were subjected to unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain when their HIV status was revealedl to other prisoners and to correctional staff. These injuries were caused by the deliberate indifference of the defendant by:
a. maintaining a policy of failing to train correctional officials concerning prisoners' rights to confidentiality of .medical information;
b. maintaining a custom, pattern and practice of violating prisoners1 rights to confidentiality of medical information; and
c. participation in the denial of confidentiality to Ms. Zoe and Mr. Roe by a final agency decisionmaker.
51. Failure to Train Correctional Officials. Th¡e District of Columbia Department of Corrections has a policy to fail to properly train correctional officers concerning:
a. prisoners' right to the confidentiality of their medical records in general, and of all information relating to their HIV status in particular; and
b. prisoners' right to be free from discrimination in participation in prison programs and work details.
52. Defendant District of Columbia's policy of failing to properly train correctional officers resulted in injury to the plaintiffs.
11

53. Custom, Pattern and Practice of Failing to Maintain confidentiality of Records Related to Prisoners Infected with HIV. Defendant District of Columbia has a custom of being deliberately indifferent to the confidentiality of prisoner records related to HIV infection.
54. Plaintiffs were injured as a result of this custom. 55. Wrongful Conduct by Final Decisionmaker. The District of Columbia is liable for the injuries suffered by Ms. Zoe and Mr. Roe when their HIV status was revealed to other prisoners and to correctional staff, because these injuries were caused by the conduct of a final decisionmaker. III. Third Cause of Action; Rehabilitation Act, 29 ü.S.C. § 794. . 56. Defendant District of Columbia is a program or agency for the. purposes of.the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. 57. Plaintiffs Ms. Zoe and Mr. Roe were excluded from participation, denied the benefits of and subjected to discrimination in the participation in programs offered by the defendant solely on the basis of their handicapping condition, to wit: HIV infection. IV. Fourth Cause of Action; District of Columbia Freedom of information Law, D.C. Code § 1-1521 et seq., Private Ri£ht of Action. 58. All records concerning plaintiffs' medical condition are protected from disclosure pursuant to D.C. Code § 1-1524(2).
12

59. Defendant violated plaintiffs' right to haye this information protected from disclosure by the actions alleged in this complaint, causing each plaintiff to suffer injury.
V. Fifth Cause of Action; Invasion of Privacy, r¡espondeat superior.
60. By the above stated actions, defendant's agents committed the tort of invasion of privacy, causing each plaintiff to suffer injury.
61. Defendant District of Columbia is liable pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.
VI. Sixth Cause of Action; Breach of Confidential Relationship, respondeat superior.
62. By the above stated actions, defendant's agents committed the tort of breach of confidential relationship, causing each plaintiff to suffer injury.
63. Defendant District of Columbia is liable purisuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.
VII. Seventh Cause of Action; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, respondeat superior.
64. By the above stated actions, defendant's agents committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, causing each plaintiff to suffer injury.
65. Defendant District of Columbia is liable pur$uant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13

Wherefore, plaintiffs respectfully request: 1. an award of compensatory damages appropriate to the proof presented at trial; 2. a declaratory judgment that their constitutional and statutory rights have been violated; 3. appropriate injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order prohibiting further disclosure of plaintiffs' HIV status or further discrimination against these plaintiffs; 4. reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and 5. such other relief as the Court deems just and necessary.
JURY REQUEST Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.
Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: March 11, 1992

Jonathan M.`¯' Smith, N|o. 396578 Áurie T. Hall, No. 4Í20157 D.C. Prisoners' Lega^l
Services Project, Inc. 1400 20th Street, N.W. Suite 117 Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 775-0323

14

 Doe v. District of Columbia, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1993)

