\

civil cover ;he<c and me information contained herein neuner reolacs nor iuoo'ement We filing and s_rvic_ oí olead¡nq* cr omer o_oer. .1 reauired by 'aw. except as provided by local -.¤urt. T^hn form, .ûorovçcí öy the Judicial Conference of :ne United State* in SeotemDer I 974. ¡j required for tnç use oí ;.-.e Oår< at Co·jrt for the ourooîe of initiating the civil docket {S££ INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

, (a) PLAINTIFFS D.B., a minor, by and through E.D.; K.H., a minor, by and through R.H.; ÍM.M. , a minor, by and through R.H.

DEFENDANTS
ROBERT P. CASEY, Governor; KAREN SNIDER, S e c r e t a r y ; DONALD CARROLL, S e c r e t a r y

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF F!HST UST£O PLAINTIFF

L

COUNTY OF RESiO£NCH OF F!RST LISTEO DEFENDANT

(EXCEPT IN U.S. ?LA!NT¡Fr CAScS)

(IN U.S. PLAINT;"" CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LANO CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF ¯

TRACT OF LANO INVOLVED

( C ) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, AOORESS. ANO TELEPHONE NUMBER)
Juvenile Law Center, Suite 610 801 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 62¯5-O55l

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
Robert G. Schwartz, Esquire

li. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

(Pt_AC£ AN x iN ONE 3OX

U.S. Government Plaintiff
I j 2 U.S. Government Defendant

5Q 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)
C 4 Diversity (Indicate C¡îizsnsnip of Parties in Item ill)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES

(Pt>CE AN x IN ONE 3OX

(For Diversify Cases Only)

•OH PLAINTIFF w¤ ON6 3OI FOB OEí=NOANT)

C¡<izen of This State

PTF OEr Si¾l

Citizen of Another State G 2 G 2

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

G3 G 3

Incorporated or Principal Place at Business in This State
Incorporated and Principal Place of Business in Another State
Foreign Nation

PTF OEF
c 4 a4
as a6

I V . C A U S E O F A C T I O N tcrTE TH6 U.S. C!VIL STATUTE UNO6flWMICM YOU Afl6 rlUNG ANO WRITE A afllEF STAfSMEWT OP CAUSE.

OO NOT C.TE JUP·ISOICTIONAC STATUTES UNl£SS OIVEHSÍTYI - •— U < S - C § 1 9 8 3 ^

-deprivation of due process (procedural and substantive) ; deprivation of rights secured by

First, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; deprivation of statutory rights, 20 U.S.C.

§§ 1400 et sea.

I

I

V. NATURE OF SUIT (PLAŒAN× IN ONE BOX ONLY)

CONTRACT
¤ 110 Injura/`c· G 120 Manne ¤ 130 M«tr Aa G 1 4 0 Ne¶goaaOlfl Iruinjm«nt Cj 1 50 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enf¢xc«niwY< ot
Q 151 Medicare Act G 152 Recov·ffY o( Oeíauílfro
S:\jOe<i( UHtu (£^cl. Ve(eransl O 1 53 Recovery oí Overoaymen( :f V'·:e'in3 =»niíi·j G 160 Stocxnoldera Suits G 190 Omer Ccraraa i_J 195 Contract ?foduc: Uao·iitY
HEAL PROPERTY
G 2 1 0 Land Condemnation G 2 2 0 Foreclosure ¤ 2 3 0 Rent I c u t & £jectnient G 2 4 0 Toru to Land •_i 245 Torî rrc¢uc •_ao·iiry G 2 9 0 Aa CWer Real Proo«rty

TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY
¤ 310 Aira,n.
¤ 3 1 5 Airplane Proouct n , - - üaD'"tv ¤ 3 2 0 Ai3au«. übe( 4 n „ „ Slanoef U 3 3 0 Federal Emotóyerj
üa£»Ky

PERSONAL INJURY

Q 3 6 2 pmont¡

_

M > d Maior,CTc.
Q 3 6 5 Psr*jnal In,uryp,Míia y ¿ , ^
Q 3 M AaJJe3W, Peraonal ,^U(V P r o ú u a Uat><ty

¤ M S " ^ , P,odua UaC»ïty
G 3 5 0 Mo<or Vehicle G 3 5 5 Motor v»í·.!c!a
Product Liaanty l_¡ 3 6 0 Oner Personal
¡npiry

„ «RSONAL PROPERTT -– 3 7 0 Otner Fraud C 3 7 1 Tru<n in Len<Snq G 3 8 0 ¢¾ner Personal
?r=o«n¯( Oarraçe G 3 8 5 Prooarry ¤ama<je
Proouct UaO»ü(v

CIVIL RIGHTS
¤ 441 Voonc. Q 4 4 2 Smc*>yrnent G 4 4 3 Housing/
Accommodations rn Ü 4 we<tare A ] 4 4 0 Omer Civil ft¿oƒit3

PfllSONER PETrriONS
n 510 Motions to vacate 3«u·no· Haoeas Corpus:
G 530 General G 535 o»itn P**iaiw G 540 Mandamus 4 Otn·r • 550 Otfier

FORFEITURE /PíNALTY i 1 610 Arjncunur· Q 620 Ctn«r Pood 1 Oruq G 625 Onjq Related Seizure ol
Proo«iy2IUSCaol C 630 Uauor U w i G 640 R.R.4 Truck i~ 650 A¡c¡n« 3e¾j U 660 Occuaaoonai
Safety/M«atm C 690 Om«r
LABOR
G 7 1 0 Fair Laoor Standards Aa
Q 7 2 0 Lioor/Momt. R·tacons
H 7 3 0 Ll!>or/Mqrr.t. .Reoorïnq & Cisaosure Act
G 7 4 0 Railway Usor Aa
Q 7 9 0 Omer Laoor ütlqaaon
a 791 Emot. Set. Inc. Security Aa

BANKRUPTCY
a 422 m«i
28 USC 154 Q 4 2 3 Wrmoraw»l
23 USC 1S7
PROPERTY RIGHTS
G 3 2 0 Cooynoƒits ¤ 3 3 0 Patent LJ 3 4 0 Trademan<
SOCIAL SECURITY
G 861 HIA(l395ül C 8 6 2 3lacx Lung (923I G 3S3 c.wG'c:vAv¯:f*csíç.;) G 8 6 4 SSi¤ Ti3e XVI •_i 8 6 5 RSl (<O¾g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
G 8 7 0 T a i n (U.S. P!aintilt or Oetenaant)
Q 871 IRS-Third Parry 2S USC 7SO9

VI. ORIGIN
Ç[ 1 Onginal Proceeding

G 2 Removed from Slate Court

(PLACE AN × IN ONE 3OX ONLY)

iransferred from

G 3 Remanded from f j 4 Reinstated or • 5 anoü*ier district

Appellate Court

Reopened

(specify)

G 6 Multidistnct Litigation

OTHER STATUTES

¤ 400 Stat·

~

Re—Doortionment

Q 4 1 0 Antitrust

G 4 3 0 Sinlcj and Sankind

Q 4 5 0 Comm<n:e/ICC Rates/etc

¤ 46O· Oeoortaoon

Q 4 7 0 Rac«ete»r Influenced and

Cðrruot Ordaruzaoons

G 8 1 0 Se(ec=v« Serv<c·

¤ 8 5 0 Securro«s/Commodities/

£jtcnange

G 8 7 5 Customer Challenge 12 USC 1»1O
Q 8 9 1 Agnourmral Aca G 3 9 2 =conc-^-: Slactüi3üon
Act Q 8 9 3 Environmental Matters G 3 9 4 En«n7y AJhacaoon Act

a 8 9 5 rr»ecom oí Iníormaûon Act
Q 9 0 0 A«o«alorFeeÐetemiin«oon Under £qi-·al Access to Jusoca
Q 9 5 0 ConsJTUtJonaiiry oí State Sututes
G 3SO Or.·f 3al·tory Acsons

A?peai to Oistnct ¤ 7 Judge from
Maaistrate Judgment

VII. R E Q U E S T E D IN CHECK IF THIS IS A, CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT: ¾ UNOER F.RC.P. 23

DEMAND S

Glee* Y¦S only II demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: 2l YE3 G NO

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions):

IF ANY >T None

jur>r,F
//

DATE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF 3EC0R0

Oct:ober 16, 1991 ^>

DOCKET NUMBER

.

UNITED STATES DISTFIICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

D.B., a minor, by and through his

next friend, E.B.; K.H. a minor, by

and through his next friend, R.H.;

M.M., a minor, by and through his

next friend, R.H.; on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly

situated;

'

: CIVIL ACTION NO. : : : CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs,

:

v.
ROBERT P. CASEY, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;

: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
:

KAREN SNIDER, in her official

:

capacity as Acting Secretary of the

Department of Public Welfare for the :

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;

DONALD CARROLL, in his official

capacity as Secretary of the

:

Department of Education for the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;

:

Defendants.

COMPLAINT INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil rights class action brought on behalf of all children who are now, or who will be confined in the Youth Development Center, Bensalem ("YDC, Bensalem" or "the institution"). 2. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief from cruel and abusive conditions of confinement imposed by defendants that violate rights guaranteed to them by the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and by

•V

* ^IVKJ co^^^ 'fleet ¿f^Q tfiç inforrn^tioo £on¢3i^£^ hçr€tn f^citn¢f r co i ðcc no^ ÏOOÐ*¢i11¢nc tri¢ riiint^ jfid s¢rvïC¢ o • oi¢3Otnoi o ^ o t^¢r Q ¿)o¢n a t¢*ouir¢tì by *â`^, ÏÄCCOÍ 3S Ð roVIQ¢tì QU loC3l J¤uri. 7hiï focm, jo¤<¯ovç<j Qv tl¯`¢ Judicial Conference of me United States in Sea tern ¤er I 974. ¡i reauired for me ui¢ of :.¯`-e Cíer`¢ of Court for :ne ouroo.e of initiating tne civil docke
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OP THE FORM.)

