Input:
Roe v. Meachum
lllll
PC-CT-007-001
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT-!,,

Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LARRY MEACHUM, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction;
TERRE MARSHALL, Director, Health Services, Connecticut Department of Correction;
JAMES SINGER, Director, Forensic Health Services, Connecticut Department of Correction;
DANIEL BENWELL, Warden, Bridgeport Community Correctional Center; and
LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., Governor, State of Connecticut, in their official capacities,
Defendants

CIVIL NO.
7??/
FEBRUARY 24, 1993

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION 1. This civil rights class action challenges policies and
practices of the defendant officials of the Connecticut Department of Correction ("DOC") pertaining to the care and custody of plaintiff inmates who are or will be incarcerated at the Bridgeport Community Correctional Center ("BCC"), who require, or will require, mental health services. Plaintiffs challenge these policies and practices as violative of their rights guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. S1983, and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §794 et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987), and seek declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy defendants' unlawful actions, inactions, policies, practices and procedures described herein.
2. Plaintiffs allege that defendants are deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, that plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from a lack of adequate mental health care due to defendants' failure to ensure that inmates in need of mental health care at an inpatient mental health facility are transferred to an appropriate facility in a timely fashion; defendants' failure to provide adequate mental health care facilities and mental health care staff (including Spanishspeaking staff) at BCC; defendants' inadequate staff training and instruction concerning the mental health needs of inmates; defendants' inadequate suicide prevention, seclusion and restraint policies and practices; defendants' failure to

- 3-

evaluate and diagnose the mental health needs of inmates

adequately and defendants' corresponding failure to create and

• maintain adequate treatment plans for such inmates; defendants'

, improper administration and monitoring of plaintiffs'

psychotropic medications; defendants' inadequate record keeping

and documentation of plaintiffs' mental health care needs and

: treatments; and defendants' inadequate discharge policies and

; procedures, all of which have or will cause plaintiffs and the

class they represent unnecessary physical and emotional

suffering and jeopardize the lives of plaintiffs and class

members.

II. JURISDICTION

:

3. This action is authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1983, and

jurisdiction over this action is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §1331

and §1343 (3)(4) .

4. A declaratory judgment is authorized pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §2201 and §2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedures. Injunctive relief is authorized by Rule 65 of the

I Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. An award of costs and

i attorneys' fees is authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1988.

I III. PARTIES

i

f Plaintiffs

|

!

5. Plaintiff Edward Roe is, and at all times pertinent

i

\ herein was, a citizen of the United States. He is a sentenced

1 inmate committed to the care and custody of defendants and is

- 4-
presently incarcerated at the BCC. Plaintiff Roe suffers from mental illnesses, has previously been institutionalized at Fairfield Hills Mental Hospital for treatment of his condition, and currently requires mental health services.
6. Plaintiff Evan Moe is, and at all times pertinent herein was, a citizen of the United States. He is a pretrial i inmate committed to the care and custody of defendants and is incarcerated at BCC. Plaintiff Moe suffers from mental illnesses, epilepsy and is mentally retarded. He requires, and has been denied, mental health treatment and protection from other inmates.
7. Plaintiff David Coe is, and at all times pertinent herein was, a citizen of the United States. He is a sentenced inmate committed to the care and custody of defendants and is incarcerated at BCC. Plaintiff Coe is of Puerto Rican descent and is a native Spanish-speaker. Plaintiff Coe reads, writes and speaks very little English. Plaintiff Coe has made numerous suicide attempts as a result of his mental illnesses and has .: previously been diagnosed as schizophrenic. He has been denied ,\ mental health treatment for these conditions. [•• 8. Plaintiff John Doe is, and at all times pertinent • herein was, a citizen of the United States. He is a pretrial ' inmate committed to the care and custody of defendants and is : incarcerated at BCC. Plaintiff Doe suffers from mental . illnesses, requires and has been denied mental health treatment

- 5 -

for conditions for which Plaintiff Doe has previously been

institutionalized at Fairfield Hills Mental Hospital.

Defendants

9. Defendant L a r r y Meachum i s , and at all times p e r t i n e n t

herein was, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of

Correction. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §18-81, he is

:; responsible for the o v e r a l l supervision and d i r e c t i o n of a l l DOC

'•"•. institutions (including B C C , w h e r e plaintiffs are c o n f i n e d ) ; for

the promulgation and implementation of all administrative

directives, policies, practices and procedures of the Department

of Correction; and for protecting the safety and welfare of all

inmates committed to his care and custody. He is sued in his

official capacity.

10. Defendant Terre Marshall is, and at all times

pertinent herein was, Director of Health Services within DOC and

as such has overall responsibility for all clinical practices,

field services, operational support and quality assurance for

;! BCC mental health c a r e . She is sued in her official c a p a c i t y .

:.:

11. Defendant James Singer is, and at all times pertinent

herein was, Director of Forensic Services within DOC Health

, Services Division and as such serves as director of all mental i! i: health services w i t h i n DOC. He is sued in h i s o f f i c i a l ji

ji capacity.

.i

12. Defendant Daniel Benwell is, and at all times

[' pertinent herein w a s , Warden of Bridgeport C o m m u n i t y !!

- 6-
Correctional Center. He is responsible for the overall supervision and direction of all facilities and services at BCC where plaintiffs are incarcerated. He is sued in his official capacity.
13. Defendant Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. is, and at all times pertinent herein was, Governor of the State of Connecticut. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§3-1, 4-6, and 18-80, he is vested with the supreme executive power of the state, with appointment and oversight authority over the Commissioner of Correction and authority to take proper actions to protect Connecticut's citizens. He is sued in his official capacity.

- 7-
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 14. The named plaintiffs bring this action as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(l) and (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
15. The plaintiffs, Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe and John Doe, are all inmates who are committed to defendants' care and custody; who suffer from mental illnesses and who are currently in need of mental health services and treatment or will require mental health services in the future; and who have been subjected to defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional actions and inactions in denying them adequate mental health care.
16. The class plaintiffs seek to represent is composed of all inmates who are, or will be subject to defendants' care and custody at Bridgeport Community Correctional Center and who require, or will require, mental health services resulting from their mental illnesses.
17. Plaintiffs further seek to represent a subclass composed of all inmates who are, or will be subject to defendants' care and custody at Bridgeport Community Correctional Center and who require, or will require, mental health services resulting from their mental illnesses, whose
!I primary language is Spanish and who read, write and speak very
•i
ji
;• little, if any, English.

- 8-

18. The class and subclass are so numerous that joinder of

all members is impracticable. Based on defendants' estimates,

;• set forth at paras. 25-27 below, the size of the putative class

is approximately 200-700 persons. The subclass is a subset of

that number and the number of BCC inmates of Hispanic origin,

approximately 26%, or 52-182 persons.

]'• 19. There are questions of law and fact common to the ;; members of the plaintiff class and subclass in that:

\

a. defendants' challenged policies, procedures and

practices have been imposed and operate system-wide within BCC;

• they affect all class and subclass members, and deny all class

and subclass members their rights under the Eighth and

; Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42

U.S.C. §1983, and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;

b. all members of the plaintiff class and subclass

seek injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent future

i violations of their constitutional and statutory rights.

,

20. The claims of the representative parties are typical

|

j of the claims of the class and subclass in that the

! constitutional and statutory deprivations caused by defendants
i
I and claimed by named plaintiffs are the same as for all other i I members of the class and subclass. The named plaintiffs, like

all other class and subclass members, are inmates who are

committed to defendants' care and custody at BCC; who suffer

from mental illnesses and require, or who will require mental

- 9-
health services; who have been or will be subjected to defendants' challenged policies, procedures, and practices; and who challenge these policies, procedures, and practices as violative of their federal constitutional and statutory rights.
21. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and subclass. The named plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to those of the class and subclass. Further, the plaintiffs are represented by attorneys experienced in federal constitutional litigation and class actions.
22. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class and subclass would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendants.
23. Defendants have consistently acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class and subclass as a whole, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class and subclass as a whole. V. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Population of BCC Requires Mental Health Services. 24. BCC is a high-security correctional facility within DOC designed to have a maximum capacity of 900 inmates, with a

- 10 -
present inmate population of approximately 1,000 pretrial and sentenced inmates.
25. Approximately 15-25% of inmates incarcerated at BCC are in immediate need of mental health services. DOC has estimated that at any given time within the facility there are approximately ten inmates with mental health crises posing a jj danger to themselves or others; fifty inmates in need of inpatient mental health care; and 140 inmates in need of outpatient mental health care.
26. In addition to the 15-25% of inmates in immediate need of mental health services described above, as many as 50% of all inmates at BCC have a history of mental illness and are likely to need mental health services during their incarceration at BCC.
27. According to DOC's most recent Annual Report, 26.14% of inmates committed to defendant Meachum's care and custody are of Hispanic origin. Thus, the putative subclass ranges in possible size from approximately 52 to 182 persons.
B. Named Plaintiffs. 28. Plaintiff Edward Roe suffers from major depression, among other mental illnesses. This condition puts him at risk of suicide, which is documented in defendants' files. 29. Despite defendants' knowledge of plaintiff Roe's risk •'• of suicide, defendants' administration of his psychotropic '' medications has been erratic.

- 11 -

30. Plaintiff Roe continues to require mental health

services, including mental health counselling for depression and

;, monitoring of his mental condition to control for psychiatric

' crises, including suicidal crises, and monitoring of his

psychotropic medications, services which defendants are not

.: adequately providing. This may exacerbate plaintiff Roe's

|; mental illnesses and puts plaintiff Roe at risk of future

!; physical harm.

I

31. Plaintiff Evan Moe is a mentally-retarded epileptic

who was under the custody of the Connecticut Department of ; Mental Retardation prior to his incarceration at BCC, and

requires inpatient mental health services at BCC.

32. Despite his need for inpatient services, plaintiff Moe

is housed in general population at BCC, where he frequently

suffers from epileptic seizures. Plaintiff Moe has been injured

on several occasions at BCC from falling down during a seizure

• ! or hallucination.

33. As a result of his mental retardation and epilepsy,

plaintiff Moe is also vulnerable to hostility and aggression of

other inmates in general population, and requires inpatient

and/or other protective care within the institution.