1993 WL 128496 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Jane DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 92–635–LFO. | April 13, 1993.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
OBERDORFER, District Judge.
*1 This case alleges that the District of Columbia has breached the medical confidentiality of prisoners in various District of Columbia correctional facilities who are infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”). The case originally came before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.1 At a hearing on that motion on November 12, 1992, defendant agreed that the motion should be treated as a motion for summary judgment, and subsequently filed a statement of material facts not in dispute. Defendant did not, however, support the motion for summary judgment with an affidavit or other evidentiary material. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, supporting their pleading with affidavits and other evidentiary exhibits. See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Because the material facts proffered by defendant do not address the core allegations of the suit, because discovery is not yet complete, and because the record contains material facts in dispute, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, without prejudice to defendant’s ability to move for summary judgment again upon the close of discovery.
Plaintiffs are eight inmates in District of Columbia correctional facilities who sue under pseudonyms for physical and emotional injuries suffered when their HIV status was revealed, without their consent, by prison officials to inmates and other correctional staff. Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Fifth Amendment right to privacy and their Eighth Amendment rights. They further assert violations of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, pendent state law tort claims of invasion of privacy, breach of confidential relationship, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claims under the District of Columbia’s Freedom of Information Act, D.C.Code §

1–1521 et seq. Plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory relief, and a permanent injunction.
In its motion for summary judgment, defendant argues that no material facts are in dispute and that the Complaint should be dismissed. In support of this motion, defendant relies solely on explicit policies and procedures of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections that are designed to protect the confidentiality of inmate medical records. See Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts to Which There is no Genuine Dispute.
Defendant argues that in order to prevail on a § 1983 claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate that any breaches of medical confidentiality that have occurred resulted from an official policy of the District of Columbia government. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Defendant states that the D.C. government’s express policies regarding medical confidentiality establish “a very strict policy and training program regarding the treatment of prisoners with AIDS,” Def.Mem. at 19, thus precluding the existence of any contrary policy. Defendant argues that plaintiffs, once failing on the § 1983 claim, cannot proceed on the pendent municipal and common law claims.
*2 Plaintiffs concede that the D.C. Department of Corrections has formal policies prohibiting breaches of medical confidentiality for HIV positive inmates. See Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts for which a Genuine Dispute Exists at 1–3. They correctly point out, however, that under Monell, local governments
may be sued for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental “custom” even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body’s official decisionmaking channels ... “Although not authorized by written law, such practices of state officials could well be so permanent and well settled a to constitute a ‘custom or usage’ with the force of law.”
Monell, 436 U.S. at 690–91 (citation and footnote omitted). See also Garcia v. Salt Lake City, 768 F.2d 303, 310 (10th Cir.1985) (“combined acts or omissions of several employees acting under a governmental policy or custom may violate an individual’s constitutional rights.”)
The mere existence of contrary formal policies by the D.C. government, therefore, cannot conclusively establish defendant’s actual policy and practice regarding the treatment of HIV positive inmates. Plaintiffs’ pleadings and the supporting record allege that the medical confidentiality of eight different inmates has been breached at five different D.C. correctional facilities. Defendant has presented no evidence that the alleged incidents did not occur. Plaintiffs argue that, once discovery is completed, they will be able to establish
1

Doe v. District of Columbia, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1993)

conclusively that such breaches are not isolated incidents, as defendant suggests, but constitute a de facto policy on the part of the D.C. government, reflected in custom, pattern, and practice, inadequate training, and the decisions of final decisionmakers.
Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts and offered sufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff may be able to prevail on this claim once discovery is completed. Because it is apparent that material facts remain in dispute, therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, without prejudice to defendant’s ability to renew the motion once discovery is completed.
3

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is this 13th day of April, 1993, hereby
ORDERED: that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be treated as Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and it is further
ORDERED: that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be, and is hereby, DENIED, without prejudice to defendant’s ability to renew the motion once discovery is completed.
	
  

Footnotes

1

See Memorandum of Points in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s [sic] Complaint at 10.