• (a) PLAINTIFFS
D.B., a minor, by and through E.D.; K.H., a minor, by and through R.H.; M.M., a minor, by and through R.H.

DEFENDANTS
ROBERT P. CASEY, Governor; KAREN SNIDER, Secretary; DONALD CARROLL, Secretary

( b ) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE GF F!RST LISTED PLAINTIFF

'_

(EXCEPT IN U.S. ?LAINTÌFF CASES)

COUNTY OF RESiOENCE OF F!RST LISTED D£FENOANT

.

(IN U.S. PLAINT!." CASES ONLY)

NOTE. IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF '

TRACT OF LANO INVOLVED

( C ) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, AOORESS. ANO TELEPHONE NUMBER)
Juvenile Law Center, Suite 610 801 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 625-0551

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
Robert G. Schwartz, Esquire

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

IN O N E BOX ONl_Y)

C 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff
¯j 2 U.S. Government Defendant

3Q 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)
C 4 Diversity
(Indicate Ciüzansnip of Parties in Item III)

111. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES

(For O¡versity Cases Only)

•=Ofl PLAINTIFF ANO CNg 3OX FOA OEFENOANT)

Citizen of This State

PTF OEr

Si

¾!

Citizen of Another State d 2 G 2

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

Q 3 G3

Incorporated or Principal Place of Business in This State
Incorporated and Principal Place of Business in Another State
Foreign Nation

PTF DEF C 4 O4
¤s a6

I V . C A U S E O F A C T I O N IC:TETHEU.S. CVIL STATUTE UNOEH WHICH YW A*E FIUNQ AMI W«TE A S»EF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.

OO NOT C.TE JURIS¤tCTlONAL STATUTES UNLESS OIVEBSITY) 4 2 U . S · C . § 1 9 8 3 ;

-deprivation of due process (procedural and substantive) ; deprivation of rights secured by

First, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth .Amendments; deprivation of statutorv rights, 20 Ü.S.C.

§§ 1400 et sea.

^

I

V. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN × IN ONE BOX ONLY)

CONTRACT
¤ 1 1 0 Injuranc* G 1 2 0 Manne Q 1 3 0 Wilier A a Q 1 * 0 Negoaaûl« insuumefif O 1 5 0 Hecovary oí OvstTjayment
& cnío¯cam«nt at JuCgm«o( Q 151 M«dicar« Act Lj 1 5 2 R»coviïry o( O«íauited Síuo«ot Loans [£jtci. Ve(eransi G 1 5 3 Recover/ oí Overoaym·n(
Q 1 6 0 StocWiQid·r3 Suits G 1 9 0 Otn« Ccniraci i_J 1 9 5 Contract r»rotíuci Uaö«tv
REAL PROPERTY
Cj 2 1 0 La/vd CorK3«mna(too ¤ 2 2 0 F<xeciosur· G 2 3 0 Rent Lc4M & £J9Cimant G 2 4 0 Tons to Land u 2 4 5 Türt rrocuc LaoiSfy G 2 9 0 A8 Otn·r fl··l Proo«rTf

TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY ¤ 310 Ain«an. LJ 3 1 5 Aíípl«n· Pnxxict
Uui¡ly ¤ 3 2 0 Ai3»ua. l i b * s
r¯, , „ , , S`3rM" ¤ 3 3 0 Fed·raJ emctoy·fs¯
L¿*&»Y ^1 3 4 0 MAnrut ñ Î 4 S M»ní ?n»ua
(JaCiïry ¤ 3S0 Motor vetiicl» Zl 3S5 Wolor v*`.ic:a
PTMUCI uaocniy ¤ 3 6 0 Om·r ?erional
infury

PERSONAL INJURY
Q 3 6 2 p¢f3ona)
u«d Maicx¾coc· Q 3 6 5 p , r j o n a , ,„
Produa Uiaíty
¤ 3 6 8 A5Mílo> P¢rson«i Injury Product Uaùity
PÍHSONAL PHQPEHTY G 3 7 0 OW«r rraud G ^ 7 1 ``¯""" "` l-<neinq -¯' `^^^ OîT`.er Personal
?^¾)«fT< Camaçs ¤ 3 8 5 Prooj<ry Oam«3«
Proauct OaOtü(v

CIVIL RIGHTS
Q 4 4 1 Voonq Q 4 4 2 £mp<oym«m ¤ 4 4 3 Hocumg/
Accammodauo^3 o Ü 4 ww)„.
S 440 Om·r CM Biqn¤

PfllSONER PETmONS
Q 510 Mann* to Vicai« S«n(·no« Hao·&s COCDUS:
G 530 G·n«al 'Z 535 O«itn P·rtatrv • 540 Manoamu» i O¡n«< Q 550 Otn«r

FORF£[TUR£ /PENALTY
I_J 610 Agncu(tur· Q 6 2 0 Otn«r Food & Orug C 62S Onjq R·la(ed Seizure oí
Procerty2lUSC38l C 6 3 0 Uauor U w a O 6 4 0 R.H.4 TnjcX t_J 650 AiTJne rî·gs G 660 Occuoa¤ortai
Sa(ety/Heai<n ¯~ 6 9 0 Otner
LA8OR
¤ 7 1 0 Pair Lacor Stanoards ¿a
¤ 7 2 0 Lioo<·/Mqml. H·lacon3
¯¯1 7 3 0 L-oor/M<¦rr.(. =leoon:oq & Cúoa-ur· Act
¤ 7 4 0 Railway Usor Aa
¤ 7 9 0 Om«<· Laoor ütigaoon
Q 7 9 1 6moi. S « . I r e S«cunty Act

8ANKHUFTCY
a 422 Aoa«t 28 USC 15Í
O 4 2 3 W«ndrawaí 2S USC 157
PHOPEHTY HIGHTS
G 8 2 0 Cooynona G 330 P.l·nl '_¡ 3 4 0 T<ad«<nartc
SOCIAL SECURfH G 851 HIA(I3_5<TI C 862 Blacx Lung (923) . I S63 C.wC·C¦WW'(«£tsì) ¤ 864 SSIO ™ . AVI 3 865 ssi («SC3))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
G 8 7 0 Tajw (U.S. P!a¡n(ilf or o«(·naan(i
¤ 8 7 1 IRS—™<B Pany 2S USC 7609

OTHER STATIÍTES

a 4 0 0 State

—

ReaooO(i}O'vnen<

Q 4 1 0 Antitrust

Q 4 3 0 B a n u ana Banking

Q 4 5 0 Comm«n.·/lCC Rafes/«ta

¤ 4 6 0 O«××ra_o«

Q 4 7 0 Racxet_-»r influenced and

Cornjc< Oganaattons

• 3 1 0 Selec=ve Sennce

O 8 5 0 S·cumie3/Commod>tie9/

ëjccftanç;e

Q 8 7 S Cusio<ner C.``allenq« 12 USO 1*10
Q 8 9 1 Agncuffural Acts ID 5 9 2 £ccnc·r`JC Simulation
Act • 8 9 3 Envirønm«ntal Matï·r* G 3 9 4 Enenjy Aflocaoon Act • 8 9 5 rreeoom o(
Information Act C3 9OO Aoaealo/Fe·O«lemitnat)on
Unc¯er =^·al Access to Jtisoca D 9 5 0 Constnut]onai«ty ol State Statutes •__! 33·3 CT.*r 3a.·uta<y Actions

VI. ORIGIN
1 Onginal Proceeding

Q 2 Removed from Slate Court

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

transferred from

¤ 3 Remanded from

Q 4 Re¡ns¡ated or

¤ 5 another district

Appellate Court

Heooened

(specify)

¤ 6 Multidistnct Litigation

Appeal to Oistnct Q 7 Jucge from
Magistrate JuCgment

VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS is A CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT:

¾ UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMANDS

C<iecK YES only il demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: S YES G NO

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY .T
None

JUDGE

DATE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORO

October 16, 1991

. DOCKET NUM86H_

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNIlED STATES DISTRICT COCJRx

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA — DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to appropriate,calendar.
Address of Plaintiff: O f f i c e of p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel of r e c o r d .

Address of Defendant: O f f i c e of A t t o r n e y General

Place of Accident, incident or Transaction: Camionwealth of ?A. Youth D e t e n t i o n Center a t Bensalen, PA

{Use Reverse Side For Additional Spaa) Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities'?

Yes ¤ No

RELATED CASE¡FANY Case Number:. None

Judge

Daie Terminated:.

Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered 10 any of the following questions:
1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?

Yes ¤ No §U

2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?

Yes¤ No 0

3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?

Yes¤ No

CIVIL: (Place \×ì in ONE CATEGORYONLY)

A. Federal Question Cases: 1. LJ Indemnity Contract. Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts 2. ¤ FELA 3. LJ Jones Act—Personal Injury 4. LJ Antitrust 5. D Patent 6. LJ Labor-Management Relations 7. CEI Civil Rights 8. LJ Habeas Corpus 9. LJ Securities Act(s) Cases
10. I ! Social Security Review Cases 11. I ] All other Federal Question Cases
(please specify)

B. Dìversiry Jurisdiction Cases:
1. LJ Insurance Contract and Other Contracts 2. LJ Airplane Personal Injury 3. LJ Assault, Defamation 4. CJ Marine Personal Injury 5. I ! Motor Vehicle Personal Injury 6. LJ Other Personal Injury (Please specify) 7. LJ Products Liability S. LJ Products Liability—Asbestos Q I ! All other Diversity Cases
(Please specify)

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
(Check appropriate category;)

•I. Guv Vilim Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 8. Section 4(aX2). that, to the best

my

recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of S7S,OOO exclusive

, counsel of record do hereby certify nd bejjeí\ the damages

Relief other than monetary damages is sought.

DATE:

Attomey-at-Law

NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if tì£r'e has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.

