Joslyn v. Armstrong

KB

H

••

HV

"

"

PC-CT-001-001

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Civil Action No. Date: February 7, 2001
ROBERT JOSLYN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN J. ARMSTRONG, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Correction, in his official capacity, Defendant.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a class action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. This action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of Connecticut state prisoners confined at Wallens Ridge State Prison (WRSP) in Big Stone Gap, Virginia. This action alleges that by housing prisoners in his custody at WRSP, defendant John J. Armstrong is knowingly subjecting them to conditions that constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States. JURISDICTION

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state of law, of plaintiffs' civil rights. 3. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 57.
VENUE 4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because defendant Armstrong resides in this district, and because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to plaintiffs' claims occurred in this district.
PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Robert Joslyn is a prisoner committed to the custody of the Connecticut Department of Correction (CDOC) pursuant to a judgment of a Connecticut state court. He has been continuously housed at WRSP since November 9, 1999. 6. Defendant John J. Armstrong is Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Correction. As such, he is the legal custodian of all prisoners sentenced by the courts of Connecticut for felony offenses, and is responsible for the safe, secure, and humane housing of those prisoners. At all times relevant hereto, he has acted under color of state law. Defendant Armstrong is sued in his official capacity.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. Wallens Ridge State Prison (WRSP) is a Level 6, "Supermax" prison located in Big Stone Gap, Virginia. Red Onion State Prison (ROSP) is a Level 6, "Supermax" prison located in Pound, Virginia. Both WRSP and ROSP are operated by the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC). Policies, practices, and procedures at WRSP and ROSP are essentially identical. 8. On or about October 12, 1999, defendant Armstrong, on behalf of the CDOC, signed a contract with the VDOC providing for the confinement of Connecticut prisoners at WRSP. The contract, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix 1, was entered into pursuant to the

Interstate Corrections Compact, as adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Code Ann. §§ 53.1-216-217) and the State of Connecticut (General Statutes of Connecticut, §§ 18-105-107). Article 27 of the contract provides that "The CDOC shall remain, at all times, the legal custodian of the Connecticut Inmates" housed in Virginia pursuant to the contract. Section 5.8 of the contract provides that the CDOC may withdraw its prisoners from Virginia at any time. There are currently approximately 200 Connecticut state prisoners confined at WRSP pursuant to this contract. 9. Excessive force is endemic at WRSP. Often force is used not in a good faith effort to maintain prison security, but to inflict summary punishment on prisoners who have somehow annoyed or displeased prison staff. Such excessive force is not confined to isolated incidents, but amounts to an official policy which defendant Armstrong has implemented or in which he has knowingly acquiesced. 10. A prime example of the abusive use of force at WRSP is the prison's indiscriminate use of five-point restraints. Prisoners in five-point restraints are bound to a steel bed by restraints at the wrists and ankles and a strap tied across the chest. They are completely immobilized. Once strapped down, prisoners are left in restraints for a pre-determined period, almost invariably 48 hours. Some prisoners have been left in restraints for periods longer than 48 hours. 11. Prisoners at WRSP are strapped down in five-point restraints not because they pose a danger to themselves or to others, but as summary punishment for various trivial offenses. According to WRSP records, five-point restraints were used on Connecticut prisoners on 45 occasions between January 3 and August 17, 2000. Of these 45 prisoners, 13 were tied down in restraints for "kicking the cell door." Other offenses resulting in the use of five-point restraints were throwing clothes, and sticking a rolled-up piece of paper out the cell door. 12. After the prisoner's initial placement in restraints, there is no evaluation of the continuing need for such an extraordinary level of force. Rather, when the prisoner is initially placed in restraints, a decision is made that he will remain in restraints for a fixed period, almost always 48 hours. This fixed and pre-determined duration shows that restraints are being used as