34. Despite his well-documented vulnerabilities, defendants

house plaintiff Moe in general population with no special care,

protection or facilities. As a result, Evan Moe has frequently

been beaten and physically abused by other inmates at BCC.

- 12 -

35. Plaintiff David Coe has a history of serious mental

illnesses, including repeated self-mutilations. Despite this

history, and defendants' treatment of plaintiff Coe' with

substantial doses of anti-psychotic medications, there is no

record of David Coe's having ever received a comprehensive

psychiatric evaluation at BCC, nor is there any apparent

treatment plan for plaintiff Coe.

';

36. Instead, plaintiff Coe has most frequently been

"treated" for his psychotic episodes and suicidal periods with

four-point restraints, including metal hand and ankle cuffs, in

isolation cells where he is locked-down for days at a time.

Such treatment has exacerbated David Coe's mental illnesses and

has increased his risk of physical harm. Recently, plaintiff

Coe complained to BCC staff that he was having severe mental

problems, including suicidal thoughts. He was placed in

disciplinary segregation in four point restraints, which he

broke in a psychotic episode. Plaintiff Coe was then

disciplined for having destroyed state property (i.e., the

!: medically inappropriate restraints), and sent back to
i.
• disciplinary segregation with no mental health care.

37. Plaintiff John Doe has a history of mental illness and ij
,; substance abuse. H e was released from defendants' custody in

September, 1992, to Fairfield Hills Mental Hospital for

|i treatment following a finding that he was incompetent to face

' criminal charges. In November, 1992, John Doe was returned to

- 13 -
BCC because he had been determined to have had his legal competency restored, but continues to suffer from mental , illnesses which require mental health treatment.
38. Despite this history, plaintiff Doe has been seen by BCC mental health staff only once since his return. Although he i was scheduled for a psychiatric evaluation on November 10, 1992, '• upon information and belief no such evaluation has ever been performed, and BCC appears to have misplaced plaintiff Doe's prior mental health records.
39. Although plaintiffs Edward Roe, Evan Moe and David Coe are all receiving substantial dosages of psychotropic medications, upon information and belief, they did not have a base-line EKG and blood test done prior to being prescribed and administered such medications, and since they have been taking such medication they have not had appropriate blood-level checks, EKGs or checks for symptoms of tardive dyskinesia.
C. BCC Staffing is Inadequate to Meet the Mental Health Needs of Inmates.
40. The staff at BCC is inadequate to deal with the mental health needs of the inmate population. The entire trained mental health staff at BCC consists of only one or two a psychologists) who work at BCC Monday through Friday and one private psychiatrist with whom DOC contracts for approximately twenty-one hours of psychiatric services per week.
41. The on-call psychiatric services at BCC for psychiatric emergencies are insufficient to meet the emergency mental health
il

- 14 -
needs of inmates, jeopardizing plaintiffs' lives and physical and emotional well-being.
42. Inmates admitted to BCC who identify themselves as mentally ill and who request mental health services are subjected to medically inappropriate waiting periods of several weeks to several months due to the shortage of psychiatric staff ; and the existing staff's inability to triage mental patients '<\ appropriately.
43. The correctional and medical staff at BCC is not adequately trained to recognize, refer or treat the symptoms of mental illness, acute psychosis and suicidal inmates, or properly to refer inmates exhibiting these symptoms for ; necessary mental health treatment.
D. Spanish Language Inadequacy. 44. The staff at BCC is inadequate to address the mental health needs of the Spanish-speaking inmate population. Spanish-speaking inmates often are deprived of emergency and routine mental health care because the BCC staff cannot understand the inmates' communications or requests with respect to their mental health needs. 45. The mental health care staff at BCC is inadequate to provide inmates with culturally and linguistically appropriate
mental health assessments and psychological evaluations.

- 15 -

E. Defendants Do Not Adequately Diagnose and Evaluate Inmates' Mental Illnesses and Mental Health Care Needs.

46. Defendants do not perform adequate mental health

screening upon admission to BCC, which results in many inmates

with serious mental health needs not receiving treatment

promptly, if at all, thus jeopardizing plaintiffs' physical and

mental health.

47. When inmates are seen by BCC mental health staff, they

are not properly or adequately evaluated or conclusively

diagnosed, which results in inadequate or non-existent mental

health treatment plans.

48. The lack of adequate mental health treatment plans,

and the necessary psychological evaluations and diagnoses

underlying them, puts inmates at risk of receiving improper

treatment and inappropriate medications, jeopardizing their

physical and mental health.

F. Defendants' Transfer Policies and Practices Are Inadequate to Meet the Mental Health Needs of Inmates.

49. Defendants' current policies, practices, and procedures

for treating or transferring inmates who are acutely psychotic,

;j suicidal or in need of inpatient mental health care from BCC to

i! appropriate mental health facilities are inadequate.
ji

j|

50. Inmates who need emergency mental health care,

!j including acutely suicidal inmates in need of crisis

|j intervention, are in danger of death or serious bodily harm

- 16 -

because defendants do not promptly treat or transfer them to

appropriate mental health care facilities.

51. Although defendants are aware of the serious mental

health needs of this population, instead of adequately treating

or transferring such inmates to adequate facilities, defendants

frequently treat inmates' emergency mental health care needs in

the following ways:

a. keeping inmates locked in their cells in

!• general population;

b. improperly considering such inmates

discipline problems and placing them in administrative detention

or segregation;

c. stripping such inmates naked and placing

them in an empty cell or handcuffed to a metal bed; or

d. placing such inmates in the medical

infirmary with the general population.

j:

52. Inmates whom defendants know are in need of non-

emergency inpatient mental health care are similarly not treated

or transferred to an appropriate facility.

53. Instead, defendants often either:

a. ignore the inpatient mental health care

needs of inmates, leaving them in their regular cells to fend
i
for themselves among the general population;

- 17 -
b. house such inmates in the medical infirmary designed to treat the non-serious medical conditions of the general population; or
c. inappropriately consider such inmates discipline problems and place them in administrative detention or segregation.
G. Defendants Do Not Provide Adequate Treatment Space and Facilities to Meet the Mental Health Care Needs of Inmates at BCC.
54. There is no medically appropriate space within BCC for the treatment, observation and monitoring of acutely psychotic or suicidal inmates, who require one to one monitoring during psychiatric crisis periods. The only spaces available to inmates in such emergencies are isolation cells described in paras. 51, 61-65, or the BCC Medical Infirmary which is inappropriate for emergency psychiatric care. In addition, the medical infirmary is filled with medical patients.
55. There is no medically appropriate space within BCC for the treatment, observation and monitoring of inmates with mental illnesses requiring inpatient treatment. The only space available is a portion of the BCC Medical Infirmary which is inappropriate for such psychiatric care and usually filled with medical patients.
56. Defendants' failure to provide adequate mental health treatment space and facilities contributes to the problems

- 18 -

described at paragraphs 25 to 53, above, and frequently

exacerbates the mental illnesses of inmates.

57. Defendants' practice of housing inmates with mental

health needs with the general population at BCC jeopardizes the

inmates' physical and psychological health.

H. Defendants Do Not Adequately Administer and Monitor

;'

Psychotropic Medication.

ii

i;

58. Medication for mentally ill inmates is not adequately

]\ prescribed, monitored, or administered.

59. Many inmates are currently taking substantial dosages

of antipsychotic medications that require periodic blood-level

,; monitoring, EKGs and checks for tardive dyskinesia. These tests

' are not being performed at medically appropriate intervals.

60. Inmates have suffered needless and dangerous

withdrawal because they were not medicated at appropriate

intervals and on schedule, and are at risk of developing serious

medical problems as a result of defendants' failure to monitor

their medications adequately.
I. Defendants Utilize Medically-Inappropriate Seclusion and Restraint Practices.

61. Mentally ill inmates who suffer from acute psychotic

episodes or are considered suicide risks are frequently stripped

of all their clothes and placed in administrative or punitive

isolation cells known as "strip cells," often for twenty-four to

seventy-two hours at a time.

- 19 -

62. In these strip cells inmates are frequently restrained

with metal handcuffs and leg irons.

63. Although DOC has an Administrative Directive hot to

use hard restraints, some mentally-ill inmates have been placed

in four-point restraints, prone on a steel slab, lying in urine.

64. On information and belief, while mentally-ill inmates

, are confined in such, strip cells they are not appropriately

; monitored by trained mental health staff. 65. Defendants' use of strip cells as described above is

medically inappropriate and frequently exacerbates inmates'

mental illness and jeopardizes their physical health.

J. Defendants Do Not Have an Adequate Management Information System and Defendants Do Not Maintain Adequate Mental Health Records.

66. BCC lacks any adequate method of keeping track of

inmates with mental health needs, any treatment plans for such

inmates, or any means to access patient treatment and medical

history data automatically for any inmate who has been treated

for mental health problems at another DOC facility.

;

67. Defendants do not properly or adequately record mental

;; health assessments of inmates, inmates' medication schedules and

the monitoring thereof, nor do defendants properly record their

|: emergency monitoring of inmates who are acutely psychotic and at
i
risk of suicide. Defendants' failure to do so impedes an
!j

j appropriate continuum of care and jeopardizes plaintiffs'

:; physical and mental health.

- 20 -

K. Defendants' Discharge Policies Are Inadequate to Meet the Mental Health Needs of Inmates.

68. Defendants' current policies, practices and procedures

'.', for discharging inmates who are acutely psychotic, suicidal or
:i

in need of in-patient or out-patient mental health care from BCC

are inadequate.

69. Mentally ill inmates discharged from BCC into the
I:

:\ community are rarely administered any psychotropic medications

J upon discharge, and do not receive referrals to any community

care providers. Such discharged inmates^ often experience a - it***
delay of four to six weeks before they are seen by a community
mental health services provider. Defendants' failure to provide

: a continuum of care puts plaintiffs at risk of dangerous

withdrawal from psychotropic medications, unnecessary recividism

and inpatient hospitalization. L. Defendants Are Aware of Plaintiffs' Unmet Mental Health Care Needs.
70. The deficiencies in mental health care provided to

, inmates at BCC described at paragraphs 25 to 69 above are

i longstanding problems of which defendants are aware. i

|

71. In October, 1990, defendants began to document the

! problems associated with diminished on-call psychiatric

ji coverage, acknowledging that such reduction in services

I increases the likelihood of self-mutilations, physical trauma, i I suicides and unnecessary deaths.