I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now nated action in this court except as noted above.
DATE- October 16, 1991

r with

year previously term

CIV. 609 (Rev. Ll/85`)

federal statutes. These conditions seriously endanger plaintiffs' physical and psychological health and safety, and deprive them of any access to or opportunity for treatment or education. In particular, defendants subject plaintiffs to overcrowding, dangerous and unsanitary physical conditions, lack of security, lack of adequate staff, lack of medical care, lack of adequate education and programming, and lack of due process in disciplinary matters.
JURISDICTION 3. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), this being an action to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and federal statutes. 4. This Court also has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §1343(4), since this is an action to secure declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief under Acts of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, specifically the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5. This Court also has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65, since this is an action seeking a judgment declaring the rights of plaintiffs and for injunctive and other equitable relief based upon that declaratory judgment under § 1983. 6. This Court also has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § l33l(a), since this is an action in which the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution of the United States.
2

PLAINTIFFS 7. Plaintiff D.B. is a minor child and a citizen of the United States. He is currently confined in.the institution. He sues through his mother and next friend, A.M. 8. D.B. suffered a perforated ear drum after being punched by an institution staff person. It was more than a day before D.B. was provided with medical care. 9. Since D.B. entered YDC, Bensalem, he has not received any vocational training, and has received only one week of preparation for his G.E.D. 10. Plaintiff K.H. is a minor child and a citizen of the United States. He is currently confined in the institution. He sues through his mother and next friend, R.H. 11. K.H. was assaulted by institution staff while handcuffed. 12. Despite being beaten about the head and body, K.H. received no medical care for his injuries. 13. Like other residents of the institution, K.H. receives little treatment at the facility; has limited recreation time, either inside or outside; and eats meals that are substandard. 14. Plaintiff M.M. is a minor child and a citizen of the United States. He is currently confined in the institution. He sues through his mother and next friend, R.H. 15. M.M. is assigned to the Sex Offender Program in the "Security Unit" of the institution. Although he receives minimal

"counseling," M.M. has not received any meaningful treatment for his problems.
16. The named plaintiffs have been subjected to the policies, practices, acts, and omissions described in this Complaint. The named plaintiffs sue under pseudonyms in order to protect their privacy, preserve the confidentiality of records pertaining to them, and avoid embarrassment and humiliation.
DEFENDANTS 17. Defendant Robert B. Casey, is Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He is the chief executive officer of the State, and is responsible for the development and implementation of the policies, practices, and procedures described in this Complaint, which are the official policies, practices, and procedures of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 18. Defendant Karen Snider is the Acting Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare ("DPW") for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In this capacity, she is responsible for developing and implementing programs for the care, education, and treatment of persons committed to the custody of DPW, including the operation of training schools such as the Youth Development Center at Bensalem, Pennsylvania. 19. Defendant Donald Carroll is the Secretary of the Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In this capacity, he is responsible under Pennsylvania law, 71 P.S. § 751-26, for providing education and related services to

children confined in training schools in Pennsylvania, including those in the Youth Development Center at Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
20. Defendants' policies and regulations purport to prohibit certain practices described in this complaint. Nevertheless, defendants and their agents and employees, with defendants' knowledge and consent, routinely engage in such practices, which constitute the actual policies and practices, customs and usages of the defendants. All of the policies, practices, acts, and omissions alleged herein are intentional, deliberately maintained policies, practices, acts, and omissions of the defendants. They constitute deliberate or reckless indifference of the defendants to plaintiffs1 constitutional and statutory rights, since the defendants have been apprised of the acts complained of through numerous reports and investigations over the last several years, yet they have failed to correct the conditions complained of herein.
21. All defendants are sued in their official capacities only. At all relevant times, defendants have acted under color of state law to deprive plaintiffs of their rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution of the United States and applicable federal statutes.
CLASS ACTION 22. Named plaintiffs bring this action on half of themselves and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The

class consists of all juveniles who are currently, or who will be confined in the institution.
23. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. During the past year, defendants have confined several hundred juveniles in the institution, which has a licensed capacity of about 185.
24. All plaintiffs are subjected to the conditions in the institution and the policies and practices of the defendants described in the Complaint during their confinement at the institution, so that there are questions of law and fact common to the members of the plaintiff class. The questions of law and fact common to all members of the plaintiff class include whether the conditions, practices, acts, and omissions complained of occur at the institution, and whether these conditions and practices violate plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights.
25. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the plaintiff class. All plaintiffs have suffered from the conditions, policies, practices, acts, and omissions complained of in this action.
26. Plaintiff's counsel have substantial experience in this type of litigation. The named plaintiffs and their counsel have sufficient resources to diligently pursue this litigation, and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the class.

27. By their policies and practices, the defendants have acted, and continue to act, on grounds and in a manner generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
28. The injuries suffered by plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class as a result of the policies and practices of defendants complained of herein present a continuing controversy and are capable of repetition, yet may evade review, thereby making class relief appropriate.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I. The Institution
29. DPW operates approximately eight youth development centers and youth forestry camps pursuant to its duties under the Public Welfare Code, 62 P.S. §§ 701, 341, 351.
30. YDC, Bensalem, the second largest of the DPW-operated facilities, is a complex of buildings opened in 1968, and located in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
31. YDC Bensalem is surrounded by barbed wire fence; inside the fence are two "campuses," one known as the Secure Unit, which itself is surrounded by barbed wire fencing, and the other known as the Open Unit. The institution is one of three operated by DPW which have both "open" and "secure" settings.
32. At this state-operated institution, defendants confine male youth who have been adjudicated delinquent in Pennsylvania juvenile courts, and who have been placed in the legal custody of
7

DPW to receive treatment, rehabilitation and supervision as required by Pennsylvania law.
33. Punishment is not a permissible basis for placing a juvenile at YDC, Bensalem. Rather, a juvenile is sent to an institution like YDC, Bensalem when a juvenile court judge believes that such placement is "best suited to his treatment, supervision, rehabilitation and welfare." 42 Pa.C.S. § 6352.
34. Because they are sent to the institution for treatment, rehabilitation and supervision, juveniles who are in the legal custody of defendant DPW and placed at the institution under Pennsylvania law do not receive in juvenile court all of the due process protections to which adults are entitled in criminal court.
35. Juveniles at the institution have varying delinquent experience, ranging from non-violent property offenses to violent crimes against persons.
36. Although juveniles are sent to the institution to receive specialized treatment for arson and for sex offenses, such programs are seriously deficient.
37. Unlike most of the other facilities operated by DPW, to which large numbers of white youth are committed, YDC Bensalem is overwhelmingly black and Hispanic.
38. For example, in 1990, 91 youth were committed to the open unit at Bensalem; of those, 66 were black, 19 were Hispanic, and six were white (93% were minority youth). Seventy-nine youth

were committed to the secure unit, 59 of whom were black, 13 were Hispanic, and seven were white (91% were minority youth).
39. In contrast, in 1990, 125 youth were committed to the Youth Development at New Castle, a comparable DPW-facuity in western Pennsylvania; of those, 71 were black, 9 were Hispanic, and 45 were white (64% were minority youth). Ninety youth were committed to the New Castle secure unit, 54 of whom were black, 4 were Hispanic, and 3 2 were white (64% were minority youth).
40. DPW has consistently provided the least adequate programming, staffing and services to YDC, Bensalem, of all DPWoperated facilities.
41. Over the years, the institution has been subject of numerous official investigations. These investigations have concluded that the institution is a dangerous facility; that it fails to protect youths in its custody; that it fails to provide resources necessary for staff to perform their duties; that it is plagued by extraordinarily high staff turnover, staff shortages and sick leave; that extensive use of overtime places undue strain on those staff who carry the burden of extra work; and that many of the staff are untrained in basic professional practices for supervising, protecting and rehabilitating delinquent youth.
42. The patterns and practices described in official investigations have also been reported in the press, whose reports were known to defendants. See Appendix A.

43. Many of the problems that have been consistently identified by these official investigations and press reports persist today. See Appendix B.
44. Defendants' failure to correct these conditions has prevented those staff at the institution who are dedicated and capable from fulfilling their duties.
II. Safety and Security 45. Defendants jeopardize plaintiffs' health and safety by
failing to provide adequate security in the institution. Injuries to residents and staff are not isolated incidents.
46. Defendants fail to supervise and train staff. As a result, plaintiffs are victims of staff assaults. Defendants have taken little or no action to curtail staff brutality. When notified of abuses, defendants have failed to take action against staff members involved.
47. Defendants also fail to adequately supervise plaintiffs in the institution.
48. Defendants' staff members permit aggressive youths to assault or restrain smaller children as a means of disciplining and controlling them. As a result, staff often condone confined youths' assaults on plaintiffs.
49. Defendants fail to provide adequate staff coverage in the institution. Defendants do not provide enough staff to adequately supervise or treat youths confined in the institution. As a result, defendants deny plaintiffs personal security and safety in the institution.
10

50. As a result of the defendants' failure to provide sufficient numbers of staff, and as a result of their failure to supervise staff or to train and support staff adequately in their work, some staff routinely resort to illegal and improper methods of control and behavior management that include, in addition to others previously alleged, selling and otherwise trafficking drugs to residents, permitting and/or engaging in sexual activity with residents, and assisting or condoning escapes from the institution. These activities are harmful to residents and to other staff who conscientiously attempt to fulfill their duties to plaintiffs.
Ill. Restraints, Isolation, and Denial of Due Process 51. Institution staff members are not trained in the use of
passive restraints, in the appropriate use of peer pressure to assist in controlling the environment, or in professionally accepted methods of behavior modification. As a result, staff unnecessarily relies on isolation and handcuffs as methods of discipline and control.
52. There is no procedure that limits the use of isolation, or that ensures that it is appropriately used. As a result, defendants isolate plaintiffs for minor incidents, including disrespect for staff members, altercations with other youths, and refusal to promptly obey orders. Defendants also isolate plaintiffs for behaviors caused by mental or emotional illnesses and other disabilities, instead of providing plaintiffs with treatment for these illnesses and disabilities.
11