	
  

2

 District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 1 of 12

CLOSED, JURY, TYPE-E
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:92-cv-00635-LFO

DOE, et al v. DC Assigned to: Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff SALLY ROE
Plaintiff KAREN ZOE
Plaintiff ANTONIO SANTOS
Plaintiff SAMUEL ROE
Plaintiff JANE DOE
Plaintiff RICHARD POE

Date Filed: 03/11/1992 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Aurie Talbor Hall OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE 201 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201 (410) 234-1091 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aurie Talbor Hall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aurie Talbor Hall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aurie Talbor Hall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aurie Talbor Hall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aurie Talbor Hall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 2 of 12

Plaintiff JEAN COE
Plaintiff PETER FOE
V. Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aurie Talbor Hall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aurie Talbor Hall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Maria-Claudia T. Amato CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 441 Fourth Street, NW Sixth Floor Washington, DC 20011 (202) 724-6642 Fax: (202) 727-3625 Email: maria.amato@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/11/1992 03/11/1992
03/11/1992 03/11/1992 04/09/1992

#

Docket Text

1 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to seal the applications to proceed in forma pauperis, the affirmance and all subsequent pleadings using pseudonyms (adc) (Entered: 03/16/1992)

2 ORDER by Judge John G. Penn : granting motion to seal the applications to proceed in forma pauperis, the affirmance and all subsequent pleadings using pseudonyms [1-1] by SAMUEL ROE, JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE, JOHN DOE (N) (adc) (Entered: 03/16/1992)

3 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to proceed in forma pauperis placed under seal in the Vault in Room 1800 (adc) (Entered: 03/16/1992)

4 COMPLAINT filed summons (1) issued ; affirmation revealing the plaintiffs names placed under seal in the Vault in Room 1800 (adc) (Entered: 03/16/1992)

5 MOTION filed by defendant DC to extend time to 5/8/92 to respond to complaint (sm) (Entered: 04/10/1992)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 3 of 12

04/14/1992 04/14/1992 04/15/1992 05/01/1992 05/08/1992 05/12/1992 05/12/1992 05/19/1992
05/19/1992
05/26/1992 05/27/1992
05/27/1992 05/27/1992 06/08/1992 06/16/1992

6 REQUEST by plaintiff(s) to defendant DC for production of documents (sm) (Entered: 04/15/1992)
7 INTERROGATORIES filed by plaintiff(s) to defendant DC (sm) (Entered: 04/15/1992)
8 RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) in opposition to motion to extend time to 5/8/92 to respond to complaint [5-1] by DC (sm) (Entered: 04/16/1992)
9 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : granting motion to extend time to 5/8/92 to respond to complaint [5-1] by DC brief due 5/8/92 ; (N) (sm) (Entered: 05/04/1992)
10 MOTION filed by defendant DC to extend time to 5/12/92 within which to respond to the complaint (sm) (Entered: 05/11/1992)
11 MOTION filed by defendant DC to dismiss (sm) (Entered: 05/13/1992)
12 MOTION filed by defendant DC for protective order (sm) (Entered: 05/13/1992)
13 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiff(s) SALLY ROE, KAREN ZOE, JOHN DOE, SAMUEL ROE and JANE DOE of defendant DC at the Offices of the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, at 10:00 a.m. on June 22, 1992 (adc) (Entered: 05/22/1992)
14 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiff(s) SALLY ROE, KAREN ZOE, JOHN DOE, SAMUEL ROE and JANE DOE of Mary Campbell (9:00 a.m.) and William Hall, M.D. (1:00 p.m.) at the Offices of the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc. (adc) (Entered: 05/22/1992)
15 RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss [11-1] by DC (adc) (Entered: 05/28/1992)
16 ERRATA by plaintiff(s) to correct an error in the Certificate of Service attached to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint from May 25, 1992 to May 26, 1992 (adc) (Entered: 05/28/1992)
17 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff(s) in opposition to defendant's motion for protective order [12-1] by DC (adc) (Entered: 05/28/1992)
18 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to compel discovery (adc) (Entered: 05/28/1992)
19 MOTION filed by defendant DC to extend time to within which to respond to plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss and defendant's motion for a protective order (adc) (Entered: 06/11/1992)
20 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : granting motion to extend time to 6/18/92 within which to respond to plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss and defendant's motion for a protective order [19-1] by DC (N) (mon) (Entered: 06/16/1992)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 4 of 12