punishment, rather than to temporarily incapacitate a prisoner who genuinely poses a risk to himself or others. 13. Prisoners in restraints are not adequately monitored by medical staff. Long periods in restraints result in pain, numbness, stiffness, and loss of circulation in the limbs, and bruising and cuts at the ankles, wrists, and torso. The prolonged immobilization that results from WRSP's use of five-point restraints poses a risk of nerve damage, circulatory damage, blood clots, and other serious physical injury. 14. Often prisoners in restraints are not allowed timely access to toilet facilities, with the result that they urinate and defecate on themselves, and are left to lie in their own waste for hours. Even when prisoners are temporarily released from restraints to use the toilet, they are placed in leg irons and handcuffs, resulting in extremely limited movement. 15. Prisoners are placed in five-point restraints without any consideration of whether their behavior results from mental illness, or whether the use of restraints will exacerbate their mental illness. Prisoners whom the CDOC itself has classified as suffering from major mental illness have repeatedly been subjected to five-point restraints at WRSP. 16. Prisoners who are being placed in five-point restraints are sometimes also shocked with the "Ultron," the "Taser," or other "stun" devices. These devices inflict a powerful and painful electric shock. Use of these devices constitutes potentially lethal force, particularly with prisoners who have heart trouble or other chronic health conditions. In July 2000, Connecticut prisoner Lawrence Frazier died after being repeatedly "stunned" by WRSP staff. 17. The use of five-point restraints on prisoners at WRSP is sanctioned by official policy. Use of five-point restraints is authorized by a statewide written policy of the VDOC. Given this official policy, plaintiffs are overwhelmingly likely to suffer confinement in five-point restraints in the future. However, both the VDOC and the CDOC have refused to provide copies of this policy, either to individual prisoners or to plaintiffs' counsel. Therefore, plaintiffs have no way of knowing what acts or omissions may subject them to five-point restraints.

18. The use of five-point restraints as described in this Complaint results in the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, physical injury, and humiliation that is unrelated to any legitimate penological purpose. 19. Defendant Armstrong has transferred plaintiffs to WRSP, and has maintained plaintiffs at WRSP, with full knowledge of the unconstitutional conditions set forth herein. Defendant Armstrong's decision to transfer plaintiffs to WRSP, and his decision to maintain them there, were not made in haste, under pressure, to restore prison security in an emergency situation. Rather, these decisions were made, and continue to be made, over time, with ample opportunity for deliberation and reflection. In making these decisions, defendant Armstrong has acted, and continues to act, with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' health and safety, and to the risk that plaintiffs will suffer serious physical injury or death. 20. The policies, procedures, and practices described in this Complaint are likely to persist unless enjoined by this Court.
FACTS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF ROBERT JOSLYN 21. On January 24, 2000, a WRSP guard accused plaintiff Robert Joslyn of throwing his empty meal tray into the trash can, spilling food on the officer in the process. Mr. Joslyn denied this accusation. Nevertheless, Mr. Joslyn was immediately placed in five-point restraints. Although Mr. Joslyn did not resist and was fully cooperative with staff, he was left in five-point restraints for 48 hours. Once Mr. Joslyn was restrained, the guard who had accused him came to the cell to taunt him: "Are you having fun?" 22. Mr. Joslyn was placed in restraints wearing only his boxer shorts. The cell was cold; he was not given a blanket or anything else to keep him warm. During the nights, he was able to sleep for only a few minutes at a time because of the cold and the pain caused by the restraints. 23. Mr. Joslyn was not allowed timely access to toilet facilities. He called to staff that he needed to use the toilet, but there was no response. As a result, he suffered extreme discomfort from having to hold his urine and bowel movements.

24. During this 48-hour period, Mr. Joslyn was fed only twice per day. He was required to eat with his feet still strapped to the restraint bed, and his hands in handcuffs. On these occasions, he was allowed to use the toilet, but was required to wear handcuffs and leg irons while doing so. Except for these occasions, prison staff did not check on Mr. Joslyn during the 48 hours he was restrained. 25. The complete immobilization caused by the restraints resulted in Mr. Joslyn suffering extreme pain in his back and legs. When he was let up from restraints to use the toilet, he could hardly move and required assistance. When he was finally released after 48 hours, he could barely stand. 26. On March 7, 2000, Mr. Joslyn was accused of kicking his cell door. Once again, Mr. Joslyn was immediately placed in five-point restraints. Although the guards who placed Mr. Joslyn in restraints noted in their report that "[t]he inmate was cooperative through the incident," Mr. Joslyn was again left in five-point restraints for 48 hours. Conditions were identical to those he suffered when he was restrained in January 2000, except that he was fed three times a day rather than twice. Mr. Joslyn was once again denied timely access to toilet facilities; on this occasion, he was unable to hold his bowels and defecated on himself while tied to the restraint bed. 27. The conditions suffered by Mr. Joslyn are typical of those suffered by prisoners subjected to five-point restraints at WRSP. 28. Mr. Joslyn has exhausted such administrative remedies as are available to him.
CLASS ACTION FACTS 29. Plaintiff Robert Joslyn brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2). 30. Mr. Joslyn seeks to represent a class consisting of:
All Connecticut state prisoners who are now, or who will in the future be, confined at Wallens Ridge State Prison in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, or at Red Onion State Prison in Pound, Virginia.