53. Defendants routinely use metal handcuffs as a means of discipline and of controlling youths' behavior.
54. Institution staff have, on many occasions, beaten or kicked plaintiffs while they were handcuffed.
55. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer serious physical and emotional damage as a result of extended isolation, handcuffing and beatings.
56. Defendants deprive plaintiffs of constitutionally guaranteed due process in disciplinary procedures.
57. Defendants discipline plaintiffs arbitrarily and capriciously for minor misbehaviors and for behaviors that are symptoms of emotional or mental disabilities.
58. Defendants authorize staff members, regardless of training or qualifications, to order plaintiffs into isolation or to place plaintiffs in handcuffs.
59. To the extent that defendants have developed a written grievance procedure, they fail to inform plaintiffs about the existence of this procedure or to explain to them how the procedure can be used, thus rendering the procedure non-existent.
IV. Inadequate Environment at the Institution 60. Living units at the institution are called "cottages."
Cottages contain one or more sleeping areas; lockers; one or more bathroom areas containing toilets, sinks, and showers; and open recreation areas.
61. Because of the tension, lack of space, and lack of
12

supervision caused by periodic overcrowding, physical assaults are common.
62. Defendants maintain unhealthy and unsanitary conditions at the institution. Defendants do not adequately clean or maintain the buildings, which are routinely dirty and roachinfested, and have peeling paint. Furniture is often in disrepair.
63. Defendants maintain buildings which are structurally unsound and which present serious danger in the event of fire. Defendants force plaintiffs to live in buildings that are improperly heated, cooled, ventilated, or lighted. These buildings do not have screens and are often insect-infested.
64. Defendants do not adequately feed plaintiffs. Defendants do not provide meals which are adequate in quantity or quality to meet the nutritional needs of adolescents. Defendants prepare food under conditions that are unhealthful and unsanitary. In addition, plaintiffs usually have only fifteen minutes to eat each meal.
V. Inadequate Programming and Education 65. Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with an adequate
education comparable to that available to juveniles in the community.
66. Defendants have failed to establish a system for identifying, evaluating and developing appropriate educational programs for children who have disabilities, as required by federal law.
13

67. Defendants fail to provide vocational education that meets statutory requirements. The vocational education they do provide does not prepare plaintiffs to obtain employment upon release.
68. Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with other forms of programming. They require plaintiffs to spend prolonged periods of time without any programmed activity or recreational or therapeutic programming.
69. Defendants fail to provide treatment that is consistent with professional standards to those plaintiffs who are committed to the institution specifically to receive such specialized services, in particular for sex offenses and arson.
70. The lack of treatment is so great that placement at the institution for many plaintiffs is purely punitive in nature.
VI. Inadequate Medical and Psychological Care 71. Defendants provide medical care at the institution
which is grossly inadequate to maintain physical or mental health. Defendants' failure to provide adequate medical care amounts to deliberate indifference to the health and safety ` requirements of plaintiffs at the institution.
72. Defendants fail to provide medical staff at the institution that is adequate to meet plaintiffs' needs. There is no staff physician, dentist or psychiatrist. Defendants fail to employ adequate numbers of aides, nurses, nurses' aides, or dental hygienists, physicians' assistants, or other trained and
14

qualified medical personnel necessary to meet plaintiffs' physical, mental and medical needs.
73. Defendants fail to provide prompt attention to plaintiffs' medical needs in a variety of ways. There is no infirmary at the institution. Plaintiffs who are on medication when they enter the institution fail to receive medication while they are at the institution. Defendants fail to provide periodic medical screens.
74. Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with adequate psychological care and treatment.
75. Defendants fail to adequately assess plaintiffs' psychological condition at or before the time of their admission to the institution. As a result, defendants confine plaintiffs who have serious psychological illnesses, who are mentally retarded, and who are otherwise disabled in an institution where they cannot adequately be treated.
76. Defendants fail to design and implement an adequate treatment plan for each plaintiff at the institution. As a result, defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with appropriate rehabilitation or treatment. In particular, plaintiffs do not receive treatment consistent with professional standards, even when they are committed to the institution specifically because it is supposed to have specialized treatment units for sex offenders and arsonists.
15

77. Defendants do not employ or make available a sufficient number of qualified psychologists or social workers to counsel and treat plaintiffs.
78. Defendants delegate the responsibility for providing plaintiffs with direct psychological treatment to persons who are inadequately trained and supervised. As a result, plaintiffs do not receive psychological treatment.
79. Staff is inadequately trained to provide behavior modification techniques in a manner that is consistent with accepted professional standards. As a result, behavior modification is essentially unstructured and improvised.
VI. Training and Qualifications of Staff 80. Defendants fail to hire staff with adequate
qualifications to provide proper care, custody, and treatment of juveniles at the institution.
81. Defendants fail to ensure that there are a sufficient number of qualified staff present in the institution to ensure plaintiffs' rights to protection and treatment.
82. Defendants fail to provide adequate pre-employmenf or in-service training for staff at the institution. As a result, staff at the institution are unable to perform their duties properly or to adequately protect, care for and treat plaintiffs.
VII. Inadequate Classification 83. Defendants have failed to develop standards for
admission to the institution. This failure results in DPW
16

inappropriately placing youth at the institution, and in DPW failing to take steps to inform committing juvenile courts when those courts inappropriately commit youths who are too young or otherwise inappropriate for the institution's setting because of their background or offense.
84. Defendants have failed to develop and implement an adequate classification system for juveniles once they are confined in the institution. As a result, defendants commingle in the same living units juveniles charged with non-violent offenses and juveniles charged with violent crimes.
85. The absence of a classification system that governs entry into the institution, and placement within it, jeopardizes plaintiffs' health and safety, and undermines their chances for treatment and rehabilitation.
VIII. Inadequate Access to Family and Counsel 86. Defendants, by their visitation and telephone policies
and practices, deprive plaintiffs of their right to communicate and associate with their families outside of the institution. Visits and telephone calls are necessary to plaintiffs' treatment and rehabilitation and to assist in their eventual, reintegration into the community.
87. Defendants severely restrict plaintiffs' opportunities for visitation with family and friends. Defendants discourage parental visits by informing parents that defendants cannot guarantee parents1 safety during visits. staff arbitrarily remove visitors' names from approved visiting lists. Staff
17

frequently removes telephones from their hooks for prolonged periods of time, making it difficult or impossible for family or friends to communicate with plaintiffs. In addition, since May, 1991 defendants have failed to provide home passes to any plaintiff; such failure is contrary to accepted professional standards.
88. Similarly, defendants' practices severely restrict plaintiffs' opportunities to have private, on-site conversations with their attorneys, and to speak with their attorneys by telephone.
LEGAL CLAIMS 89. For plaintiffs' legal claims enumerated below, they repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 8 8 as if fully set forth herein in each and every statement of claim, and further allege:
First Claim: Due Process 90. By subjecting plaintiffs to the conditions of confinement described herein, individually and in their totality, defendants deprive plaintiffs of their right to due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 91. By failing to protect plaintiffs from harmful conditions, and from physical and emotional abuse, defendants deprive plaintiffs of their right to be protected while in state custody, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
18

92. By failing to provide a facility which is reasonably safe, which avoids the use of unnecessary bodily restraints, and which provides treatment that is consistent with professional standards, defendants deprive plaintiffs of their rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
93. By failing to provide plaintiffs with adequate treatment, rehabilitation or supervision, as required by state law, defendants deprive plaintiffs of their rights to due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Second Claim: Right to Education

94. By failing to provide plaintiffs with education that is

consistent with professional standards, defendants deprive

plaintiffs of their right to education without due process of

law.

.

95. By failing to establish a system for identifying and

planning for youths who are eligible for special education

services, defendants deprive plaintiffs of their state and

federal statutory rights to education, without due process of

law, and to their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.

Third Claim: Cruel and Unusual Punishment 96. By demonstrating deliberate indifference to conditions in the institution, and by subjecting plaintiffs to the

19

conditions of confinement described herein, individually and in their totality, defendants deprive plaintiffs of their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Fourth Claim. Freedom of Speech and Association 97. By subjecting plaintiffs to the conditions described herein, and in particular by restricting their communication with their attorneys and with persons outside of the institution, defendants deprive plaintiffs of their right to freedom of speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW 98. As a proximate result of the defendants' policies, practices, acts, and omissions, plaintiffs have suffered, do suffer, and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological, and emotional injury. Their intellectual abilities, their emotional health and wellbeing, and their ability to function adequately in the community have seriously deteriorated and will continue to deteriorate during the course of their confinement at YDC, Bensalem. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs described in this Complaint. Plaintiffs will continue to be irreparably injured by the policies, practices,
20

procedures, acts, and omissions of defendants unless this Court grants the injunctive relief that plaintiffs seek.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court: 1. Certify this matter as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Issue a declaratory judgment declaring that defendants' practices in subjecting plaintiffs to the conditions of confinement described in the Complaint violate rights guaranteed to plaintiffs under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 3. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants, their agents, employees, successors in office and assigns, from engaging in the unconstitutional and unlawful practices, acts, and omissions described herein, including, but not limited to:
a. Failing to develop and implement an adequate system for classification of plaintiffs at the institution;
b. Failing to adequately screen plaintiffs to insure that plaintiffs with serious emotional or psychological disabilities are not confined in the institution;
c. Failing to provide plaintiffs with, adequate medical, dental, and psychiatric care;
d. Failing to provide plaintiffs with reasonable opportunities to telephone and visit parents, friends, and relatives;
21

e. Failing to provide plaintiffs with reasonable opportunities to meet privately with their attorneys and to apeak with them on the telephone.
f. Failing to provide plaintiffs with adequate programming;
g. Failing to provide adequately trained staff in adequate numbers to insure plaintiffs' safety and provide them with treatment;
h. Confining plaintiffs in facilities that are overcrowded, unhealthful, unsanitary, and life-endangering;
i. Confining plaintiffs in security units, and, in particular, in isolation units, or otherwise subjecting plaintiffs to sensory deprivation;
j. Handcuffing plaintiffs; k. Failing to provide plaintiffs with due process protections prior to imposing discipline, including but not limited to, discipline that results in isolation; 1. Failing to adequately protect the physical health of plaintiffs; m. Failing to insure plaintiffs against attacks by staff members or by other children confined in the institution; 4. Direct defendants to develop and submit to this Court a plan that will insure that plaintiffs are not subject to conditions of confinement in the institution that deprive them of rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution.
22