06/16/1992 06/16/1992
06/16/1992 06/16/1992 06/19/1992 06/19/1992 06/19/1992 06/22/1992
07/27/1992 08/05/1992 08/05/1992 08/05/1992 08/05/1992 08/05/1992 08/05/1992

21 AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff(s) adding RICHARD POE amending complaint [4-1] (adc) (Entered: 06/18/1992)
22 RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) in opposition to motion for protective order [12-1] by DC, motion to dismiss [11-1] by DC, motion to extend time to 5/12/92 within which to respond to the complaint [10-1] by DC (adc) (Entered: 06/18/1992)
23 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to file affirmance under seal , and for a protective order (adc) (Entered: 06/18/1992)
24 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiff(s) of plaintiff RICHARD POE on June 23, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. (adc) (Entered: 06/18/1992)
25 REPLY by defendant DC to plaintiffs' opposition to motion to dismiss [11-1] by DC (adc) (Entered: 06/22/1992)
26 REPLY by defendant DC to plaintiffs' opposition to motion for protective order [12-1] by DC (adc) (Entered: 06/22/1992)
27 RESPONSE by defendant DC in opposition to motion to compel discovery [18-1] by JANE DOE, SAMUEL ROE, JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE (adc) (Entered: 06/22/1992)
28 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : granting motion to compel discovery [18-1] by JANE DOE, SAMUEL ROE, JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE, denying motion for protective order [12-1] by DC motion hearing set for 1:45 9/11/92 on motion to dismiss ; (N) (mon) (Entered: 06/22/1992)
29 ANSWER by defendant DC to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories; attachments (adc) (Entered: 07/28/1992)
30 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiff(s) of John Noble at the offices of D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc. on 9/23/92 at 1:00 p.m. (adc) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
31 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiff(s) of David Roach on 9/23/92, at the offices of D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc. at 9:30 a.m. (adc) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
32 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiff(s) of Arthur Graves at the offices of D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., on 9/17/92, at 1:00 p.m. (adc) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
33 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION (amended) by plaintiff(s) of William Hall, M.D. at the offices of D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., on 8/25/92 at 10:00 a.m. (adc) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
34 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION (amended) by plaintiff(s) of Mary Campbell at the offices of D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., at 10:00 a.m., on 8/24/92 (adc) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
35 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiff(s) of defendant DC on 8/19/92 at 10:00 a.m., at the offices of D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 5 of 12

08/14/1992 08/20/1992 08/31/1992
09/01/1992 09/04/1992
09/15/1992 09/21/1992 09/28/1992 10/15/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992

Project, Inc. (adc) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
36 ANSWER (supplemental) by defendant DC to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories; attachment (dot) (Entered: 08/17/1992)
37 MOTION filed by defendant DC to continue the 9/11/92 hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss to 9/18/92 at 1:45 p.m. (adc) (Entered: 08/21/1992)
38 ORDER by Judge Stanley Sporkin : granting motion to continue the 9/11/92 hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss to 9/18/92 at 1:45 p.m. [37-1] by DC motion hearing set for 1:45 9/18/92 ; (N) (mon) (Entered: 08/31/1992)
39 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiff(s) of plaintiff(s) RICHARD POE on 9/14/92, at 11:00 a.m., at the Maximum Security Facility at Lorton, Virginia (adc) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
40 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) SALLY ROE, plaintiff(s) KAREN ZOE, plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE, plaintiff(s) SAMUEL ROE, plaintiff(s) JANE DOE, plaintiff(s) RICHARD POE to amend complaint [4-1] ; EXHIBIT (SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT) (dot) (Entered: 09/08/1992)
41 MOTION filed by defendant DC to continue motions hearing to 10/13/92 (adc) (Entered: 09/16/1992)
42 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : granting motion to continue motions hearing until further order of the Court. (N) (mon) (Entered: 09/21/1992)
43 SECOND INTERROGATORIES and request to produce documents filed by plaintiff(s) JANE DOE, et al. to defendant DC (pob) (Entered: 09/29/1992)
44 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for discovery sanctions ; exhibits (7) (adc) (Entered: 10/16/1992)
45 INTERROGATORIES (first set) filed by defendant DC to plaintiff(s) RICHARD POE (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
46 REQUEST by defendant DC to plaintiff(s) RICHARD POE for production of documents (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
47 INTERROGATORIES (first set) filed by defendant DC to plaintiff(s) SAMUEL ROE (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
48 INTERROGATORIES (first set) filed by defendant DC to plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
49 INTERROGATORIES (first set) filed by defendant DC to plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
50 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by defendant DC of plaintiff(s) KAREN ZOE on 12/8/92 at 10:00 a.m., at the Medium Security Facility (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 6 of 12