- 21 -

72. In or around February, 1991, defendant Meachum

requested that the Connecticut Department of Mental Health

undertake a comprehensive evaluation of mental health services

within the DOC, including services at BCC. The request was made

in response to documented problems resulting from the existing

services, including suicides.

I

73. Although the preliminary results of this study,

! including recommendations for improvement of existing services,

were produced to defendant Meachum in or around July, 1992,

; defendants have taken no significant action to implement any

: improvements, nor have they acted in any other meaningful way in

\ response to the study.

74. In or around November, 1991, defendant Meachum's staff

undertook a review of the discharge practices of BCC for inmates

with mental health needs. They concluded that there was a very

significant gap in services provided to BCC inmates upon

, discharge which resulted in unnecessary recividism and inpatient

: hospitalization and which placed substantial numbers of inmates

| (more than 100 per year) in a precarious situation upon

! discharge from BCC.

i

75. Despite the conclusions of the study described at

< para. 74, defendants have taken no meaningful steps to rectify

; the problem of inadequate practices, policies and procedures
i
' with regard to discharge of inmates with mental health needs.

- 22 -
76. Defendants know their failure to treat adequately or transfer inmates in need of emergency or inpatient mental health care to an adequate mental health care facility frequently exacerbates inmates' mental illnesses.
77. Defendants are further aware that their failure to provide adequate mental health screening, evaluation, treatment '•:, plans and outpatient mental health services, frequently ; exacerbates inmates' mental illnesses.
78. DOC staff, under the direction of defendant Meachum, prepared mental health facility plans in or around November, 1991. Although these plans were designed to eradicate the problems described in paras. 71 - 73 and 74-75, defendants did not implement those plans nor did they adopt any alternative plans to address the mental health needs of inmates.
79. Defendants are aware that their improper use of seclusion and restraint devices described at paras. 61 -65 exacerbates inmates' mental illnesses. However, defendants continue to improperly use such devices.
80. Defendants have been aware since 1991 that their failure to maintain adequate mental health records contributes to deficient mental health care and population management crises, yet the problem remains unresolved.
81. Defendants' actions and inactions as set forth in paras. 1-80 constitute deliberate indifference to the serious medical/mental health needs of the plaintiff class and subclass.

- 23 -

M. Federal Funding

82. DOC has received substantial amounts of federal funds

in each of the last two years.

;

N. Harm to Plaintiffs

83. Defendants' inadequate care of mentally ill inmates

described at paragraphs one through 81, above causes unnecessary

! physical and emotional suffering by mentally ill inmates.

:

84. Defendants' policies, procedures, practices, actions

!

and inactions with respect to mental health services at BCC are

' causing plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm for which they

; have no adequate remedy at law.

- 24 -
VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF A. First Claim for Relief - Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution - Right to Adequate Mental Health Care. 85. Paragraphs one through 84 are incorporated herein by
reference the same as though pleaded in full. 86. Defendants' actions and knowing inactions in: a. failing or delaying adequate treatment or transfer of inmates with psychiatric emergencies and inmates in need of inpatient psychiatric care to appropriate psychiatric care facilities; b. failing to provide adequate mental health treatment space to meet the mental health care and housing needs of inmates at Bridgeport Community Correctional Center; c. failing to provide appropriate staff to meet: 1) the emergency mental health needs of inmates; 2) the outpatient mental health care needs of inmates; 3) the inpatient mental health care needs of inmates; and 5) the needs of inmates and correctional staff for instruction and supervision in the identification and response to mental health needs of inmates; d. failing to provide appropriate staff to meet the mental health care needs of Spanish-speaking inmates;

- 25 -
e. failing to use appropriate seclusion and restraint policies and practices for mental health patients when medically indicated;
f. failing to implement adequate medical discharge policies and practices for inmates discharged from BCC who have mental health needs;
g. failing to diagnose and evaluate adequately inmates' mental illnesses and mental health care needs;
h. failing to administer and monitor properly inmates' psychotropic medications; and
i. failing to implement an adequate management information system and to maintain adequate mental health records for inmates with mental health needs; violate the due process rights of plaintiffs and the class and subclass they seek to represent, to be maintained in a safe, secure and humane environment and constitute deliberate indifference to the serious mental health needs of plaintiffs, and the class and subclass they seek they represent, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. B. Second Claim for Relief - Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended - Right to be Free of Discrimination Handicap.
87. Paragraphs one through 86 are incorporated herein by reference the same as though pleaded in full.

- 26 -

88. Defendants' policies, procedures and practices that

discriminate against inmates with mental health problems and in

need of mental health services on the basis of handicap, violate

;! the rights of plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent,

to be free of unlawful discrimination based on handicap by a

program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, as

!i is guaranteed to them by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

| of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §794 et sea.

i VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

;

Wherefore, the plaintiffs respectfully request that this

court:

1. Assume jurisdiction over this action;

2. Certify this action as a class action;

3. Grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief

enjoining the defendants, their agents and their successors in

office from:

a. failing or delaying adequate treatment or

transfer of inmates with psychiatric emergencies and

inmates in need of inpatient psychiatric care to

appropriate psychiatric care facilities;

b. failing to provide adequate mental health

treatment space to meet the mental health care and housing

needs of inmates at BBC;

c. failing to provide appropriate staff to

meet: 1) the emergency mental health needs of inmates; 2)

- 27 -
the outpatient mental health care needs of inmates; 3) the inpatient mental health care needs of inmates; and 5) the needs of inmates and correctional staff for instruction and supervision in the identification and response to mental health needs of inmates;
d. failing to provide appropriate staff to meet the mental health care needs of Spanish-speaking inmates;
e. inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint policies and practices for mental health patients when medically indicated;
f. failing to implement adequate medical discharge policies and practices for inmates discharged from BCC who have mental health needs;
g. failing to diagnose and evaluate adequately inmates' mental illnesses and mental health care needs;
h. failing to administer and monitor properly inmates' psychotropic medications; and
i. failing to implement an adequate management information system and to maintain adequate mental health records for inmates with mental health needs; 4. Enter a declaratory judgment declaring that defendants' policies, procedures, and practices violate plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; 42 U.S.C. §1983; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended;

- 28 -

5. Award plaintiffs their costs and expenses of

maintaining this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees,

! pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988; and

:

6. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and

! proper.

I

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

!i

THE PLAINTIFFS

BY:
Jo#el Newman ct 02179
Mcu\K.«
Martha Stone ct 00080
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation
32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06106 (203) 247-9823

Stuart H. Adams, Jr.

/

American Civil Liberties

Union Foundation

The National Prison Project

1875 Connecticut Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20009

(202) 234-4830

 Roe v. Meachum

nil inn ii
PC-CT-007-002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT}JAT ZZ !0 10 {ill 3

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

FILED

EDWARD ROE, et al Plaintiffs
v. LARRY MEACHUM, et al.
Defendants

: NO. 3:93CV-375 (TFGD)
: : APRIL 26, 1995

AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT

WHEREAS, the plaintiffs have brought the above-referenced

action in the United States District Court for the District of

Connecticut against defendants, alleging violations of their

statutory and constitutional rights guaranteed by the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C.

§1983, and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794, et sea.,

WHEREAS, simultaneous with the filing of this action,

plaintiffs sought, pursuant to Rules 23(b)(l) and (b)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certification of a class defined

as:

a. a class composed of all inmates who are now, have been

since February 24, 1993, or\ill be, subject to defendants' care and

custody at Bridgeport CoWmnit^Correctional Center (BCCC) and who

require, or will require*, mentalxhealth services resulting from

their mental illnesses;

V

- 2-
b. a subclass composed of all inmates who are, or will be, subject to defendants' care and custody at BCCC and who require, or will require, mental health services resulting from their mental illnesses, whose primary language is Spanish and who read, write and speak very little, if any, English.
WHEREAS, a class, as defined above, is hereby certified, WHEREAS, all defendants deny all allegations made by all plaintiffs, and WHEREAS, all parties desire to resolve all their differences relating to the claims which were made or could have been made in connection with this lawsuit, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Agreement is entered into in consideration of the attached Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, dated May 22, 1995, the approval and signature of that Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice by the United States District Court, and the performance of the terms contained herein. 2. All parties consider the terms of this settlement to be a fair and reasonable resolution of this case and wish to avoid further litigation and costs. 3. In consideration of plaintiffs' claims, defendants agree to the following at the BCCC:
a. Increase and maintain weekend staffing in the mental health unit so that a psychiatric nurse clinician or psychiatric

- 3-
social worker shall be on site at a minimum of one shift every Saturday and one shift every Sunday.
b. Increase and maintain the number of on-site psychiatrist hours so that a psychiatrist(s) shall be on-site a minimum of thirty-five hours per week, and maintain the twenty-four hour on-call availability of a psychiatrist.
c. Maintain, in addition to b. above, existing positions as follows:
One full-time psychologist, first shift Two full-time psychiatric nurse clinicians, one on first shift and one on the second shift Three full-time psychiatric social workers covering the first and second shifts, Monday through Friday Medical staffing as attached hereto as Exhibit A d. Fill any existing vacant positions set forth in c. above with permanent staff in a timely manner and after reasonable efforts, and make every reasonable effort to fill any vacant mental health staff positions no later than July 1, 1995. Defendants shall report any unfilled vacancies to plaintiffs' counsel by July 7, 1995. Any decision not to fill vacancies shall be communicated to plaintiffs' counsel within two business days. e. Adopt, no later than May 1, 1995, the Procedure Manual BCCC, Mental Health Unit, dated April 15, 1995, incorporated by reference herein, and attached hereto as Exhibit B upon its completion, and implement it after appropriate training, using all reasonable efforts to do so, by July 30, 1995.