5. Retain jurisdiction over this matter until implementation of the court's decree has been completed.
6. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
7. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT G. /SCHWART¯Z Juvenile Law Center 801 Arch Street, Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 625-0551

DATED: October 16, 1991

:HARD J. GOLD ídova and Lisi 1201 Chestnut St., 2nd Fl·. Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 5¢Š/5240
Decheyr. Price and Rhoads 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 (215) 994-4000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

APPENDIX A

;A`UTUAI
SUCXS COUNTV UVITTOWN. pA

Over the past.decade, the Youth Development Center in 3ensalem has suffered from various problems, lactuding under* staffing, management turnover, institutional lighting, drug and alconol trafficking a¤d overcrowding.
Following is a summary of incidents at the center:
• Oct. 24. 1988 — Staff member Mioia¢l Tîsdale was assaulted bv i student In a security wino. T¡scaie received several stitches tor a cut above tne eve.
• Seof. 26. 1988 — A state audit of me YOC*s 1984-87 fiscal vear reveals J7&á,-i39 paid ouf In overtime, a 61 oercenf Increase over the oreviou¾ year. That figure is the nigh«t for anv YOC and one of me worst records in Pennsylvania history.
tn the mosf blatant case of abuse, a house parent earning an SIS.?¯2a annual s a l a r y w o r k e d more than 2.100 hours overtime to receive a total of sJ7,875.
• Aug. } i . 1983 — A surprise, earlv-mornina visit from a stare official caugnf several emoiovees îieeotng on the ioo. Same were sie<oing so soundly thaf tnev had to oe sna*en awake, according to a YOC worker.
• August 1988 —The state Civil Service Commission starred investigating an unfair or¤moîion comoiainf by a YOC counselor. lé¤t^ Ziegier cescribed a Ouoav jvsîem of oromoíion wnere tenure ¿nd Qualifications meant little.
"It ceoenas an wnetner vou're In (he ct¡aue." sne claimed. The commission said in Octooer that tt í¯3und no violations of civil service laws.
y_r_f_emal¢ em-

olovees filed sexual discrimination cnarges witn tne U.S. 5auai 5molovm«nt OooarTunitv Commission's Ph*laaeiohia office.
n Aortl l o - U . 1988 — A Bucks County Courier Times series outlined the oro¤lems of unsuoervised furloughs; one YOC worker said 30 o«rcenf oí the youths wno go nome commit crimes.
a Fed. 14, 198S — Five Philadelphia Inmates were arrested on cxiaroe3 of assaulting and burning another student with a not iron. Police said the c<¯ouo neafed the i r o n , e n t e r e d the room of a 17-vear-oid trying to sleeo» and placed me iron on his back, causing a second-decree ourn.
• Dec. 9. 1937 — YOC Inmare M i c h a e l B a r o e r . 17, was sentenced bv a Sucks County judge to a maximum term of six years (or anack·ing a female YOC worker in Julv 1987. One prosecutor called the arrack one of tne most vicious and unorovoke<i he had ever seen.
3aroer oteaded guilty to alternated homicide, assault bv a prisoner, aggravated and stmole assault, reckless endangerment. receiving; stolen orooer†y. making terroristic threats and indecent ¿ssauit. He na<a t>e*n Incarcerated at the YOC íor two years on raoe and rooc*erv cnaroes.
• Aonl 23. 1987 — Jorge Ca<¯· rascuillo. 18. oleaoed guilty to assault by a orisaner. aggravated and stmoie`assauit and oossession of an offensive w«·aoon. He was sentenced TO tour To ì^ì monim in 3ucxs Counrv orison tor assaulting a counselor ana rnree other inmates on Oec. á. Ì98ó. with a oro· ken oottle ana a mctat lillng caoinel drawer.
• June I98¿ — A counselor was suïcenaeä wiiíiauf OJV (or five

aavs for rwtce casnlng students' cnecks and tailing to return all the funas wn«n requested.
• Marcn 19, 19W — Philadelphia resident L«sier Smith. 16. D<edded guilty to aggravated assault, reckless enaangerment and Dossemon of an instrumenr of escaoe. regarding the 5taOûlng at a state troooer and YOC artendanf. Smith, wno was tried as an adult. was sentenced to one to two years in Bucks County orison.
• Novemoer 1985 — Six escaDe« were returned to tne YOC. They faced various criminal charges stemming from their Nov. 7 escaoe after a flack (ng rwo workers, faking their keys and locking them In a room.
• AUC. 2. 19S5 — Commonwealth Courr refused to reinstate former YOC counselor Gary W. Worrell, wno was tired for al· leged!v mousing two residents aí the facility in 1933.
a A¤ríl 25. 1985 — Tyrone Anaerson. 17. cied af the YOC after he was ¿ooarenflv involved In some rougn-nousmg with another inmate. Oeoufy Olstrict Ah`ornev AianM. Ruoensietncnaracîertzed the incident as horseolav and said Anderson did not have external injuries.
• Fzù. Z, I9¾S — A 14-year<id youtn ai the YOC was arrested by state ool¡ce for assaulting a counselor, harassing anorn¢r and causing S3CO oamage to tne facility.
a A¤m is. 3vaj — me state Cïv-
susoension an<3 firing of Worrell. • Seot. 7. 1963 — ^Aiðdletown
Pones Chief .*.\icn«sel Chítwooa ex· aresseo outrage at a weekend mci·
suoerviseo outing were accused of rooomg i woman at a resMuranr

Talmadge Owens Jr.
. "problems wt can address"
near the Oxford Valley M a l l . • June í. W83 — Common-
wealth Court refused a YOC house parent's bacx oav claim.
Oorsev U. Justice was ílred t¤r allegedly falsifying his col Ice record on his loo aootication. The court said he was convicted of more than 25 crimes.
He was reinstated by The C v i l Service Commission, wniçn said inal Justice's failure to ex¤iain nis convictions did not constitute grounds tor alsmissat.
• Aorit I9¾3 — Tne Civil Service Commission uon¢)d the susoension oí a house oarent and Cis-

mlssal of a counselor. Oliver H. Tcwnseftd was sus-
pended tnree days In Seatemc«r 1937 for necilo<nc¾ after rwo realcents for wnom he was responsible escao<d through a window. Raymond S. Pratt was flre<î as a counselor In June (982. He was ¡n¡ure<3 on me ioo in January ano ordered to return in early June or face dismissal.
• Feb. 3. I9¾3 — The U.S. Justice Oeoarrment Issued a blistering recort on the YDC followmo ð comolaintaoout alleged violations of oetinauenrs* rights. Fecerai irv so<cïors found the YOC was overcrowded; suffered staff snortages; suffered shorrcominçs In the soecíaí-eoucatlon program; and mat the care, pnv¾ical oiant and environment were inaoeduate.
• Aug. i. 19SÎ — A 17-vearn3id YOC resident w¾j tracked Cown and a r r « t e d on rooberv, theft anc receiving stolen orooerrv cnarceí shortly after a robbery In the Nesnaminv Mall parking tot.
• Oec. J, 1980 — Gov. Ricftarc Thornb<jrgn announced nians re send 16 `*woll-oack oftenoers' írom Philadelphia to the YOC The move met with local oooosi tlon. alïhougn Thornburgn main talned It would heio prosecutor crack ¢»wn on the gangs,
• May 28. W3Q — A 20-vear-ol< YOC house oarent. David Carter was susoended following a (Ign wiïh two otner staffers. Hous· oarenf Louise t_!avd. 5ò. v/«s treal ed ana released from a Ph:laael øhia nosoiial tor muiîloie iniunes
• 1979 — Two emolove¯es wer f:rec — and¯iarer remsiateo — at ter they allegedly oarticioate· with inmates in a party wnere a ccnol was servea.

T-r->

Bucks -.Many problems cited in
:a 1987. report haca

facility

is center of violence for young offendei`s

persisted or worsened, •staff and others say. ;T'ie strongest juveniles :prey on the weakest. • Staff members often fear for their Hues.