10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992 10/20/1992

51 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by defendant DC of plaintiff(s) SALLY ROE on 12/7/92 at 2:00 p.m., at the Minimum Security Facility (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
52 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by defendant DC of plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE on 12/9/92 at 10:00 a.m., at the Central Facility (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
53 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by defendant DC of plaintiff(s) SAMUEL ROE on 12/9/92 at 2:00 p.m., at the Medium Security Facility (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
54 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by defendant DC of plaintiff(s) RICHARD POE on 12/10/92 at 10:00 a.m. at the Offices of Defense Counsel (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
55 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by defendant DC of plaintiff(s) JANE DOE on 12/7/92 at 10:00 a.m., at the Minimum Security Facility (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
56 INTERROGATORIES (first set) filed by defendant DC to plaintiff(s) JANE DOE (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
57 REQUEST by defendant DC to plaintiff(s) JANE DOE for production of documents (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
58 INTERROGATORIES (first set) filed by defendant DC to plaintiff(s) KAREN ZOE (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
59 REQUEST by defendant DC to plaintiff(s) KAREN ZOE for production of documents (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
60 INTERROGATORIES (first set) filed by defendant DC to plaintiff(s) SALLY ROE (adc) (Entered: 10/21/1992)
70 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by defendant DC of Jean Coe on 12/8/92 at 2:00 p.m., at the Correctional Treatment Facility (adc) (Entered: 11/12/1992)
71 INTERROGATORIES (first set) filed by defendant DC Jean Coe (adc) (Entered: 11/12/1992)
72 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by defendant DC of Peter Foe on 12/10/92 at 10:00 a.m., at the office of defense counsel (adc) (Entered: 11/12/1992)
73 INTERROGATORIES filed by defendant DC of Peter Foe (adc) (Entered: 11/12/1992)
74 REQUEST by defendant DC to plaintiff(s) SALLY ROE for production of documents (adc) (Entered: 11/12/1992)
75 REQUEST by defendant DC for production of documents to Peter Foe (adc) (Entered: 11/12/1992)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 7 of 12

10/22/1992
11/03/1992 11/05/1992 11/05/1992 11/10/1992 11/10/1992
11/12/1992 11/12/1992 11/12/1992 11/13/1992 11/16/1992
11/16/1992 11/16/1992 11/18/1992