31. The members of the class are too numerous, and the membership of the class too fluid, to permit joinder of all members. There are currently approximately 200 Connecticut state prisoners confined at WRSP. Connecticut prisoners at WRSP are constantly being transferred to other prisons, while other Connecticut prisoners are transferred to WRSP. 32. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all class members. All class members are equally subject to the unconstitutional conditions at WRSP described in this Complaint. These common questions include, but are not limited to: Whether the plaintiffs are subjected to fivepoint restraints as a form of summary punishment rather than for legitimate security reasons; whether prisoners in such restraints are adequately monitored by medical personnel; whether prisoners are kept in restraints for periods longer than security needs require; whether the abusive use of restraints occurs with the knowledge, acquiescence, and/or deliberate indifference of defendant Armstrong; whether the use of five-point restraints on plaintiffs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and whether injunctive relief should issue enjoining defendant Armstrong from subjecting prisoners in his custody to the unconstitutional use of five-point restraints described herein. 33. The claims of named plaintiff Robert Joslyn are typical of those of the class. 34. Mr. Joslyn will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Mr. Joslyn's interests are consistent with those of the class, and he is represented by counsel who are experienced in class action, civil rights, and prison conditions litigation. 35. Defendant Armstrong has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
CAUSES OF ACTION 36. By subjecting prisoners in his custody to the conditions set forth herein, with full knowledge of those conditions, defendant Armstrong has acted, and continues to act, with

deliberate indifference to their serious health and safety needs, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: 1. Certify this action as a class action; 2. Issue a judgment declaring that defendant Armstrong's actions described herein are unlawful and violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights; 3. Permanently enjoin defendant Armstrong, his subordinates, agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with him from subjecting plaintiffs to the conditions set forth in this Complaint; 4. Grant plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable law; and 5. Grant such other relief as the Court considers just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of February, 2001.
David C.Fathi1 National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation 733 15th St. N.W.,#620 Washington, DC 20005 phone: (202) 393-4930 fax: (202)393-4931
Toya Alek Graham (ct00227) Philip D. Tegeler (ctO5515) Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06106 phone: (860) 247-9823 fax: (860) 728-0287
Alan Neigher(ct 00134) Cooperating Attorney for the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Byelas & Neigher 1804 Post Road East Westport, CT 06880 phone: (203)259-0599 fax: (203) 255-2570
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

1

Practice limited to the federal courts; admission p_ro hac vice pending.

 
 ACLU Press Release: 02-07-01 - ACLU Su...Housed at Notorious Virginia "Supermax"