3y rí Sue*
They tried to öl[ Cauc* Stars AS be came out o( tne bamrooa.
•Vli!jaut wBrata¢. lbs çac? O( ¡QV¢cil« o(Eeaderï a« * u îvp^rvTíu;¾ l i r e * t j o « t over nts bead sod beçaa (o beac til a `"`i¤ • » o o d « table Iff. One youtn tried 10 cbroai« b i s froai öebtnd.
Blow alter blow fell oa atm u Be tiled ta saield HJmset£ «iui i u

ä*Qû5. L-i!<r, 21s n o ç would ù··e IO t>s C¯J( (ram a is r*otl«a. tta¢çrî.
3ul Stark did sot ¢oiUoie. ¡iú a<:a¢*eri suddenly retrened is cjuicUy « taey 5ad caae. PaatLct; sad splattered •*¯un i n ovm biooo., 5i*fit caüed for Se¡p «od ibea •*¯·l*ed do`-a ta« ball o( [Se dan¢oed le¢unry -jail. It `"·ï J •.a. All •"«i quiet iQ me r¤oa:j, u lí aocQia¾ had oappeaed.
ll was tooíûer violent 3Jt;at to me

Youtb Dev«lopmeat Ceater, tie $rassy c*mou3 ia tie Com»·<;ilj Heiçau secaoa ol &-a¿alem tüa( ¡u¿ b«ome tbe nates s o n ao<onou íacillrv (or ]uv¢aile offender!.
ïoua¾ dru< ¢le·ien. rooöers u d mu¾¾fr3 are s«O( to the Heiaau. is iioioái everyone «IU tbe staí¢-operited ceater. ia ùop^s üut they `»rü learn scü<¤au¯ot •ad self-respect.
But (ti« culture tb«f find (Here LS « violent u tbe world Uiey left ie-

bind. Ml«,at b the scraaçest arx¯Jseat here, (líts Ue aoíi eloquent persuader.
Staff tn«Bj¢»n. local jud«;ex juv». aile « s ¢ n j . advocates, parents iad )uveaile affeaden described tbe Yomb Development Ceater ia inter»ie*i. u i (r¯.¾ateaiû( failure, aa •••tao«rr«s¢neat." » 'ïbetto." *
It's a plac¾. they i*`f, where Ibe ïtroa¾îit |uv¢tuiei prey oa the `*eai(·

*n. •*aer- naif oetal>*rj oíis¾ iBCf for tn·ir U»M. *¯aere feaaie »orlters tspÄCiaüjr (ace verb*j and jometua ¯=s phi¯ncjl abuse. Ov·rrro·ded sad understaffed, it u a o·jce *ûere tbe at¡mtaisTranoa caci fairiatcsafery, let aloce rehabülnaoo.
51cm of distress are eve¯y¯·»Q¢re ,e Heiçhu. *aich bold* about :OO :ailes. £apioyee sicx leave 4Qd n i n e a n rataoaat; r^¯3ovec. is ( S Í Í JWTML£3 on 10-«M

í Ql'A

Monday, Au¾. 5. 1091

Tho

Inquifer

BucL· facility is center of violence for offenders

IWZrTLES, iron l·A

t ¤aaa·¡ïment o(tea (ails to disci-

ü: i<·'I membera ar« poorly

pline violent offenders wbo ban suit.

iriiaed.

Lut w«ek, `*bca a 16-yearold

Tö« íåciHl7 \s JO daa^efous tbit ]ud¾eJ la DuckJ County, wa«rt (at Ilel(bt3 Is located, wool scad juveatl« offenders taer«.
TDÉ reluctaac* o( Bucks )od¾ea to «ad aayoae io tUt Mel¾btl is jaared ¦jy o(ùer luburb«a courts. Nloery(W· perceat of ta« reaidtaU ar* from f>hiiadeipal*.
"All toe kids will tetl you it's a«U.¯* Mid O<o«vi«v« Lop«x of Harm Pnil·¯ delpOii. wao94i 16-rt·r-oid 10a bad

vouUi destroyed a Ulepboo« ind threw ta administrator to (he {round, police Mid. the Juvenile w U returned to tb« s*to« unit even Ih¤uçh be bad numerous prior lact· deats. "It says It's OK for students to hurt tb« staff." said oa« worker. >
Tbe admiaistr«naa declined (o discuss ta« attack. They say they o(tea
e aa choice but to return a youth to the same uait after an incldeoi s«cau3« other beds area I available.

äls Dos« Orok«o wb,«a at weat to tb· d·ítaie of a female worker laat sooth.L·op«xh u st«rted daccracd ?ir«ms af ÏTX. la« ílr3(-¢*-er o<f<ad· <f3' lupf>on group a( ih« (acillrr.
Tä« ceater b » beta allowed to l·íl. 3o¢¤« observers believe, be¢aus« It. La filled w<ta poor, b(·ck youitu Iron Pall·d«loaía w¤o have comoltted Mrlou3 erlmu. £lt;biy·(nree p«r· cent of to« resld<ou t r · bl·cX 10 perceat Hljp«nic •od 7 jwrcea¢ wane.
¯1f i&e Hc^b(s * u i pro¾r·(o oaly for wQitt kids •ad taere were prab·

H· is tb« tou«;hcsi Ud In tbe meaneíl dormitory in a barsh system. :
Nicknamed "Pittsburgh," be Is a `=·cll·mujci«d (K1 oí lò wno baj Ouiit a aam* for Himself behind tn« cloder·block w»iLj of to* Youth Dev«U optDent Center. M· Is a 'ruoaer.¯* 3 name the luveailes us« [or tbe unofficial leader of the unit.
At th« b*st }uvenll«centert. youths i n taue;ht to look, up to the biggest acuievcra, experts say, but at tb« Youth Lkv«lopŒ«ot C«nt«r, It's pure Ðoscl« (bat counts.

It(oa taere. tots program wouldn't b« la exlsteact.¯* Mid Mto¾o Stroeber, cateí of (b· Juv«alU uait o( ta· D«fead*r Auociattoo o( Phti·delf>bift.

A new kid will often ¢i¾ht more than a dozen others In bll llvtn«; arei to determine bis place in the pecking order, pollc« Mid.

T ¾ Ì J tastlluiion has beeo toe em· barraumcQ; of the rystem for 20 ye·rx.' i b · Mid. ¯T¾e lostilTittoa saould be closed dowa. Ta« prob·

"Coercion Is the rule." said Frucbter o( tbe Juvenile Justice Center. That's been th« oature o( tbe place"

lean ire so ead«ra!c lad syTleaic t&«t it would l>e dUflcuu (or «ayoa· to (O In tüer« aad (ura It arouad,"

Pitubar¾h b « th« status objects to

confirm bis place at ib« top o( bis

unit's hierarchy.

•

Executive Director Uoa S. O>vts

WQU· evcryoo« is rupposcd to

d«fca<u ols íacilUy. s¤yin% U Is dainc,

have oa« cubicle. Ptttsburfh r o

ib« best Job It cia, jlvea llmittd

ceqity had two. Wbllc » o « youtoj

rcsourcu tad · (rowto< pool of locnuingiy víoteot offenders.
A3 ê public faculty. O<v(S Uld. !aa Hti|hi3 ;«a·rally bts to t·k« juv«. oilcs private reform scùools hav«

Leon B. D>TÍ5t executiTe director, neir a sectioa of fence where escapes are common. He sa73 Uic í«cilltj fs doioç the best tt can.

Bensalem YDC

?otlce mid. :be pulled out • rctroct·

ïp<citl Isyer of fencin«^ Taey ire

able raior aad slasbed aim across ibe stomach. T¾« youtb received

Bensalem v», N. Castla

secure in name ooJy. TQOS« UQÌLS at Oea34(«m bad H escapes last year —

are luck¯y to b«v« a radio. Pittsburgh has a Sony l«l«vtsiotj.. a VCR. a tape player, and huadred¿ of video aad tudlo ca-ss«U« tapes.
The potic« b«li«v« Pltuburfb. r¢ou

rejected or passed over. Some off«a<*· «rs. |i*ea maximum four-year leo· ttacei, ten a¢ to 10 years old aad ar· atlxed Io wttlì yo`u(us as youn< u M. ¾"`f v<nl<·nre i,t Ine*ltabln. he Hid.

r?i· S4nsëi4m Youtn £7«v«/otîrti*nf C<nf·r. wfiicn has s c»O4a<y oi 185. h*d M n«·d count of 200 on J<áY 2‰ Hntm wo !uyrm *tanxti¢‰ m o*rcebt.

ti%bi jtlicbes. Olxoo *w cQar;ed -*mrt assault.
Tbe íiei¾bu Is respoastblQ for about oncMblrd of ail crimes rc· rortrd tn ihc ac·rbr Trcvnse bar-

TJt*3*fiqur*scomøar» tíiø Youtn O*v*icorn·rtf Cant*f m 3*n‰*i#n with 4 tmndtf /*o*ïy in iV#w C*sth. t>4*r ftn%ùurgft.

or fWc times toe aumb«r from seen* nfy it tb« ïauth Development C<a;«r tn f*«** Castle, iccordiat; to welfare dcp«rtmeat itallstlc3.
Tliure •re fi¢bu ev«rT d«y. *Qd

tapes to other youths.
H« could hav« beea any Uá Goody's, ia Peaaíytvaot·," utd « Stat« police ofltc«r.
Tb« center's administration dls-

Oa« jud¢« ír·økly concedes tn«i on tt3 rmsió·nts:

rackj o( Ibe state police, 5¾L Dou{

th*v coc'l re·Hv da aayihla< about gata toaL

b« <to€3O t exp«ct aayoa« seat to (&« Hei·;bu to be r·oabUltt(ed.
"We pu« tbem tb*re aad store taem to protect society," Hid Pbüadelpata Juv«all« Court Judt;« Frsak Reyo· aids. ~Tbc3« art p«apl< wbo tiave ao fear of lùU soctery. Taey are crippled about It to t h · point w¾tre It's organic, like br«lo dim·¾e. They •r«a I renabllltab(«. You're coin? to ¤ave probleou w(tù ibes« kids uoless you just lit OQ (beat •od ttrunilie tb«m."
Tb« reccat vtoicac« tits prompted lä« admlalstritioa to call Io (be n·(« D«p«nm«ot of Correctloas io Im·

Ph.¡.¢l·toK^ teft·qh
AJUgn«nY
8l»o Hi¶o»mc White

9S 1 3 I
33 10
7

Daf( said. Tbe last time toe 3tatt looked tAor·
ouc,Dly at I be Hei¾ot3 was In 1987 after a lire and a violent attack ao 4 Ulcaea worker. Welfare officials re· {used to re leas* (be 1987 report to the :ne<jt·. T¾e report, obtained tbrou^b a¤oiner îource, said tüe center bad b<ea (aillnt; for years to provide a salt eaviroament to reform yount; o((tñûetx
`¯Tücre is ca¤cer st Oco«feat that SM to be removed if aay lasttoç ch«a¾«3 are (o occur." concluded the report team. wbtcO was led by Clay