61 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiff(s) a proposed order in compliance with Local Rule 108(k), to supplement the order which was filed with plaintiffs' motion for sanctions on 10/15/92; order sent to Chambers (adc) (Entered: 10/23/1992)
62 MOTION filed by defendant DC to extend time to an additional two days to within which to oppose to plaintiffs' motion for discovery sanctions (adc) (Entered: 11/04/1992)
63 MOTION filed by defendant DC to extend time to 11/30/92 to answer plaintiffs' second set of interrogatories and request for production of documents (adc) (Entered: 11/06/1992)
64 RESPONSE by defendant DC in opposition to motion for discovery sanctions [44-1] by SAMUEL ROE, JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE (adc) (Entered: 11/06/1992)
65 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : motion hearing set for 1:45 11/12/92 ; (N) (mon) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
66 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : granting motion to extend time to an additional two days to 11/5/92 within which to oppose to plaintiffs' motion for discovery sanctions [62-1] by DC (N) (mon) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
67 RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) in opposition to motion to extend time to 11/30/92 to answer plaintiffs' second set of interrogatories and request for production of documents [63-1] by DC (adc) (Entered: 11/12/1992)
68 REPLY by plaintiff(s)to defendant's` response to motion for discovery sanctions [44-1] by SAMUEL ROE, JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE (adc) (Entered: 11/12/1992)
69 RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by plaintiff(s) to defendant's cross motion for sanctions and costs (adc) (Entered: 11/12/1992)
STATUS HEARING before Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : plaintiffs' motion for sanctons is withdrawn. Reporter: Vernell Marshall (mon) (Entered: 11/13/1992)
76 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : granting motion to extend time to 11/30/92 to answer plaintiffs' second set of interrogatories and request for production of documents [63-1] by DC (N) (mon) (Entered: 11/16/1992)
77 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : granting motion to amend complaint [4-1] [40-1] by plaintiff(s)sssss (N) (mon) (Entered: 11/17/1992)
114 AMENDED COMPLAINT (second) by plaintiff(s) adding JEAN COE, PETER FOE amending complaint [4-1] (adc) (Entered: 02/24/1993)
78 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to extend time to 11/18/92 to file stipulation concerning discovery ; exhibit (adc) Modified on 11/19/1992

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 8 of 12

11/18/1992
11/23/1992 11/23/1992 11/23/1992 11/23/1992 11/23/1992 11/23/1992 11/23/1992 11/23/1992 11/23/1992 11/23/1992 11/23/1992 11/23/1992 11/24/1992
11/30/1992 11/30/1992 12/02/1992

(Entered: 11/19/1992)
79 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : granting motion to extend time to 11/18/92 to file stipulation concerning discovery [78-1] by JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE (N) (mon) (Entered: 11/20/1992)
80 RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) to defendant's request for production of documents (adc) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
81 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to extend time to 12/2/92 to file executed interrogatory answers (adc) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
82 ANSWER by plaintiff(s) KAREN ZOE to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
83 ANSWER by plaintiff(s) JANE DOE to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
84 ANSWER by plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
85 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff(s) SALLY ROE to request [74-1] by DC (adc) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
86 ANSWER by Jean Coe to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
87 ANSWER by Peter Foe to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
88 ANSWER by plaintiff(s) RICHARD POE to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
89 ANSWER by plaintiff(s) SAMUEL ROE to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
90 REQUEST (supplemental) by plaintiff(s) to defendant DC for production of documents (adc) (Entered: 11/23/1992)
91 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC the statement of material facts to which there is no genuine dispute (adc) (Entered: 11/24/1992)
92 STIPULATION filed and fiated by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer regarding certain interrogatories; that plaintiffs withdraw their motion for sanctions without prejudie to refile and that defendant withdraws its cross motion for sanctions without prejudice to refile . (N) (pob) (Entered: 11/25/1992)
93 ANSWER by plaintiff(s) KAREN ZOE to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
94 ANSWER by Jean Coe to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
95 ANSWER by plaintiff(s) JANE DOE to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) Modified on 12/03/1992 (Entered: 12/03/1992)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 9 of 12

12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/02/1992 12/07/1992
12/07/1992 12/10/1992 12/11/1992 12/18/1992
12/21/1992 12/21/1992 12/21/1992 12/21/1992 12/22/1992
12/23/1992
12/23/1992 12/28/1992
12/30/1992