- 4-
f. Insure that the quality assurance division of the Department of Correction (DOC) conducts quarterly reviews of mental health records at BCCC.
g. Insure that translations for inmates in need of mental health care who do not speak English will be provided by bilingual medical or mental health staff, when such staff is on duty. Under no circumstances will other inmates be used to conduct translations for the provision of mental health services.
4. The defendants retain the option to unilaterally discontinue or to modify the intended measures set forth in I 3 above. Prior to making any changes in H a, b, however, they shall notify the plaintiffs' counsel thirty days in advance. Plaintiffs shall receive notice of any changes to U c, d, e, f, and g within two business days of the decision to make such change. Plaintiffs shall receive copies of all changes made to the Procedure Manual outlined in 3.e above.
5. In the event plaintiffs believe any changes to 3 above or changed circumstances within the DOC rise to the level of a federal constitutional and/or federal statutory violation, plaintiffs may withdraw from this Agreement of Settlement and litigate the claim(s) made in this Court as part of this lawsuit pursuant to II 11, infra. No sanctions of any kind shall be imposed on defendants for the failure to comply with this Agreement. The sole remedies will be to terminate the Agreement and to proceed with this action in this Court, pursuant to Ull.

- 5-
6. Neither the intention to establish and maintain such conditions by the defendants nor the acceptance of such intentions by the plaintiffs may be construed in any way or in any proceeding as arising from any legal obligation to do so. If this case or any other case proceeds to adjudication, the parties retain the right to make any claim they deem proper concerning their respective lawful rights and obligations and nothing in this agreement or in its approval by the Court shall prejudice that right.
7. The above stated intentions are subject to suspension or modification in part or in their entirety if the defendants determine that a genuine emergency exists. "Genuine emergency" means any circumstance, or combination of circumstances, under which it is reasonably necessary to conclude that there is an actual or potential threat to a) the security and order of BCCC, or to b) the safety of the staff, inmates, or other persons within BCCC; provided that, the existence of a genuine emergency may not be determined on the basis of the number of inmates confined at that time.
8. Defendants agree to permit plaintiffs' three experts to conduct a site visit once annually upon reasonable notice given to defendants. Plaintiffs' three experts may also conduct a site visit subsequent to notice of a change or proposed change given to plaintiffs by defendants pursuant to 11 4 above, if plaintiffs believe such site visit is necessary to determine their position on

- 6-
such change. Defendants shall not be obligated to pay for such site visits.
9. Defendants shall pay to the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation the amount of $62,500 in full satisfaction of any and all claims by all plaintiffs and all counsel for plaintiffs for all attorneys' fees and costs (including deposition costs owed to plaintiffs' experts) in this case. Defendants shall not be obligated to pay additional costs and attorneys' fees unless the plaintiffs exercise their option to litigate this case pursuant to 11 11 and the Court orders defendants to pay additional costs and attorneys' fees for such litigation.
10. Notice to the class shall be given as follows: A copy of the attached notice, in Spanish and English, shall be hand-delivered to all inmates at BCCC who are present at the facility on May 1, 1995 and shall be given to any inmate who enters the facility between May 1 and May 15, 1995. A hearing on the Agreement shall be scheduled during the week of May 22, 1995.
11. On signing the Agreement, the parties will seek approval of this Agreement from the Court pursuant to Rule 23(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties further agree that this action is withdrawn without prejudice except that if the plaintiffs seek to litigate the claims made in the Complaint dated February 23, 1993 pursuant to 1J 5 above, they may do so without filing a new action and that the Court shall permit plaintiffs to reopen the case solely for the purposes of enforcing Us 5, 8, 9, 11.

_ 7-
12. Once the Court approves the Agreement, the parties shall submit to the Court a stipulation of dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal•Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii). The parties shall submit a form of order of dismissal to the Court.
13. The Court's approval of the dismissal of this action is sought to comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Settlement Agreement is not a consent decree nor do the parties intend it to be construed as such. It does not operate as an adjudication of the merits of this litigation.
14. Until or unless plaintiffs withdraw from this Agreement, and litigate their claims pursuant to II 5 and 11 above, members of the plaintiff class may not litigate these class claims in separate individual actions.

Respectfully Submitted,
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: CKA
Martha Stone ct 00080

BY: Stephen O'Neill

BY: JdNel Newman ct 02179 Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06106
Stuart H. Adams, Jr. American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation The National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20009
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

BY:

Steven Strom

/

Assistant Attorjtfeys General

jMacKenzie Hall

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

Attorney

efendants

i/ohn Armstrong ^Commissioner Department of Correction .340 [Capitol AvenAie /Hartford, CT 06106

So Ordered this 22nd day of May, 1995

United States District Judge

ATTACHMENT TO ROE V. MEACHDM, CIVIL NO. 3:93CV0037S (T7GD)

Bridgeport ccc Medical Staff

Staffing as of 4/12/95

Title .

l

Correctional Hospital Nurse Supervisor

10

Correctional Head Nurses

4

Correctional Nurses (LPN)

4

Correctional Medical Attendants

1

Physician

EXHIBIT A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

NOTICE "A'

EDWARD ROE, et al Plaintiffs
v.
LARRY MEACHUM, et al. Defendants

NO. 3:93CV-375 (TFGD) APRIL 26, 1995

LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL INMATES OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO ALL INMATES:
A settlement has been proposed by the parties for the issues in this " case regarding the Department of Correction's -(DOC) practices about mental
health care for inmates at the Bridgeport Community Correctional Centei (BCCC). This proposed Agreement of Settlement must now be reviewed and approved by the Court,
THIS IS TO TELL YOU THAT THERE WILL BE A HEARING on this proposed settlement on May 22, 1995 at 9:30 a.m. at the United States District Courthouse, 14 Cottage Place, Waterbury, Connecticut before the Honorable T.F. Gilroy Daly, United States District Judge, so that the Court can decide whether or not to approve this proposed Settlement as being fair, reasonable and adequate.
If you want to read the whole Agreement of Settlement, copies will be in the school, the medical unit, the library, and the counsellor supervisor's office. If you still have questions after reading this Notice and the full Agreement of Settlement, write or call your attorneys: Martha Stone and JoNel Newman at the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 32 Grand Street, Hartford, CT 06106 ((203) 247-9823).
You also have a right to object to this proposed Agreement of Settlement and tell the Court before it decides whether to approve the Settlement why you think it should not be approved. If you want to object to this Settlement, you must send your objection to Judge T.F. Gilroy Daly so that it is received by Mav 18, 1995. at United States District Court, 14 Cottage Place, Waterbury, CT 06702. You should put the name of this case and the docket number on your letter. Please also send a copy of your objection to your attorneys, Martha Stone and JoNel Newman, at the above address. If you file a written objection, the Court may wish to hear the objection in person. If you would like to be heard in person, call your attorneys by May 17, 1995 so that they can make the necessary requests.
The people who will be affected by this proposed Agreement of Settlement are all inmates who are now, have been since February 24, 1993, or will be in DOC custody at the BCCC. If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, what it says will be the final decision about these issues. In relevant part, the Agreement of Settlement provides:

- 2-
1. Defendants shall: a. Increase and maintain weekend staffing in the mental health unit
so that a psychiatric nurse clinician or psychiatric social worker shall be on site at a minimum of one shift every Saturday and one shift every Sunday.
b. Increase and maintain the number of on-site psychiatrist hours so that a psychiatrist(s) shall be on-site a minimum of thirty-five hours pei week, and maintain the twenty-four hour on-call availability of e psychiatrist.
c. Maintain, in addition to b. above, existing positions as follows:
One full-time psychologist, first shift Two full-time psychiatric nurse clinicians, one on first shift and one on the second shift Three full-time psychiatric social workers covering the first and second shifts, Monday through Friday Medical staffing as follows: One correctional hospital nurse supervisor; ten correctional head nurses; four correctional nurses, four correctional medical attendants; one physician.
d. Fill any existing vacant positions set forth in c. above with permanent staff in a timely manner and after reasonable efforts, and make every reasonable effort to fill any vacant mental health staff positions no later than July 1, 1995. Defendants shall report any unfilled vacancies to plaintiffs' counsel by July 7, 1995. Any decision not to fill vacancies shall be communicated to plaintiffs' counsel within two business days.
e. Adopt, no later than May 1, 1995, the Procedure Manual BCCC, Mental Health Unit, dated April 15, 1995, and implement it after appropriate training, using all reasonable efforts to do so, by July 30, 1995.
f. Insure that the quality assurance division of the Department of Correction (DOC) conducts quarterly reviews of mental health records at BCCC.
g. Insure that translations for inmates in need of mental health care who do not speak English will be provided by bilingual medical or mental health staff, when such staff is on duty. Under no circumstances will other inmates be used to conduct translations for the provision of mental health services.
2. The defendants retain the option to unilaterally discontinue or to modify the intended measures set forth in U 1 a-g above. Prior to making any changes in 11 a, b, however, they shall notify the plaintiffs' counsel thirty days in advance. Plaintiffs shall receive notice of any changes to fl c, d, e, f, and g within two business days of the decision to make such change. Plaintiffs shall receive copies of all changes made to the Procedure Manual outlined in l.e above.
3. In the event plaintiffs believe any changes to 1 above or changed circumstances within the DOC rise to the level of a federal constitutional and/or federal statutory violation, plaintiffs may withdraw from this Agreement of Settlement and litigate the claim(s) made in this Court as part of this lawsuit pursuant to U 11 of the Agreement. No sanctions of any kind shall be imposed on defendants for the failure to comply with this Agreement. The sole remedies will be to terminate the Agreement and to proceed with this action in this Court, pursuant to U 11 of the Agreement.