GE¤ is tin «outv·½r«cr I M Í (or t*çñ

Y.«r 1989 1989

Btnullffl 10 IZ

H. Crt. 41 34 •

Ta<ti n¶ió*ta *as*nt vnthout /#«v· in »4C¿\fisc*trtf *itf tfw» r¢H×n»d.
SCN3ALEM H. CASTLE

lL¯* Said oa« l7-yt·j¯-o¡d u b« stood uiUat aervously to a reporter oa · rec*at tour coadoct«d by w«(f«r· oíflciais. ¯îfi hard bein·; in here, l*v« thout;bt a lot about escape."
The íaclliryhouso IS more Juv«. ailea tbaa tt3 d¢Jiía capacity of 1Ü. and ÏS*J •oout ro few«r employees tñaa its fall complemeot of 170.
£*ea vita Its shortcomings, the l!ei¢ats U l»r more expensive tn«a private juv*nlle facilities, experu My. 5eos>lcm's casu run between Í1M aad ílSO a day (or juv«oil« coœo«rcd wub •¤ avera^« MO a day

>vbat really sb>ocked polio w U that after · rec*at *earcb of Ptrt> bo/{h'J a r u . ne Inductd a mtX memb«r to call pollc«-to t«U th«m to return u d c l u a up bis u*m.
¯îî T»·J a. cäail«a<e." the officer Mid. "It siys that l&e Indlviduala WBO axe directly Involved with thai p«rsoa in ih« ren·t>illt«Uoa procta oast b«v« their ey*3 cloicd."
¯m« center b<l since ,takea away Pittsburgh's second cubicle i¤d traajferred him 10 another area. ,.
"He was oa« of oar bluest prob lenu.¯ uld secunry admiautratai v/ait«r Floaty.

prov« lecunry, wbicti staff members My is ia<dequ·(·. Last week, tb« itttc Oepertm*at of Public Welfare •noouaced It would assemble a panel of experu to review tbe center î pro¯ {raais.
Siliint; across from tfesbamtar Mall, to* llel«bii looks like • state college converted loco a maximumsecurity prisoo. lis low, taa-ttrick buiidla¢3 arc surrounded by doubl« layers of feactoç; laat Oulçe *itb Tuor wire. ¯ Over tb· l·4t (our mootb·. pollc« lay, juveniles ö·*« lacrcniQ^ly t·kea to «(UcXto^ it«fíers •ad cUrn¢>lat; over tùt wire.
la aa locid«at tb·t ry-pides tbe at*" vloleac«, a frouo o( ]uvealte3 recently overpowered l¯*o suit ae¢n· ¾«n. robbed (beta aad locked mem la ib· sbow«r. They itole one of ¯ t&eir cars and used It to ram lü· r*ta feaces. The outer feac* beld. but «Hût juveailes «JCÄP«I. Oaly oo« 5AJ Men cau¢bt.
T¤« ceatcr bad tLs o`*n miai-^aae; war IQ Isle Juae. A )uveatle. iQ «aat ^ol<ce lay `*·3 aa orcaestr·<ed nl»cx. dropped two smoke bomoi onto ¦Ö· floor o( aaoioer uail. The smo>>« flusaed youths out (be door, •*fiere tùt·f w·ri ambusaed aad bcaieq or a

U

3.3

15

Hi

is :a.3

17 Z7.7

HoÐoerv Aii«utti W·«o<x`s
6JC«« AUIO VTOJ*IKXIÍ

18 29.1

19

13

20

¦.«

24 :i 15 IZ
3 7 1 3 2

grouo of waittat; juveailes. The loldíers oí Desert Storm would t>a*c tx«Q proud a( t ¤ u · i¢rti,¯ oùí«rv»d oaf naie sol Ice o((lccr [autiíUr *¯iin
tOfl HKC*.
Some í(»ií memberi ti·i`'c: 5e¾ua carrying *·aoon3 ¡o protect [aem· îe(y¢j. `vhea ai<4e Soetl<e L OUoa Jíü ibrei<¢aed tail raoa(Q ov sa 1S-
•*ietdln¾ a us11 poin sen.

R. Yea«er. director o( the Ceater for Juvenile Justice Tr>iai¤{ aad Re· :carcti at 5blpp<Q3b(jrç UQlversi(y.
¯3cnsalems leadership, or·;aaizalioaal acid coinaiuaicauoa delicico· c¡cj Qav¢ beea loot; itandln¢ aad bave oot been jl¾Qiílciatly Impacted \IOQQ Of a lucceuiOQ of YDC U<asa· lent directors or 5y lüe tsyriad o( regimes io UorrUOur^." the report found. "To talk about oro*idio¾ifìtraof io stuðeaU woea they are enla¾ poorly, slee9ia; In jub5iandard JC· cocamodiUons, sad usiof lavatories In • naie o( dlsr*t>air U ludicrous."
M*ar of the inortcomto^j found la 198/ tjave persuicd ood erea worsened, íccordla¾ to italf latervtews iQd )uveail« «xp«fts.
The Helt;bt3 ¯ü sort of the ;betto o( tfi« ]uventle ireiuneat íyïiçra." laid Daro*r· r¯ruchter. executive director of the Juvenile Justice Ceater v( P·aajyUaai4. in advocacy îroup. '`i¤ oo« «ould dlsatree `*ita tûat. No Kid *tiì(j to ¾o (a«rc. They would do
in¾, inciudlm rynotn¾ away.
io i The Ifel¾bu is töc íecoad largest tbe itat« i ifir« »outn dc*eioocQ( ceoters snd t`»i> (or«stry ¢noi. Out tt Icsdi trie state iû espci. There «ere JV» limci « m>ay

Y·«r
1999 1989 1990
1991

AU R·«'<J.
^5
52 :o
I S 25
163 44

AH R.t'd. 12 4 1 31 S8 31

escapes at fleo«l«m last fiscal year ibao at tb« states largest center in New Castle near Pltuourgn. accordIns; to welfare depanm«nt statistics.
Tbe Keit;rtts *«a¯t d«l¾aed to Hcep affcadera la. It w«s built to treat them aad mov« them a<j( Iato
Wh«a it opened la l½i. iu muiti· pi« wtns;s of Individual cotiat;ea w«r·

in anvaie facihttei T¾· more abusive jttv«aile* b«-
came. (b« sore staffers fie*. Many 7rofcsitoaal3 ami wttölo days onc« ibey (ace tbe *erbal iad physical l¤umidaiioa írom toe jroutbs. Th« admtntstrmoa declined to ¾lv« statistics on turnov«r. but staff members aod unioa o((lcuU My nearly iOO aides bave Oeea bleed ia tbe i&3t /ear or more, *nd (ewer tùaa oñe¾u·ner n<ia% oa.
T^OM woo riasiia don I receive mucn irnalQg. More tbaa 90 cerceat o( ibo staff (ailed to take required tr*ioioe, in ílrir aid. suicid« prevea· tlon or caüd tous« Identification ia 171D. according to tb« moat recent

3utsta(( members say the l¤cldea is oot unusuaL Many believe that it the daily b«ttle 10 contrnl tb* lives 0 offenders at tb« Hti¾ùu. PltuOar;l aad bis tiaú arc winnia¢.
¯WÏ have kidJ woo m«Xe terrortsd Lhx¾»u aod promts* to kill nail •*bt! \ùtf (eav« here.'* said one lonçilm ajde. 'and we coat do «ayülln¾."
¯Vom«a especially face »öui* They calk about your (body parut. laid one lon¾liin« worker. Tea comes ev«ry d*y oac« you bit üi
Perhaps tb« most teülot; l«3timoc ctm« (root tb« youtb3 wbo wbi ««red ineir feaa to 1 reporter admiaütr·tor3 looked oa dunaç ü

s<ate-of-the·«rt. But Ib« op«o (eature4 And w¾r«ari oiteo burn out. Mor« tour last w¾«ic

Qave mad« it easier for juveniles <Q tbaa 11 perctat o( tb« (root llae ita(f There's « lot of extortion ¾oin«; i

ucap« aad incite violence. Even (be guardhouse ••* built facias; in«

wU oa nek leave ia I9S? — at full lalary — ibe audllor geaeral found.

iround Here, people nkio? 70 i r o ö " reported « burly I6·ye«r-ol

street Instead of Inward toward itn T¯L·* tuðltor %ta*rol also (ouod tbat A l¢-r«-r·o'd from Worth Pnliad

lorn; %r&ssY lawn¾ over wbica |uvç- tome etn?iorecs work üu¾e amouau ;Qla said youtùs bad to naoç w,

ailes run <o n¢ip«.

ol o'cniQe. with o*eni(¤«. oa« aid« trteods from ih« old aett;hbarno

The settlor turned pro^reuively 3íd« 13JJJ' la tbe lut (Iscal year. for proie<uoa.

harstier In I9'5 after (be ita<e closed O<*is. tb« íxe^'i(i`'e director, made •US toe t,urs *ao d o a l knOw¯ st

Its juvcalle pnsoa at Cat¤o Hill *aú iranjferrcd bard-core juveailej 10 Sensalem.

AdaiQiítralorj say Lûat tûe naif IQUS<S iiat itave. Workers reoiy taat

;>ody WQO ¾et iato irouofe. 5e a ¯'.f yoa doa I have your friends, f

How tbere art sevea bi^b-securlty itacaict:iiia u iae price (or a violent itt IL¯¯ uai(3 at Ueasal<(¤. ill let off 5y a -or* ¢a*ircamea(- T¾cy complain irtouttd ta iMt antcU.