96 ANSWER by plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) Modified on 12/03/1992 (Entered: 12/03/1992)
97 ANSWER by plaintiff(s) SAMUEL ROE to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 12/03/1992)
98 ANSWER by plaintiff(s) RICHARD POE to defendant's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 12/03/1992)
99 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : granting motion to extend time to 12/2/92 to file executed interrogatory answers [81-1] by JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE (N) (mon) (Entered: 12/07/1992)
100 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for discovery sanctions (adc) (Entered: 12/08/1992)
111 RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) in opposition to motion for summary judgment; exhibits (7) (adc) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
112 MEMORANDUM by defendant DC in opposition to request for jury trial; "Let this be filed" (adc) (Entered: 01/04/1993)
101 RESPONSE by defendant DC in opposition to motion for discovery sanctions [100-1] by JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE (adc) (Entered: 12/22/1992)
102 RESPONSE by defendant DC to plaintiffs' supplemental request for production of documents (adc) (Entered: 12/22/1992)
103 ANSWER by defendant DC to interrogatories and response to second request for production of documents [43-1] (adc) (Entered: 12/22/1992)
104 RESPONSE by defendant DC to plaintiffs' request for production of documents (adc) (Entered: 12/22/1992)
105 RESPONSE by defendant DC to plaintiffs' request for production of documents (adc) (Entered: 12/22/1992)
106 REPLY by plaintiff(s)to defendant's response to motion for discovery sanctions [100-1] by JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE (adc) (Entered: 12/24/1992)
107 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC defendant's answers to plaintiffs' second interrogatories and request for production of documents and second supplemental answers of defendant DC to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 12/24/1992)
108 ANSWER (second supplemental) by defendant DC to interrogatories (adc) (Entered: 12/24/1992)
109 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION (amended) by plaintiff(s) of defendant DC on 1/14/93 and 1/15/93 at the offices of D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., at 10:00 a.m. (adc) (Entered: 12/29/1992)
110 REPLY by defendant DC to response to motion for discovery sanctions

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 10 of 12

01/13/1993
03/01/1993 03/15/1993 03/18/1993 03/24/1993 03/24/1993 03/29/1993 04/02/1993 04/05/1993 04/08/1993
04/08/1993
04/13/1993

[100-1] by JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE (dot) (Entered: 12/30/1992)
113 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : granting motion for discovery sanctions [100-1] by JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE; awarding plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $80; (N) (mon) (Entered: 01/13/1993)
115 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to compel discovery responses , and for discovery sanctions ; exhibits (7) (adc) (Entered: 03/01/1993)
116 RESPONSE by defendant DC in opposition to motion to compel discovery responses [115-1] by SAMUEL ROE, JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE ; exhibits (3) (adc) (Entered: 03/16/1993)
117 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to extend time to 4/2/93 to file a reply to defendant's oppositon to plaintiffs' third motion to compel discovery responses and for discovery sanctions (adc) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
118 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant to defendant's opposition to plaintiff's third motion to compel discovery responses and for discovery sanctions [116-1] by DC (adc) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
119 ANSWER (supplemental) by defendant DC to plaintiff's second interrogatories and response to request for production of documents [431] (adc) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
120 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : motion hearing set for 1:45 4/8/93 ; (N) (mon) (Entered: 03/29/1993)
121 REPLY by plaintiff(s) to defendant's response to motion to compel discovery responses [115-1] by SAMUEL ROE, JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE (adc) (Entered: 04/05/1993)
122 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to continue hearing currently scheduled for 4/8/93 at 1:45 p.m. and to reschedule the hearing for 4/13/93 at 1:45 p.m. (adc) (Entered: 04/07/1993)
123 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer: granting motion to extend time to 4/2/93 to file a reply to defendant's oppositon to plaintiffs' third motion to compel discovery responses and for discovery sanctions [117-1] by JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE (N) (pob) (Entered: 04/09/1993)
ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer granting motion to continue hearing currently scheduled for 4/8/93 at 1:45 p.m. and to reschedule the hearing for 4/13/93 at 1:45 p.m. [122-1] by JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE (fiat) (N) (adc) (Entered: 04/09/1993)
124 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : Treating defendants' motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and denying motion to dismiss/summary judgment [11-1] by DC (N) (mon) (Entered: 04/13/1993)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 11 of 12

04/13/1993
04/13/1993 04/19/1993 04/19/1993 04/28/1993 04/28/1993
05/17/1993
05/17/1993 05/17/1993 06/03/1993 06/04/1993
06/14/1993 06/25/1993 06/29/1993 07/14/1993 07/19/1993