_ 3 _.
4. Neither the intention to establish and maintain such conditions by the defendants nor the acceptance of such intentions by the plaintiffs may be construed in any way or in any proceeding as arising from any legal obligation to do so. If this case or any other case proceeds to adjudication, the parties retain the right to make any claim they deem proper concerning their respective lawful rights and obligations and nothing in this agreement or in its approval by the Court shall prejudice that right.
5. The above stated intentions are ' subject to suspension or modification in part or in their entirety if the defendants determine that a genuine emergency exists. "Genuine emergency" means any circumstance, or combination of circumstances, under which. it is reasonably necessary to conclude that there is an actual or potential threat to a) the security and order of BCCC, or to b) the safety of the staff, inmates, or other persons within BCCC; provided that, the existence of a genuine emergency may not be determined on the basis of the number of inmates confined at that time.
6. Defendants agree to permit plaintiffs' three experts to conduct a site visit once annually upon reasonable notice given to defendants. Plaintiffs' three experts may also conduct a site visit subsequent to notice of a change or proposed change given to plaintiffs by defendants pursuant to f 4 of the Agreement, if plaintiffs believe such site visit is necessary to determine their position on such change. Defendants shall not be obligated to pay for such site visits.
7. Defendants shall pay to the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation the amount of $62,500 in full satisfaction of any and all claims by all plaintiffs and all counsel for plaintiffs for all attorneys' fees and costs (including deposition costs owed to plaintiffs' experts) in this case. Defendants shall not be obligated to pay additional costs and attorneys' fees unless the plaintiffs exercise their option to litigate this case pursuant to U 11 of the Agreement and the Court orders defendants to pay additional costs and attorneys' fees for such litigation.
8. The parties further agree that this action is withdrawn without prejudice except that if the plaintiffs seek to litigate the claims made in the Complaint dated February 23, 1993 pursuant to U 5 of the Agreement, they may do so without filing a new action and that the Court shall permit plaintiffs to reopen the case solely for the purposes of enforcing fls 5, 8, 9, 11 of the Agreement.
9. This Settlement Agreement is not a consent decree nor do the parties intend it to be construed as such. It does not operate as an adjudication of the merits of this litigation.
10. Until or unless plaintiffs withdraw from this Agreement, and litigate their claims pursuant to H 5 and 11 of the Agreement, members of the plaintiff class may not litigate these class claims in separate individual actions.
This Notice is given to you by Order of the United States District Judge, Honorable T.F. Gilroy Daly.

LEGAL A TODOS LOS JNFINADOS DEL PROPUESTO ARRECLO DE
LA DEMANDA DE CLASE ROE V. MEACBUM, CA50 CIVIL 3: 93CV - 375 (TFCD)

A tadoG log confinados:

Se ha propuesto un arreglo final sobre los asuntos siguientes en este easo contra las pfacticaa del Departamento, da correccion (DOC) acarca dal ^ servicio de aalud mental do los conf inados" en el Centra camunal de Correeeion de Bridgeport. La eorte tiene que revisar y aprobar el arreglo propuesto sobre estos asuntoa.

ESTA NOXIFICACION ES PARA iSFORMftRLKS QUZ HABRA UNA VISTA JUDICIAL sobrQ este propuesto arreglo el dim. 22 de Mayo de 1995 a las 9:30 A.M. en la Corta Federal, 14 de la calls cottage Place, en Waterbury, CT. antes el Honorable T.P. silroy Daly, XI Juez de loa Estados Unidos, para qne la corte dec Ida ai el arreglo ea justo, rasonable y adecuado. tlsted puedo someter objecionas a este arreglo en escrito hasta el 18 da Hayo de 1995 (vea las instruceiones abajo).

Si quiere leer al acuszdo do arraglo completo habran capias en varios sitios en su faeilidad— incluyendos la unidad medicaf la biblioteoa y las oficinas do los consejeros. Si aun tiene preguatas despues de leer asta noticia y el Acuerdo de Arreglo completo, oscriba o llama a sue abogadosz Martha Stone y JoNol Newman, CCLU ,32 da la calle Grand, en Hartford, CT. 06106 ((203) 247-9823).

Usted tambien tiene el dereeho de oponarse a eata propuesto arreglo y

capresentaroalo a la eorte, antes de qua* la corta lo apruebe, el por guaustod

pienaa qua no debe aar aprobado. Si usted qoiere opoaerse al arraglo usted

debe onviar una oarta de oposicidn al Juea T.P. Gilroy Daly para que sea

recibida nn^^c qq»i ia de M^^yyo de 1995. a la corte dal Distrito de los Sstadoa

Unidos, 14 de la calle cottage-Place, en Waterbury, ex. QS7oa. Par favor,

taabien en-vie una eopia de au carta da oposicion a aus abogados a la direction dada arriba. Si usted archiva en el regiatro su oposicion en aacrito.^puade

que la corta oiga au oposicion en persona,. Si guiare hacer su oposicion en

persona llama a sua abogadoe antes del 17 de Mayo de 1995, para que olios

puedan hacer los arreglos neceaarios.

'

Las personas que van a ser benefioiarias par este arraglo propuasto son todos los confinados (as), que desde al 24 de Febrero de 1993, han eatado, estail o estare(h oonfinados en el centre- Comunal de cerreccipn da Bridgeport. Si la corta aprueba aste acuerdo de arregla amrs^ la decision final sobre aetoa asuntos. En resumen el acuerdo de arreglo provae:

1. L O B demandados han de hacer lo siguienta:

a. Aumentar y mantener ol numero de empleados durants los fines de senana an la Unidad de Salud Mental para que un(a) enfarmero (a) Paiquiatra o un(a) tabajador(a) social cl£nica psiqulatra aste present© en al local por lo menos durante un turno cada sabado y un turno oada Domingo.

b. Aumentar y mantener el numero de horas da el (la) Psiguiatra en el local para que un(a) psiguiatra este presents en el looal por lo menoa treinta-y-cinco horas a la semana, y. qua haya la abilidad de que este de turno de llamada las veinte-y-cuatro horas como psiquiatra.

c. Adamas de la seccion b. arriba, mantener lac condiciones que

existen asi:

x

- Un(a) Peicologo(a) de tiempo complato durante el primer

turno.

DOB enfermeroB(a3) clinicosf j psiquiatras de riempo complete, uno(a) en el primer turno y uno(a) en el segundo turno.
- Tres trabajadores(as) Sociale3 paiquiatras de tiempo complete abarcando el primer y segundo turno do Lanes a Viarnes.
- Manteaer emplaados maSicos delineado corno lo siguiente: nna enfermera correccionai supervisora,* die* enfermerae correcionales jefes^euatro anfermeras eorreccionales? cuatro asistentac medicos y un roaaico.
d- Ocupar los puestos vacantas aaeistentes, DOOO detallade en la seecidn e. arriba, con emplaados permanent^, de pronta manara y con esfuerzos raeonables, y qua hagan todo esfuerso raronable para ocupar IOB puestos vacantea que existen da empleados da aalud mental antes dal primaro de Julio de 1995. Los demandadoc han da reportar cualquier vacancia que no haya aido ocupada a los abopadoa de I D S demandantac antes del 7 de Julio de 1995. Cualquier deeiaion da no ocupar vaeanciaa debe ser comunicada a loa abogados de los demandantaa dentro de doe dias de trabajo.
a. Adoptar, no mas tarda del primero de Mayo de 1995, al Manual de Prooedimiento BCCC de la Onidad de Salud Mental, fechado 15 de Abril de 1995, y sa implemente deepuea de entrsnamiento adecuado usando todoa los eafuerzoe rasonablas para haeerlo antes del 30 do Julio de 1995.
f. Asegurarse de qua, cada cuarto de ano, la division da seguridad de calidad del Departamento de correecidxt (DOC) revise lo» ragistros de salud mental en BCCC.
g. Asegurarsa da que las traduccionec, para aquell^S confiaados qua requiran tratamiaato de oalud mental y que no hablan ingles, sean proveidas por empleados medicos o de salud mental bilingile ouando ellos(ae) astan de turno. Bajo ninguna circunstancia se utilisaran otros confinados para conducir traduceionas de las proviaiones del Servicio de Salud Mental.
2. Los damandados retienen la ope ton unilateral de deseontinuar, o modificar los medidos intencados proveidos en p 1 a-g arriba. Sin embargo, antes 4a hacer cualquier cambio a p a, b, elloa tienen que informar a los^ abogados de los demandantee treinta diTaa en antieipo. Los demandantes seran notificados da oualquier cambio. a p c,d,e,f, o g, dantro de dos dias de trabajo dasde el d£a en que se daoidio hacer al cambio. Los demandantes recibiran copias de todoa los cambios al Manual de Proeedimiento daccrito en l.e arriba.
3. En al caso de que los demandantes considered de gue cualguiera de las cambios a la seccidn 1. arriba, o que cambios en las circunstancias dentro del DOC nan llegado a un nivel en el que constituyen una violacidn de la constifcuoicm Federal y/o xstatuto Federal, puedan retirarse de este acuerdo de arreglo y litigar dicha queja(s) en corte como parte de esta demanda de acuerdo a b 11 del acuerdo. Ninguna alase de sancion se le impondra a los ^ demandados por la falta de cutnplir con eate acuerdo. El unico remedio sera: terminar al acucrdo y procader en la corta con esta aecion de acuerdo a p 11.
4. Ninguno de los dos, ni la iivttQn.cio'n da establacer y mantcner tales condiciones por los demandados, ni el acepto por los demandantes de tales condiciones sera"" interpretado en ningvma manera o en ningun proeedimiento como qua haya surgido de alguna obligacipn legal para hacarlo. fii este 0 cualquier otro caso precede hasta adjudicacidn, los litigantes mantendrali el derecho de hacer cualquiar demanda que ellos consideren apropiada en lo que conaierne a