D.B. v. Casey
• • • • tmt I I H H I I • • • • • • • • • • « < •
JI-PA-004-001

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 1 of 8

CLOSED, SEALCS
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:91-cv-06463-SD

B., et al v. CASEY, et al Assigned to: JUDGE STEWART DALZELL Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 10/16/1991 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
D. B. a minor, by and through his next friend, E.B.

represented by GUY VILIM GOLD & VILIM 1608 WALNUT ST STE 1600 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-546-5464 Fax: 215-546-5268 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NICHOLAS J. LISI PADOVA & LISI 1900 SPRUCE STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-6613 Email: padovaandlisi@covas.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RICHARD J. GOLD GOLD AND VILIM 1608 WALNUT STREET 18TH FLOOR PHILA, PA 19103 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

ROBERT G. SCHWARTZ JUVENILE LAW CENTER 801 ARCH STREET STE. 610 PHILA, PA 19107-2445 (215) 625-9589 Fax: FAX 215-625-9589 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807944875932209-L_923_0-1

10/17/2005

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 2 of 8

K. H. a minor, by and through his next friend, R.H.
Plaintiff M. M. a minor, by and through his next friend, R.H.; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by GUY VILIM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NICHOLAS J. LISI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD J. GOLD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT G. SCHWARTZ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SEYMOUR KURLAND DECHERT, PRICE & RHOADS 1717 ARCH STREET 4000 BELL ATLANTIC TOWER PHILA, PA 19103-2793 TEL 215-994-2749 Fax: FAX 215-994-2222 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GUY VILIM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NICHOLAS J. LISI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD J. GOLD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT G. SCHWARTZ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807944875932209-L_923_0-1

10/17/2005

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 3 of 8

V. Defendant ROBERT P. CASEY in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Defendant KAREN SNIDER in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

SEYMOUR KURLAND (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DORIS M. LEISCH OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PUBLIC WELFARE 1700 STATE OFFICE BLDG 1400 SPRING GARDEN ST. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19130 215-560-2192 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERNEST N. HELLING PENNSYLVANIA DEPT OF EDUCATION, ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL 333 MARKET STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17126-0333 FAX 717-783-0347 Fax: FAX 717-783-0347 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN A. KANE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PUBLIC WELFARE 3RD FL WEST, HEALTH & WELFARE BLDG HARRISBURG, PA 17120 717-783-2800 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DORIS M. LEISCH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERNEST N. HELLING (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807944875932209-L_923_0-1

10/17/2005

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 4 of 8

Defendant
DONALD CARROLL in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Education for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

JOHN A. KANE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DORIS M. LEISCH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERNEST N. HELLING (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN A. KANE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/16/1991 11/07/1991
11/13/1991
11/13/1991 11/13/1991 11/13/1991 01/02/1992

#

Docket Text

1 MOTION by PLAINTIFF D. B., PLAINTIFF K. H., PLAINTIFF M. M. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF (cj) (Entered: 10/17/1991)

2 ORDER REASSIGNING FROM THE CALENDAR OF CHIEF JUDGE LOUIS C. BECHTLE TO THE CALENDAR OF JUDGE STEWART DALZELL . ( SIGNED BY CLERK OF COURT MICHAEL E. KUNZ ) 11/7/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 11/07/1991)

3 ORDER GRANTING [1-1] MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. CLERK IS DIRECTED TO ENTER CASE ON DOCKET. PLFFS ARE ORDERED FORTHWITH TO SERVE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION ON ALL DEFTS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 11/14/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 11/14/1991)

4 Complaint. (fe) (Entered: 11/14/1991)

Summons(es) issued Forwarded to: counsel 11/14/91 (fe) (Entered: 11/14/1991)

5 MOTION PLAINTIFF D. B., PLAINTIFF K. H., PLAINTIFF M. M. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION , MEMORANDUM (fe) (Entered: 11/14/1991)

6 Praecipe by PLAINTIFF D. B., PLAINTIFF K. H., PLAINTIFF M. M. to issue alias summons (fe) (Entered: 01/02/1992)

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807944875932209-L_923_0-1

10/17/2005

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 5 of 8

01/02/1992 01/24/1992 01/28/1992 01/28/1992 02/03/1992
02/12/1992 03/06/1992 03/06/1992
09/08/1992 09/08/1992 09/15/1992
09/24/1992

Alias Summons(es) issued given to: counsel 1/2/92 (fe) (Entered: 01/02/1992)
7 Certificate of service by PLAINTIFF D. B., PLAINTIFF K. H., PLAINTIFF M. M. re: Motion for Class Certification. (fe) (Entered: 01/27/1992)
8 Alias summons returned with Return of service executed as to DEFENDANT KAREN SNIDER, DEFENDANT DONALD CARROLL 1/10/92 (fe) (Entered: 01/29/1992)
Alias summons returned with Return of service executed as to DEFENDANT ROBERT P. CASEY 1/14/92 (fe) Modified on 01/29/1992 (Entered: 01/29/1992)
9 STIPULATION & ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFTS TO FILE RESPONSES TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION UNTIL 3/2/92 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 2/4/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 02/04/1992)
10 Acknowledgement of service as to DEFENDANT DONALD CARROLL 1/31/92 (fe) (Entered: 02/12/1992)
11 STIPULATION & ORDER THAT CASE SHALL BE PLACED IN SUSPENSE FOR 90 DAYS OR UNTIL 6/4/92. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 3/6/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) Modified on 03/06/1992 (Entered: 03/06/1992)
12 ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT MARK THIS ACTION CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND PLACE THE MATTER IN THE CIVIL SUSPENSE FILE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 3/6/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 03/06/1992)
13 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 9/9/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
14 ORDER THAT CLERK IS DIRECTED TO REMOVE THIS ACTION FROM SUSPENSE . PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD 4:15 9/15/92 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 9/9/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
15 ORDER THAT DEFTS ARE GRANTED AN EXTENSION UNTIL FURTHER ORDER TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. STATUS CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD 9:00 10/16/92 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 9/16/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 09/16/1992)
16 Appearance by NICHOLAS J. LISI for DEFENDANT ROBERT P. CASEY, DEFENDANT KAREN SNIDER, DEFENDANT DONALD CARROLL (fe) (Entered: 09/25/1992)

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807944875932209-L_923_0-1

10/17/2005

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 6 of 8

10/16/1992
10/26/1992 11/25/1992
12/15/1992
03/16/1993
03/17/1993 03/18/1993
04/09/1993 04/09/1993 04/09/1993 09/14/1994 09/14/1994

17 ORDER THAT A FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD 4:30 11/30/92 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 10/19/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 10/19/1992)
18 Notice of change of address by PLAINTIFF'S counsel (fe) (Entered: 10/27/1992)
19 ORDER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 11/30/92 AT 4:30 IS CONTINUED TO 10:30 12/14/92 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 11/30/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 11/30/1992)
20 ORDER THAT A FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON FOR 4:30 1/26/93 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 12/15/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 12/15/1992)
21 ORDER THAT HEARING TO DETERMINE FAIRNESS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO CLASS SHALL BE RESCHEDULED FROM 3/17/93 TO 4/8/93 AT 4PM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 3/16/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 03/16/1993)
22 Notice of proposed settlement of class action (fe) (Entered: 03/18/1993)
23 ORDER THAT THE FORM OF NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED. THE PARTIES SHALL CAUSE COPIES OF THE NOTICE TO BE CONSPICOUSLY POSTED AT PLACES IN THE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTER AT BENSALEM, PA TO ASSURE THAT ALL STUDENTS AR PROMPTLY MADE AWARE OF NOTICE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 3/19/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
24 Stipulation of settlement. (fe) (Entered: 04/09/1993)
25 ORDER THAT CLERK CLOSE CASE STATISTICALLY. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 4/9/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 04/09/1993)
Case closed (kv) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
26 Joint Stipulation to extend time, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 09/15/1994)
27 ORDER, THAT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE MARCH 17, 1993 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH THIS COURT APPROVED BY ORDER OF APRIL 9, 1993, THE TIME PERIOD REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPHS 18-19 OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IS EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1994; AND IF ANY PARTY BELIEVES THAT ANY FURTHER EXTENSION IS REQUIRED, THAT PARTY SHALL NOTIFY THE COURT BY FAX, NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 OF SUCH A

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807944875932209-L_923_0-1

10/17/2005

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 7 of 8

09/27/1994 10/05/1994 11/18/1994 12/01/1994
12/01/1994

REQUEST. (SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL) 9/15/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 09/15/1994)
28 ORDER, THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER FROM GUY VILIM DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 1994, IN WHICH HE REQUESTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 2 OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 1994, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES SHALL APPEAR IN CHAMBERS ON 10/5/94 AT 9:30 A.M. (SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL) 9/28/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 09/28/1994)
29 ORDER, THAT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE MARCH 17, 1993 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH THIS COURT APPROVED BY ORDER DATED APRIL 9, 1993, THE TIME PERIOD REFERRED IN THE PARAGRAPHS 18-19 OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 30, 1994; AND COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES SHALL RECONVENE IN CHAMBERS AT 4:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 21, 1994, IF, IN THE VIEW OF ANY PARTY, A FURTHER EXTENSION IS NECESSARY. (SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL) 10/6/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 10/06/1994)
30 ORDER, THAT THE CONFERENCE CONTEMPLATED IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF OUR OCTOBER 5, 1994 ORDER IS CANCELLED. (SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL), 11/21/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 11/21/1994)
31 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT PROPOSED BY THE PARTIES IN THIS MATTER, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED AND THAT THE AMENDED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT SUPERSEDES THE ORIGINAL STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS MATTER, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE SIGNING OF THIS ORDER. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS CASE SHALL REMAIN CLOSED STATISTICALLY. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE STEWART DALZELL ) 12/2/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (cd) (Entered: 12/02/1994)
32 Amended Stipulation of Settlement, filed. (cd) (Entered: 12/02/1994)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

10/17/2005 18:01:08

PACER Login: wu0055

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:91-cv-06463-SD

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807944875932209-L_923_0-1

10/17/2005

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

0.32

Page 8 of 8

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807944875932209-L_923_0-1

10/17/2005