http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n020701a.html

American Civil Liberties Union

ACLU Sues CT Corrections Chief Over Abuse of Prisoners Housed at
Notorious Virginia "Supermax"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, February 7, 2001
HARTFORD, CT—Connecticut's top prison official acted with "deliberate indifference" by knowingly allowing the brutal mistreatment of inmates under his care at a notorious "Supermax" prison in rural Virginia, the American Civil Liberties Union charged today in a federal class action lawsuit.
"Connecticut inmates convicted of non-violent drug offenses and low-level crimes like burglary are being treated like Hannibal Lecter, and some of them are dying," said David Fathi of the ACLU's National Prison Project, which filed the case in U.S. District Court here together with the ACLU's Connecticut affiliate.
The legal action comes as Connecticut lawmakers wrestle with solutions to prison overcrowding and as the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities prepares to release its findings about Wallens Ridge State Prison in Virginia, the maximum security prison — known as a "Supermax" — where two Connecticut prisoners have died in the last year.
The class-action lawsuit names Department of Correction Commissioner John J. Armstrong as the sole defendant, citing his "deliberate indifference" to "the risk that [Connecticut inmates] will suffer serious physical injury or death" at the hands of Wallens Ridge guards.
Specifically, the ACLU said in the legal complaint, prison guards routinely strap inmates into five-point restraints for up to 48 hours for petty offenses, a practice that runs counter to correctional standards, which warn against using the device for more than two hours at a time and against using restraints as a punitive measure.
During these incidents, prisoners are bound to a steel bed by restraints at the wrists and ankles and a strap is tied across the chest. The device compromises respiratory function by hampering the rise and fall of the chest and abdomen, which results in increases of carbon dioxide and decrease of oxygen to the tissues. Prisoners are not properly medically supervised during their restraint, the ACLU said in its complaint.
The United Nations Committee Against Torture's 2000 report called on the United States to abolish the use of restraint chairs for those in custody. The restraint chair is very similar to restraint boards and tables in their immobilization of prisoners and all produce similar health risks.
"No matter where Connecticut inmates are housed, Commissioner Armstrong is responsible for their health and safety," said Toya Alek Graham, an attorney with the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union. "Out of sight does not mean out of mind, and it certainly does not mean

of4

2/16/01 8:59 AM

ACLU Press Release: 02-07-01 - ACLU Su...Housed at Notorious Virginia "Supermax"

http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n020701a.html

outside of the law."
Inmates are held in restraints without any consideration of whether their behavior results from mental illness or whether the use of restraints will exacerbate it, Graham noted, adding that state mental health advocates have expressed concern that Armstrong's office may be withholding information that could substantiate claims of abuse of mentally ill prisoners housed at the Supermax.
Today's lawsuit was brought on behalf of Robert Joslyn of East Hartford and as a class-action on behalf of all Connecticut prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, housed at Wallens Ridge or its twin "Supermax" institution, Red Onion State Prison in Pound, VA.
As described in the ACLU complaint, Joslyn was twice placed in 48-hour restraint after being accused of petty offenses. During both incidents, which took place in January and March 2000, Joslyn was strapped down in a cold cell wearing only his boxer shorts. He was not given timely access to the toilet and as a result defecated on himself. He could barely stand after being released.
The ACLU detailed these and other disturbing incidents in a January 26, 2001 letter to Commissioner Armstrong, warning that a lawsuit would follow if the Connecticut inmates were not immediately removed from the Supermax. To date, Armstrong's office has given no reply.
Reports of inhumane conditions at Wallens Ridge are not new. Amnesty International, as part of its 2000 Campaign to Stamp Out Torture, published complaints from Wallens Ridge prisoners describing "a climate of fear and intimidation" maintained by prison guards.
Last year, two Connecticut inmates died under questionable circumstances at Wallens Ridge. Authorities said 20-year-old David Tracy ~ with four months to go on a two-year drug offense sentence — hung himself in his cell. Lawrence Frazier, a diabetic, died of heart failure after being repeatedly shocked with a stun gun by guards. Private lawsuits are pending in those cases.
The case, Joslyn v. Armstrong, the ACLU's National Prison Project; Graham and Philip D. Tegeler of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union and cooperating attorney Alan Neigher of the firm Byelas and Neigher in Westport.
The ACLU's complaint is online in .pdf format at http://www.aclu.org/court/joslyn.pdf.
A fact sheet on the use of physical restraints is online at http://www.aclu.org/issues/prisons/phys_restraints_factsheet.html.
The ACLU's letter to Commissioner Armstrong follows:

BY FACSIMILE AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL January 26, 2001