MOTION HEARING before Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer motion hearing continued to 1:45 4/19/93 for further hearing on the motion ; Reporter: Marilyn Young (mon) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
125 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION (amended) by plaintiff(s) of defendant DC (adc) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
STATUS HEARING before Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : Reporter: Santa Zizzo (mon) (Entered: 04/19/1993)
126 NOTICE OF FILING (joint) by plaintiff(s) and defendant (adc) (Entered: 04/20/1993)
127 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : , setting status hearing for 9:30 6/4/93 ; (N) (mon) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
128 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : finding motion to compel discovery responses by SAMUEL ROE, JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE [115-1] moot, finding motion for discovery sanctions by SAMUEL ROE, JOHN DOE, KAREN ZOE, SALLY ROE [115-2] moot (N) (mon) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
129 ANSWER (second supplemental) by defendant DC to interrogatories and response to request for production of documents [90-1] (adc) (Entered: 05/18/1993)
130 RESPONSE (second) by defendant DC to request for production of documents (adc) (Entered: 05/18/1993)
133 ANSWER by defendant DC to (second) amended complaint; jury demand (adc) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
131 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff(s), defendants to continue status hearing (dot) (Entered: 06/03/1993)
132 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : granting joint motion to continue status hearing [131-1] by plaintiff(s), defendant, plaintiff(s) status hearing set for 9:30 on 6/25/93 in courtroom 3 (N) (adc) (Entered: 06/04/1993)
134 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : striking amended complaint answer [133-1] by DC (N) (adc) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
STATUS HEARING before Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : Reporter: Santa Zizzo (mon) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
135 PROPOSED (pretrial) SCHEDULE plan by plaintiff(s), defendants, (adc) (Entered: 06/30/1993)
136 ANSWER by defendant DC to amended complaint; jury demand (adc) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
137 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION (amended) of David Roach, John Noble, Officer Ashford, Officer Ware, Officer Perrier, Officer Champion, Officer Dugger, Officer Jenkins, Officer Bridges and Dr. Tabrizi starting on 9/8/93 at 9:30 a.m. by plaintiff(s). (adc) (Entered: 07/20/1993)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 12 of 12

07/29/1993 08/10/1993
08/31/1993

138 MOTION filed by defendant DC for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (adc) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
139 ORDER by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer : Directing District of Columbia to pay the D>C> Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc the sume of $37,500 in full settlement of all plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees and costs.(N) (mon) (Entered: 08/10/1993)
140 STIPULATION filed and fiated by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer regarding dismissal of this action with prejudice.. (N) (mon) (Entered: 08/31/1993)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

06/16/2005 16:21:10

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:92-cv-00635-LFO

Billable Pages: 7

Cost:

0.56

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?682173886501486-L_280_0-1

6/16/2005


In March 1992, inmates infected with HIV in the District of Columbia's Lorton Prison filed suit in the District of DC against the District of Columbia, represented by an attorney from the Open Society Initiative.  Plaintiffs sued using pseudonyms under section 1983 for violation of their Fifth Amendment right to privacy and Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.  In addition, certain plaintiffs sued for violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section 794, for discrimination in the participation of programs offered by the defendant.  Plaintiffs also alleged violations of the DC Freedom of Information Law, D.C. Code section 1-1521, based on defendant's disclosure of confidential medical records.  Finally, plaintiffs alleged breach of confidential relationship, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Plaintiffs sought damages, declaratory relief, and a permanent injunction.  

In May 1992, defendant moved to dismiss the action.  In November 1992, at the hearing on that motion, defendant agreed that the motion should be treated as a motion for summary judgment and filed a statement of material facts not in dispute.  Doe v. District of Columbia, 1993 WL 128496 (D.D.C. April 13, 1993).  In his order dated April 1993, Judge Louis Oberdorfer denied defendant's motion for summary judgment due to lack of evidence of undisputable facts.  

The docket reveals that the case subsequently settled.  Although the underlying agreement itself does not appear in the docket, there is a motion for adoption of a consent order about attorneys' fees, as well as an order granting D.C. Prisoners Legal Services Project $37,500 in fees, and an August, 1993 stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice.