sus respectivos c^P^&chos licitos y obligacionea y-^iadaeij eafce acuerdo o en su aprobacidn por-la'-.orte ha de perjudicar tal den .o.
5. Las intenciones mencionadas arriba estan sujetas a suspencion o modificacion en parts a en su totalidad si los demandados eonsideran de que exists un estado de emergencia genuina. "Emorgencia Cenuina' significa cualquier circunstancia, o combinacidn de cireunstancias, bajo las cualcs es razonablomente necesario concluir de que veridicamente exists o hay una amenaza patencial hacia: a) La seguridad v al orden de BCCC, o hacia b) La seguridad de los empleados, conffinadoc, uotras personas dentro de BCCC; y can tal qua la existencia de tal emargencia genuina no sea determinada a base de el numero de confinados encarcelados en ese instant*.
6. L O B demandados permitiran a las tres expsrtos de IOB demandantes ha car una visita una vez anualmante deapues de' darles a. los demandadoB noticia razonable. Los tres expertos de los demandantes tambian puadan hacer u n a / visita despues de recibir noticia de un cambio o un cambio propuesto segun el p 4 del acuerdo, si IOB damandantec araen que tal visita es necosaria para determinar su posicion en cuanto a tal cambio. Los demandados no tienan ninguna obligacion de pagar por tal visitaa.
7. Los demandados pagaran al CCLUF la auma de $ 62,500.00 en satisfaecion completa de cualquier y todas las rBclamaciones de -todos loa demandantes y las tarifaa y los costoa de todos loa abogados de los demandantes (ineluyendo todas las costos debidos a las depoeiciones de los expertos de loa demandantes) en eeta accidli. Los demandados no estan obligado* a pagar costos ni tajrifas adicionales a menos de que los demandantes empiecen a litigar osta accion segun p IX dal acuerdo y la carte ordene qua los demandados paguen costos y tarifas adicionales por tal litigaeion.
8. Los litiganteB tambien. estaran de acuerdo de que esta accion es destituida sin prejuicio con la excepcion de que si los demandantes solicitan litigar la queja hseha en la demanda fechada 23 de Febrero de 1995 de acuerdo a p 5 del acuerdo, alias pueden hacorlo Bin asantar en el registrq una nueva. accioit y que la carte volvera a abrir la demanda por el unioo proposito de hacer cumplir con p 5,8,9,11 del acuerdo.
9. fiste Acuerdo de Arreglo no es una declaracioxt de consentimiento ni los litigantes intantan de que sea interpretado de talraanera.Ni funciona como un adjudicamento de los merltos.de este litigio.
10. Haata qua, o a menos que, los demandantes se retiren de este acuerdo y litigen sus demandae en corte de acuerdo a b 5 y p 11 del acuerdo, miembros de la clase de los demandantes no pueden litigar estas demandas de class en aceiones individualmente separadas .
ESTA NOTICIA SE LB DA A USTED POR OKPBN DSL JlTSZ DE LOS BSTAOOS UWIDOS, EL HONORABLE T.F. Gilroy Daly.

jitate of (Uamtecitcut jj•','...,' : \ ^c

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES S ^ 5 :

^/ r

STATE CAPITOL

~.vr

HARTFORD, CONN. 06106-1591

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT M. WARD
MINORITY LEADER EIGHTY-SIXTH DISTRICT

MINORITY LEADER LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT
REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE-MEMBER

817 TOTOKET ROAD NORTHFORD. CONNECTICUT 06472
TELEPHONE CAPITOL: 1-800-842-1423
HOME4840339

May 1 9 , 1 9 9 5

Honorable T.F. Gilroy Daly United States District Judge United States District Courthouse 14 Cottage Place Waterbury, CT 06702

RE: Roe et al v Meachum et al

Dear Judge Daly:

I am writing to object to the proposed settlement in the above referenced matter.

I apologize for not meeting the May 18th deadline, however, I read the legal notice in The Connecticut Law Tribune, today.

As the Minority Leader of the Connecticut House of Representatives, I must object to this proposal being put into effect at this time.

As I read it, the proposal requires the state to put in place certain personnel, by way of filling currently vacant positions and by creating new positions. This settlement would therefore require the state to expend funds in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1995 and beyond.

As you are probably aware, the legislature has not yet adopted a budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1995. I can not say with any accuracy, nor do I believe that any other legislator can say with any accuracy, whether the cost of this proposed settlement has been taken into account in the budget deliberations or if it is included in any budget proposals.

Furthermore, since the substance of this settlement will have an impact on the financial situation of the state, the General Assembly should have time to consider the ramifications of the \ proposals and its fiscal impact.

Therefore, I respectfully request that you withhold accepting this settlement until such time as the General Assembly has the opportunity to review it and has the opportunity to consider and adopt a budget, which will clearly be impacted by this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration and again, please accept my apologies for this letter being sent to you after the May 18th deadline.

Sincerely,

cc: Senator M. Adela Eads Senator James Fleming Senator William DiBella Representative Tom Ritter Representative Moria Lyon

'Robert Ward Minority Leader

May 05, 1995

Honorable T.F. Gllroy Daly

r f j J ^ S OF

U.S. District Court Judge 14 Cottage Place Waterbury, Connecticut

" S 6I%TO,0ZDALY ^ UIS™<f0- <nDaE

Re: EDWARD ROE, ET"AL. v. LARRY MEACHUM, ET AL. No. 3:93cv375 (TFGD)

Dear Judge Daly:

Please be advised that I desire to appear and be heard in person in connection with the proposed Agreement of Settlement,.and to submit written objections for the court's consideration.

To date, the proposed Agreement of Settlement has not been made available to any inmate at the Bridgeport Correctional Center despite indications to the contrary contained in the legal notice distributed to the population on or about April 28, 1995. No one seems to know anything about when and where disclosure may effect.

In any event, it is circumstances such as this that force me to objection to the sanctionless Agreement of Settlement. The attorneys for the parties have a flawed perception how the facility operates which does not dovetail with reality. For example, if the agreement was available, most inmates would not be able to peruse it because neither the school nor hospital have the space or staff (to monitor) to allow such readings. Moreover, despite the fact that BCC inmate population exceeds 900 men, only four (4) inmates are allowed access to the law library at any given session; that means only eight C8) inmates are allowed access. Because BCC is a pre-trial facility, inmates in need of criminal research will always be called ahead of inmates wanting to review a civil legal notices. As indicated, the lawyers believe one things but reality favors another diametrical result.

As soon as the proposed Agreement of Settlement and/or Procedure Manual are made available, I shall finalize my objections and reduce same to writing.

By copy letter I inform plaintiffs' counsel of the within and foregoing.

Sincerely,

Morris Allen Smith III POB 6490 Bridgeport, Connecticut 06606

&>•£.£J-Q/.

S.

u

o!

DOCli

/h

rz* O/o

fa

tf

>'•

v •-

i

vV. :

i (--,

' \ . ' \ .'; . ' • ' • '

""VVv.;,. \
':;-A:;; {

-*-> • V i

'•.••..•••
I-

A" _ .
\ \ \

1A. •x\<AJ
- j ^J

;^X ':\ .A.

- -A o <'-^J - \

I rs\< V., k

l> :;V A

{ -
A -

NA\\-
•V-X,

^•;;.-

 SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 1 of 14

CLOSED, TPS
U.S. District Court District of Connecticut (New Haven) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:93-cv-00375-TFGD

Roe, et al v. Meachum, et al Assigned to: Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly Demand: $0 Cause: 29:0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap)

Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Edward Roe

represented by Jonathan M. Levine Silver, Golub & Teitell 184 Atlantic St., Po Box 389 Stamford, CT 06904 203-325-4491 Fax: 203-325-3769 Email: jlevine@sgtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonel Newman Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 32 Grand St. Hartford, CT 06106 860-247-9823 TERMINATED: 09/05/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martha Stone Center for Children's Advocacy, Inc University of Connecticut School of Law 65 Elizabeth St. Hartford, CT 06105-2290 860-570-5327 Fax: 860-570-5256 Email: mstone@law.uconn.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stuart H. Adams, Jr. National Prisons Project ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Ave. Suite 410

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 2 of 14

Plaintiff Evan Moe
Plaintiff David Coe
Plaintiff John Doe

Washington, DC 20009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jonathan M. Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/05/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart H. Adams, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jonathan M. Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/05/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart H. Adams, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jonathan M. Levine

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 3 of 14

o/b/o themselves and all others similarly situated
V. Defendant Commissioner Larry Meachum Dept of Correction
Defendant Terre Marshall Director, Health Service, Dept of Correction

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/05/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart H. Adams, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen J. O'Neill Attorney General's Office Public Safety & Special Revenue MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman St. Hartford, CT 06105 860-808-5450 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven R. Strom Attorney General's Office Public Safety & Special Revenue MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman St. Hartford, CT 06105 860-808-5450 Fax: 860-808-5591 Email: steven.strom@po.state.ct.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen J. O'Neill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven R. Strom

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 4 of 14

Defendant James X. Singer Director, Forensic Health Services, Dept of Correction
Defendant Daniel Benwell Bridgeport Comm. Corr. Center
Defendant Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen J. O'Neill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven R. Strom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen J. O'Neill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven R. Strom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen J. O'Neill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven R. Strom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/24/1993 02/24/1993
02/24/1993

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT Filing Fee $ 120.00 (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/25/1993)

SUMMONS(ES) issued for Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/25/1993)

2 ORDER on Pretrial Deadlines handed to counsel Joining of Parties, Amending of Pleadings by 5/5/93 Motions to Dismiss by 6/4/93 ; Discovery cutoff 8/26/93 ; Motion for Summary Judgment by 10/4/93 (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/25/1993)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 5 of 14

02/24/1993 02/24/1993 02/24/1993 02/24/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 03/08/1993 03/08/1993 03/10/1993 03/10/1993 03/16/1993 03/16/1993

3 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe to Certify Class (Brief Due 3/17/93 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
4 MEMORANDUM by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe in support of [3-1] motion to Certify Class by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
5 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe for permission to prosecute suit in fictitious name (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
6 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Larry Meachum 2/24/93 Answer due on 3/16/93 for Larry Meachum (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Terre Marshall 2/24/93 Answer due on 3/16/93 for Terre Marshall (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to James X. Singer 2/24/93 Answer due on 3/16/93 for James X. Singer (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Lowell P. Weicker Jr. 2/24/93 Answer due on 3/16/93 for Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Daniel Benwell 2/24/93 Answer due on 3/16/93 for Daniel Benwell (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 02/26/1993)
12 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. -- Stephen J. O'Neill (Krajcik, R.) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
13 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. -- Steven R. Strom (Krajcik, R.) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
14 Notice of Service of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/10/1993)
15 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe for Stuart H. Adams, Jr. to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Brief Due 3/31/93 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/10/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting absent obj., and for good cause shown, [5-1] motion for permission to prosecute suit in fictitious name ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/16/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting [6-1] motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Former Employee) (Entered:

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 6 of 14

03/16/1993 03/17/1993 03/19/1993
04/12/1993 04/16/1993 04/16/1993 04/21/1993 04/27/1993 04/27/1993 04/27/1993 04/27/1993

03/16/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting [15-1] motion for Stuart H. Adams, Jr. to Appear Pro Hac Vice obo the Plas. ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/16/1993)
16 MOTION by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. to Extend Time of all deadlines in which to respond to plas. pending motions and to the Complaint (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/17/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting in part, over obj. and for good cause shown, [16-1] motion to Extend Time of all deadlines in which to respond to pending motions and to the Complaint, such that dfts shall respnd to the complaint by 4/9/93, shall respond to plas. interrogatories by 4/20/93, and shall respond to plas. motion for class certification by 4/27/93. In all other respects the motion is DENIED without prej. as premature. SO ORDERED reset Answer deadline to 4/9/93 for Lowell P. Weicker Jr., for Daniel Benwell, for James X. Singer, for Terre Marshall, for Larry Meachum , Brief Deadline set for 4/27/93 [3-1] motion to Certify Class ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
17 ANSWER to Complaint by Larry Meachum (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
18 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe for inspections (Brief Due 5/7/93 ) (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
19 MEMORANDUM by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe in support of [18-1] motion for inspections by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 04/16/1993)
20 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe -- STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 04/21/1993)
21 MEMORANDUM by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in opposition to [3-1] motion to Certify Class by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Smith, S.) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
22 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel K. Benwell Re [21-1] opposition memorandum by Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Daniel Benwell, James Singer, Terre Marshall, Larry Meachum (Smith, S.) Modified on 04/28/1993 (Entered: 04/28/1993)
23 MOTION by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. for Summary Judgment (Brief Due 5/18/93 ) (Smith, S.) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
24 STATEMENT of Material Facts regarding [23-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Daniel Benwell, James Singer, Terre Marshall, Larry Meachum (Smith, S.) Modified on 04/28/1993 (Entered:

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 7 of 14

04/27/1993 04/27/1993 04/30/1993 04/30/1993
05/03/1993 05/06/1993
05/14/1993 05/14/1993 05/17/1993 05/17/1993 05/20/1993 05/20/1993

04/28/1993)
25 MEMORANDUM in support of [23-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Daniel Benwell, James Singer, Terre Marshall, Larry Meachum (Smith, S.) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
26 MOTION by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. for Leave to File documents under seal: medical records attached to affidavit of Dr. Jay Berkowitz (Smith, S.) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
27 ORDER referring: [3-1] motion to Certify Class referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith (signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 04/30/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting, until further order of the Court, or until such time as the Clerk of the Court retires the record to the FRC, at which time the document will automatically be unsealed. [26-1] motion for Leave to File documents under seal: medical records attached to affidavit of Dr. Jay Berkowitz (UNDER SEAL) ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 05/03/1993)
28 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe for Leave to File response to defts. opp. to mot. for class certification (Brief Due 5/24/93 ) (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 05/03/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting [28-1] motion for Leave to File response to defts. opp. to mot. for class certification, Brief Deadline set for 5/20/93 to file reply memo to defts' opposition to [3-1] motion to Certify Class ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/06/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting absent objection and after careful review such that the attached order shall enter forthwith [19-1] support memorandum ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
31 ORDER granting [18-1] motion for inspections ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 05/18/1993)
29 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe to Compel compliance w/ discovery req (Brief Due 6/7/93 ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
30 MEMORANDUM by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe in support of [29-1] motion to Compel compliance w/ discovery req by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
32 MOTION by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. for Reconsideration of [31-1] order granting inspections (Smith, S.) (Entered: 05/20/1993)
33 RESPONSE brief in support by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe,

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 8 of 14

05/20/1993 05/20/1993 05/20/1993 05/28/1993 05/28/1993 06/03/1993 06/03/1993 06/07/1993 06/07/1993 06/10/1993 06/14/1993 06/29/1993

John Doe to [3-1] motion to Certify Class by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 05/21/1993)
34 Rule 56(f) Statement by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe in opposition to [23-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Daniel Benwell, James X. Singer, Terre Marshall, Larry Meachum (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 05/21/1993)
35 AFFIDAVIT of Paul Amble, M.D. by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe Re [34-1] opposition memorandum by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 05/21/1993)
36 AFFIDAVIT of JoNel Newman, Esq. by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe Re [34-1] opposition memorandum by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 05/21/1993)
37 MOTION by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. for Leave to File reply brief in response to pltf's Rule 56(f) statement in opp to deft's motion for s/j (Brief Due 6/18/93 ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
38 ORDER referring: [23-1] motion for Summary Judgment referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith (signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 06/02/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting [37-1] motion for Leave to File reply brief in response to pltf's Rule 56(f) statement in opp to deft's motion for s/j,. Brief Deadline set for 6/11/93 [23-1] motion for Summary Judgment ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 06/03/1993)
39 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe -- Jonathan M. Levine (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 06/03/1993)
40 RESPONSE by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. to [29-1] motion to Compel compliance w/ discovery req by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
41 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe for Discovery conference , & for entry of discovery schedule (Brief Due 6/28/93 ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
42 Deft's position re: pltf's pending motions & objs. (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
43 ORDER referring: [41-1] motion for Discovery conference referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith, [29-1] motion to Compel compliance w/ discovery req referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith (signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/14/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting [32-1] motion for Reconsideration of [31-1] order granting inspections. Accordingly Court adheres to its prior Ruling & Defts. shall comply with Courts 5/14/93 filed order forthwith. ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 06/29/1993)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 9 of 14

06/30/1993 07/06/1993
07/06/1993
07/26/1993 09/22/1993 09/24/1993 11/16/1993 12/03/1993 01/13/1994 01/20/1994 01/20/1994 01/21/1994

ENDORSEMENT: Recommended Ruling DENYING w/o prejudice to renewal following adequate time for discovery [23-1] motion for Summary Judgment Objections due 7/19/93 ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 07/01/1993)
ENDORSEMENT [A discovery conf. was held this date; and it was agreed that the parties would endeavor to draft a joint proposed scheduling/discovery order for the courts aproval] granting [41-1] motion for Discovery conference, granting [41-2] motion for entry of discovery schedule ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/14/1993)
ENDORSEMENT [At the discovery conf. a procedure was agreed upon which might moot ar at least significantly narrow the scope of this motion. Counsel shall report the result of their following this procedure. The court shall then act accordingly on this motion. [29-1] motion to Compel compliance w/ discovery req under advisement ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/14/1993)
ENDORSEMENT affirming [0-0] order, denying [23-1] motion for Summary Judgment ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 07/27/1993)
44 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe to Extend Time until 10/6/93 to file answer or obj to defts' 1st set of interrog & req for prod & defts' depo (Brief Due 10/13/93 ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 09/22/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting [44-1] motion to Extend Time until 10/6/93 to file answer or obj to defts' 1st set of interrog & req for prod & defts' depo ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/27/1993)
45 PROTECTIVE ORDER, to protect the confidentiality of information provided by the deft. (see order for details) (signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/17/1993)
46 MOTION by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. for Protective Order , and to Quash (Brief Due 12/24/93 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 12/07/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting [3-1] motion to Certify Class ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
47 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe for Order compelling discovery and governing atty. conduct at depositions (Brief Due 2/10/94 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
48 MEMORANDUM by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe in support of [47-1] motion for Order compelling discovery and governing atty. conduct at depositions by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Torday, B.) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
49 SCHEDULING ORDER: The Mag. Judge acting with the authority of the trial judge hereby approves and enteres as an order this stipulaed

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 10 of 14

01/25/1994 01/25/1994
01/28/1994 01/31/1994
02/07/1994
02/18/1994 02/25/1994 03/07/1994 03/09/1994 03/09/1994 05/12/1994

order;(see order for details) setting Status Report by 5/26/94 . ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
50 MOTION by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. for Protective Order deposition for Janice Gruendel for 1/14/94 (Brief Due 2/15/94 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
51 AFFIDAVIT of Steven R. Storm by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. Re [50-1] motion for Protective Order deposition for Janice Gruendel for 1/14/94 by Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Daniel Benwell, James X. Singer, Terre Marshall, Larry Meachum (Torday, B.) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
52 ORDER referring: [47-1] motion for Order compelling discovery and governing atty. conduct at depositions referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith (signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 01/28/1994)
53 ORDER referring: [50-1] motion for Protective Order deposition for Janice Gruendel for 1/14/94 referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith, [46-1] motion for Protective Order referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith (signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 01/31/1994)
ENDORSEMENT: all of these motions where discussed at the 1/13/94 conf. and a stip. scheduling order was issued 1/21/94: mooting [50-1] motion for Protective Order deposition for Janice Gruendel for 1/14/94, mooting [47-1] motion for Order compelling discovery and governing atty. conduct at depositions, mooting [46-1] motion for Protective Order, mooting [46-2] motion to Quash ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/09/1994)
54 STIPULATION concerning Attorney conduct at depositions by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe, Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
ENDORSEMENT approving and adopting [54-1] stipulation ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/25/1994)
55 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe to Extend Time of Scheduling Order (Kunofsky, L.) (Entered: 03/07/1994)
ENDORSEMENT granting absent objection [55-1] motion to Extend Time of Scheduling Order ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 03/09/1994)
Deadline updated; reset Status Report deadline to 6/26/94 (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 03/09/1994)
56 SCHEDULING ORDER see for details ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/13/1994)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 11 of 14

06/30/1994 07/26/1994 07/29/1994 08/18/1994 08/25/1994 08/25/1994 08/25/1994
08/30/1994
09/19/1994 09/19/1994 10/05/1994 10/05/1994 10/07/1994