2 of 4

2/16/01 8:59 AM

ACLU Press Release: 02-07-01 -- ACLU Su...Housed at Notorious Virginia "Supermax"

http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n020701a.html

Hon. John J. Armstrong, Commissioner Connecticut Department of Correction 24 Wolcott Hill Road Wethersfield, CT 06109
Dear Commissioner Armstrong:
The ACLU National Prison Project and the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union represent a number of Connecticut prisoners held at Wallens Ridge State Prison (WRSP) in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, pursuant to a contract between the Connecticut Department of Correction (CDOC) and the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC). We are writing to inform you that we believe conditions at WRSP violate the Constitution, and we are prepared to file suit to remedy those conditions.
We acknowledge that the CDOC has recently announced the transfer of a number of Connecticut prisoners from WRSP to other Virginia prisons. However, as long as some Connecticut prisoners remain at WRSP, they will continue to be subjected to the unconstitutional conditions described below.
Excessive Force
Excessive force is endemic at WRSP. Often force is used not in a good faith effort to maintain prison security, but to inflict summary punishment on prisoners who have displeased prison staff. Such excessive force is not confined to isolated incidents, but amounts to an official policy in which you and your Department have acquiesced.
Prisoners are strapped down in 5-point restraints for the most trivial offenses, such as kicking a cell door. Prisoners are left in these restraints for up to 48 hours. Often prisoners in restraints are not given timely access to toilet facilities, with the result that they urinate and defecate on themselves, and are left to lie in their own waste for hours.
Prisoners are often shocked with the "Ultron" or other "stun" devices. These devices inflict a powerful and painful electric shock. Once again, these devices are not used to immobilize prisoners who pose a genuine security threat; rather, they are used to inflict summary punishment on prisoners who do not walk quickly enough, do not cough loudly enough during a search, or otherwise annoy prison staff. Use of these devices constitutes potentially lethal force, particularly with prisoners who have heart trouble or other chronic health conditions. As you are no doubt aware, in July 2000, Connecticut prisoner Lawrence Frazier died after being repeatedly stunned by WRSP staff.
Finally, WRSP staff frequently open fire on Connecticut prisoners with shotguns when such lethal force is not necessary. Prisoners who have not been involved in any wrongdoing have been wounded by shotgun fire. Incredibly, by WRSP's own admission, arriving prisoners are informed by staff that "Any failure on your part to follow verbal instructions from staff... will be met with the immediate use of firepower."
Health Care
Medical, mental health, and dental care at WRSP are inadequate. The health care provided by Correctional Medical Services, the contract provider at WRSP, was considered so grossly inadequate that VDOC recently fined CMS nearly one million dollars. The Virginia State

3 of 4

2/16/01 8:59 AM

ACLU Press Release: 02-07-01 - ACLU Su...Housed at Notorious Virginia "Supermax"

http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n020701a.html

Auditor specifically found that CMS did not provide a dentist at WRSP for over three months, and never provided an optometrist. Medical privacy and confidentiality is non-existent at WRSP; as a matter of policy, prisoners are required to discuss their most private medical and mental health issues in the presence of security staff and other prisoners.
Additionally, we are concerned that individuals with serious mental illness have been transferred to WRSP, and are not receiving minimally adequate mental health services. We have been in contact with the State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (OPA) on this issue. OPA has obtained releases from a number of WRSP prisoners, and is concerned that the CDOC has withheld medical records that could substantiate these claims. We understand that a request for these records was made on December 11, 2000, and that CDOC has yet to even acknowledge receipt of this request. It is the contention of OPA that CDOC is illegally infringing on the rights of these prisoners to retain counsel of their own choice.
Conclusion
We request that you publicly announce, within ten days of the date of this letter, that CDOC will terminate the contract with VDOC and will withdraw all Connecticut prisoners from Virginia within sixty days. If such a commitment is not made, we will file suit to remedy the constitutional violations being suffered by Connecticut prisoners at WRSP.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
David C. Fathi Staff Counsel ACLU National Prison Project Practice Limited to the Federal Courts
Toya Alek Graham Staff Attorney Connecticut Civil Liberties Union