57 EXHIBIT List by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/08/1994)
58 MOTION by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. to Modify [56-1] Scheduling order (Brief Due 8/16/94 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
59 ORDER referring: [58-1] motion to Modify [56-1] Scheduling order referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith (signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/1994)
60 MEMORANDUM by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe in partial opposition to [58-1] motion to Modify [56-1] Scheduling order by Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Daniel Benwell, James X. Singer, Terre Marshall, Larry Meachum (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/18/1994)
61 MOTION by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. for status/scheduling Conference (Brief Due 9/15/94 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/25/1994)
62 MOTION by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. to Continue all depositons , and for Clarification of [56-1] Scheduling order (Brief Due 9/15/94 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/25/1994)
63 AFFIDAVIT of Steven R. Storm by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. Re [62-1] motion to Continue all depositons by Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Daniel Benwell, James X. Singer, Terre Marshall, Larry Meachum, [62-2] motion for Clarification of [56-1] Scheduling order by Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Daniel Benwell, James X. Singer, Terre Marshall, Larry Meachum (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/25/1994)
64 ORDER referring: [62-1] motion to Continue all depositons referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith, [62-2] motion for Clarification of [56-1] Scheduling order referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith, [61-1] motion for status/scheduling Conference referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith (signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
65 PRETRIAL ORDER setting Filing of Trial Memorandum by 10/7/94 ;11/94 ready trial list ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
Settlement Conference held ( TPS) 9/16/94 (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 09/20/1994)
66 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe for pretrail Conference (Brief Due 10/26/94 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/05/1994)
67 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe to Extend Time to 10/17/94 on pretrial order (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/05/1994)
68 RESPONSE by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer,

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 12 of 14

10/13/1994
10/21/1994 10/21/1994 10/24/1994 10/27/1994 10/31/1994
10/31/1994 11/01/1994 11/01/1994 11/01/1994 11/01/1994 11/30/1994 11/30/1994

Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. to [67-1] motion to Extend Time to 10/17/94 on pretrial order by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
69 ORDER referring: [67-1] motion to Extend Time to 10/17/94 on pretrial order referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith, [66-1] motion for pretrail Conference referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith (signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/13/1994)
ENDORSEMENT denying without prejudice [66-1] motion for pretrail Conference signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Blue,A.) (Entered: 10/21/1994)
ENDORSEMENT granting [67-1] motion to Extend Time to 10/17/94 on pretrial order ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Kunofsky, L.) (Entered: 10/24/1994)
70 MOTION by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. to Extend Time to 10/31/94 to file trial memo (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/24/1994)
71 ORDER referring: [70-1] motion to Extend Time to 10/31/94 to file trial memo referred to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith (signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/27/1994)
ENDORSEMENT granting [70-1] motion to Extend Time to 10/31/94 to file trial memo, reset Filing of Trial Memorandum due by 10/31/94 ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Kunofsky, L.) (Entered: 11/01/1994)
72 TRIAL BRIEF by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe Estimated trial time is for 4 days. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/01/1994)
73 TRIAL BRIEF by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. Estimated trial time is for 3 weeks (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/01/1994)
74 Witness list by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/01/1994)
75 EXHIBIT List by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/01/1994)
76 PROPOSED Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr.. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/01/1994)
ENDORSEMENT denying without prejudice [58-1] motion to Modify [56-1] Scheduling order ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Blue,A.) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
ENDORSEMENT denying without prejudice [61-1] motion for status/scheduling Conference ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith )

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 13 of 14

11/30/1994 12/19/1994 12/27/1994
02/09/1995 02/13/1995 04/04/1995 04/05/1995 04/05/1995 04/11/1995
04/18/1995 04/18/1995 04/18/1995 04/28/1995

(Blue,A.) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
ENDORSEMENT denying without prejudice [62-1] motion to Continue all depositons, denying without prejudice [62-2] motion for Clarification of [56-1] Scheduling order ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Blue,A.) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
77 ORDER: Status Conf. to held in chambers on 12/28/94 at 11:00am. ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 12/19/1994)
78 ORDER:In the interest of the sound administration of justice in the District, the status conference in this matter is hereby ORDERED rescheduled to 9:00a.m. on January 5,1995. Counsel are hereby ORDERED to attend. SO ORDERED ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
79 JOINT MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe, Larry Meachum, Terre Marshall, James X. Singer, Daniel Benwell, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. to Amend scheduling order (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/09/1995)
ENDORSEMENT granting on consent (see Scheduling order) [79-1] joint motion to Amend scheduling order ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/13/1995)
80 Call of the Calendar held : Court trial 4/24/95 at 10:00am ( TFGD) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 04/04/1995)
81 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe in Limine regarding the testimony fo Dr. Robert Phillips (Brief Due 4/26/95 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 04/05/1995)
82 MEMORANDUM by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe in support of [81-1] motion in Limine regarding the testimony fo Dr. Robert Phillips by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Torday, B.) (Entered: 04/05/1995)
ENDORSEMENT granting;the 9/2/94 Advisory Opinion of St of Conn. Ethics Comm. is not binding on the court; and does not preclude Dr. Phillips from testifying at trial [81-1] motion in Limine regarding the testimony fo Dr. Robert Phillips ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 04/11/1995)
83 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Robert T.M. Phillips -- J. L. Pottenger Jr. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
84 MOTION by Robert T.M. Phillips for Protective Order (Brief Due 5/9/95 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
84 RESPONSE by Robert T.M. Phillips to [81-1] motion in Limine regarding the testimony fo Dr. Robert Phillips by John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe (Torday, B.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
85 ORDER directing notice of proposed settlement:District clerk's offices to

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 14 of 14

05/04/1995 05/22/1995
05/22/1995
05/24/1995 05/24/1995 05/24/1995 05/24/1995 07/14/1995 08/30/1996 09/05/1996

make avaiable for inspection the Notice (a) and the agreement of settlement from 5/1/95-5/15/95; clerk of court shall provide all counsel copies of written obj., of class members prior to hearing on 5/22/95 ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 04/28/1995)
86 Exhibit B "Draft Procedure Manual Bpt. CCC Mental Health Unit attached to Agreement of Settlement. (Cody, C.) (Entered: 05/04/1995)
87 ORDER of settlement agreement, parties to file notice of dismissal, defts shall pay Conn. Civil Lib. Union Foundation the $62,500 for atty fees and costs (see agreement for details) ( signed by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 05/22/1995)
88 Settlement Hearing held; settlement agreement approved & so ordered; (ex 504 to be made a part of settlement agmt) ( TFGD) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 05/22/1995)
89 LETTER from Morris Allen Smith, III dated 5/5/95 Regarding: Settlement Agreement (Cody, C.) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
90 LETTER from Morris Allen Smith, III dated 5-11-95 Regarding: Settlement Agreement (Cody, C.) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
91 LETTER from Robert Ward Minority Leader dated 5/19/95 Regarding: Settlement Agreement (Cody, C.) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
92 Marked Court Exhibit List (Torday, B.) (Entered: 05/30/1995)
Case closed on 5/22/95 (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/14/1995)
93 MOTION by Edward Roe, Evan Moe, David Coe, John Doe for JoNel Newman to Withdraw as Attorney (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
ENDORSEMENT granting [93-1] motion for JoNel Newman to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Jonel Newman for John Doe, David Coe, Evan Moe, Edward Roe ( signed by Chief Judge Peter C. Dorsey ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 09/05/1996)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

06/04/2005 18:05:14

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 8

Cost:

3:93-cv-00375TFGD
0.64

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?444062328270957-L_280_0-1

6/4/2005

Output:
This was a Section 1983 civil rights class action challenging the mental health care policies and practices of the defendant officials of the Connecticut Department of Correction at the Bridgeport Community Correctional Center. The case was filed February 24, 1993 by the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the ACLU National Prison Project on behalf of plaintiff inmates.  Plaintiffs were also represented by private counsel (Jonathan Levine of the firm Silver, Golub & Teitell). The docket begins with the complaint filed on February 24, 1993 and indicates that the motion to certify the class action was filed the same day.

The class was composed of all inmates who were, or would be subject to defendants' care and custody at Bridgeport Community Correctional Center and who required, or would require, mental health services resulting from their mental illness. Plaintiffs further sought to represent a subclass composed of all inmates who were, or would be subject to defendants' care and custody and Bridgeport Community Correctional center and who required, or would require, mental health services resulting from their mental illnesses, whose primary language was Spanish and who could read, write, and speak very little, if any, English.

Plaintiffs complained that defendants failed to transfer inmates in need of mental health care at an inpatient mental health facility, and provided inadequate staff training concerning mental health needs of inmates, inadequate suicide prevention, and generally inadequate mental health diagnosis and care.

A settlement agreement was entered in 1995, along with a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice. Defendants agreed to increase and maintain weekend staffing in the mental health unit, increase the number of on-site psychiatrist hours, adopt a Procedure Manual for the Mental Health Unit and implement it after appropriate training, conduct quarterly reviews of mental health records, and ensure that transactions for inmates in need of mental health care who did not speak English would be provided by bilingual medical or mental health staff. Although the defendants retained the option to modify the measures set forth, the plaintiffs were able to withdraw from the Agreement of Settlement and litigate the claims if they believed the changes rose to the level of a constitutional or statutory violation. No sanctions were imposed on defendants for failure to comply with the Agreement. The sole remedy for failure to comply was through termination of the Agreement and proceeding with an action in court. The agreement specified that the Court would permit the plaintiffs to reopen the case without filing a new action for the purpose of enforcement.

Notice was provided to all inmates of the proposed settlement of the class action in April 1995.  Robert Ward, the Minority Leader of the Connecticut House of Representatives, sent a letter to the judge objecting to the proposal because of its requirements to fill currently vacant positions and to create new positions, which would have an impact on the financial situation of the state. He requested that the judge withhold accepting the settlement until the General Assembly had the opportunity to review it, and to consider and adopt a budget for that fiscal year. An inmate at the Bridgeport Correctional Center also sent two letters to the judge objecting to the proposed Agreement of Settlement. His main objections were that the proposed Agreement had not been made available to any inmate at the Bridgeport Correctional Center, and even if it had been available, most inmates would not have been able to read it because there was not sufficient staff available to monitor the readings. The first letter stated that once the proposed Agreement of Settlement was made available, he would finalize his objections. The second letter contained further complaints about the lack of availability of the Agreement to inmates and again requested an opportunity to present oral testimony on the lack of sanctions for non-compliance and the Department of Correction's history of non-compliance in Doe v. Meachum.

According to the docket, on May 22, 1995, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement, and the case was closed.