INDEX

JOIN

HOME

SEARCH FEEDBACK

yrieht 2001, The American Civil Liberties Union

4 of 4

2/16/01 8:59 AM

Joslyn v. Armstrong

•• • • • • ••

••

Hill • • •

•• I

PC-CT-001-002

 
 Joslyn v. Armstrong, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)
2001 WL 1464780 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Connecticut.
Robert JOSLYN and Abdul Haqq, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v.
John J. ARMSTRONG, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of of Corrections,
Defendant
No. 3:01CR198(CFD). | May 16, 2001.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Alan Neigher, Byelas & Neigher, Westport, Toya Alek Graham, Philip D. Tegeler, Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Hartford, David C. Fathi, National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, for plaintiff.
Steven R. Strom, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Public Safety & Special Revenue, Hartford, for defendant.
Opinion
RULING ON MOTION TO TRANSFER
DRONEY, District J.
*1 The named plaintiffs, Robert Joslyn and Abdul Haqq, bring this putative class action against the defendant, John J. Armstrong, the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Corrections (“CDOC”). They bring the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they contend that the defendant is knowingly subjecting them to prison conditions that constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including reasonable costs and attorneys fees.
The defendant has filed a motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The motion to transfer [Document # 12] is DENIED for the following reasons.
I. Background The named plaintiffs are Connecticut citizens, who have

been convicted and sentenced to the custody of the CDOC by Connecticut state courts. Each named plaintiff is housed at the Wallens Ridge State Prison (“WRSP”), a “supermax” prison located in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (“ICC”) adopted by the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Virginia.1 See Va.Code Ann. §§ 53.1–216 to –217; Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 18–105 to –107. The plaintiffs’ claims arise from allegations that the staff at WRSP, which is operated by the Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”), have used excessive force against them, including the use of five-point restraints and electric shock devices as summary punishment for trivial offenses. The plaintiffs allege that such force is endemic at WRSP, and amounts to an official policy that the defendant has implemented or to which he has knowingly acquiesced, in violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a plaintiff class consisting of “all Connecticut state prisoners who are now, or who will in the future be, confined at Wallens Ridge State Prison in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, or at Red Onion State Prison in Pound, Virginia.” See Pls.’ Mot. Class Certification at 1.
The defendant has not yet responded to the plaintiffs’ complaint or their class certification motion. However, as indicated, the defendant has filed a motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).2
II. Discussion Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”
This section is a statutory recognition of the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens as a facet of venue in the federal courts. The goal of § 1404(a) is to prevent waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.
*2 The district court has broad discretion on a transfer motion according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. The moving party bears the burden of making out a strong case for a transfer, by demonstrating that, under all of the circumstances, the interests of justice and of the parties will be better served by the transfer. However, this burden is less stringent than under the former doctrine of forum non conveniens since transfer under § 1404(a) does not result in dismissal.
1

Joslyn v. Armstrong, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)
The inquiry on a motion to transfer is two-fold. The court must first determine whether the action sought to be transferred is one that might have been brought in the transferee court. Second, the court must determine whether, considering the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice, a transfer is appropriate.
Wilshire Credit Corp. v. Barrett Capital Mgmt. Corp., 976 F.Supp. 174, 180 (W.D.N.Y.1997) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
A. Where the Action Might Have Been Brought A district court may only transfer an action to another district court if the transferee court is one in which the plaintiffs might have brought the action originally. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U .S. 335, 343–44 (1960). The transferring court must therefore consider whether, at the time the suit commenced, the plaintiffs would have had an absolute right to bring the action in the transferee court, that is, a right to bring the action regardless of the defendant’s consent to personal jurisdiction or venue in the transferee court. See id.
The defendant in this case contends that venue is proper in the Western District of Virginia because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred in that district. See Mem. Supp. Def.’s Mot. Transfer at 2 n. 1. However, the defendant has not sufficiently addressed the issue of whether the plaintiffs could have brought this action originally in the Western District of Virginia. The defendant has not shown that the district court in the Western District of Virginia would have had personal jurisdiction over him, at the time the suit commenced, regardless of whether he consented to such jurisdiction. Although counsel for the defendant argued at the motion hearing that the defendant regularly conducts business in Virginia under the ICC, and thus that Virginia’s jurisdiction over him is “obvious,” the defendant has not analyzed Virginia’s long-arm statute or the due process requirements of personal jurisdiction sufficiently to demonstrate that the plaintiffs had an absolute right to sue him in Virginia.
The defendant further contends that this case should be transferred to the Western District of Virginia because he is already being sued there by other Connecticut prisoners. He indicates that he has accepted service of other complaints and has defended other actions in the Western District of Virginia, and thus he should be permitted to litigate this case in that district. However, it appears that the defendant consented to personal jurisdiction in Virginia in the other cases. The defendant concedes that no court has previously determined he is subject to personal jurisdiction in Virginia, because he never challenged such jurisdiction. And, as indicated, the

defendant’s consent to jurisdiction in the other cases, and any agreement by the defendant in this case to waive any service of process or personal jurisdiction defenses to proceeding in the Western District of Virginia, may not be considered by the Court in resolving the motion to transfer. See Blaski, 363 U.S. at 343–44.
*3 Accordingly, although the defendant may ultimately be subject to personal jurisdiction in the Western District of Virginia, he has failed to establish such jurisdiction sufficiently to satisfy the first requirement for transfer under § 1404(a). The motion to transfer is therefore denied.
B. Convenience and Interest of Justice The motion to transfer is also denied for failure of the defendant to satisfy his burden of making out a strong case for a transfer under the second requirement of § 1404(a).
In determining whether transfer is warranted for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, courts generally consider several factors including the convenience of the witnesses, the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof, the convenience of the parties, the locus of the operative facts, the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, the relative means of the parties, the forum’s familiarity with the governing law, the weight accorded the plaintiff’s choice of forum, and trial efficiency and the interest of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances.
Wilshire Credit Corp., 976 F.Supp. at 181 (citations and quotation marks omitted). “However, it is almost a truism that a plaintiff’s choice of a forum will rarely be disturbed unless the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of the defendant.” Jackson v. District of Columbia, 89 F.Supp.2d 48, 52–53 (D.D.C.2000) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). This is particularly so where a plaintiff is a resident of his or her chosen forum. See Wilshire Credit Corp., 976 F.Supp. at 182; see also Red Bull Assocs. v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 862 F.2d 963, 966–67 (2d Cir.1988) (involving civil rights).
The defendant contends that the following factors clearly favor transfer of this case to the Western District of Virginia: (1) the allegedly unlawful events giving rise to
2

Joslyn v. Armstrong, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

this case occurred in that district and involved VDOC staff; (2) most if not all of the putative class members are located in Virginia; (3) transferring prisoners between Virginia and Connecticut for the purpose of trial would create significant staffing and security problems for the VDOC; (4) the geographic distance between Virginia and Connecticut is vast; (5) the VDOC has video-conferencing capabilities to facilitate a trial in Virginia; (6) the defendant and other CDOC officials are willing to travel to Virginia for trial; (7) most if not all other witnesses, including other inmates and corrections officials, are located in Virginia; (8) non-party witnesses in Virginia would not be subject to service of process in Connecticut; (9) all documentary evidence, including incident reports, logbooks, and medical reports, are located in Virginia; (10) the plaintiffs’ choice of forum in Connecticut bears no material relationship to the alleged constitutional violations; (11) the plaintiffs are represented, in part, by the ACLU’s National Prison Project in Washington, D.C., which is closer to Virginia than Connecticut; (12) plaintiffs’ counsel may be admitted pro hac vice to practice law in the Western District of Virginia; (13) the ICC requires that all disputes between Virginia and Connecticut be litigated in Virginia courts under Virginia law; and (14) federal constitutional standards of cruel and unusual punishment are necessarily the same in all federal district courts.3 Thus, the defendant contends, permitting this action to proceed in Connecticut would be unnecessary and inconvenient for the Court and the parties, including many of the parties’ witnesses, and generally unfair to the defendant who would be forced to defend the action in his home state but far from the locus of events or evidence relating to the action.

pursue this case in the Western District of Virginia because of increased costs; (5) the plaintiffs may not be able to retain alternate counsel given their indigent status; (6) the plaintiffs have alleged ongoing harms, which must be addressed without the delay that a transfer to Virginia would create; (7) the ICC requires Virginia and Connecticut to cooperate, thereby reducing any risk that non-party witnesses in Virginia would be unavailable for trial in Connecticut; (8) even if witnesses were unavailable, they could be deposed or testify by video; (9) all documentary evidence will have to be produced to plaintiffs’ counsel in Connecticut during discovery, regardless of where the case is tried; and (10) there is no evidence that a trial in Connecticut would otherwise be any more or less convenient than a trial in Virginia.
Having considered the totality of these factors, the Court concludes that this case should proceed in Connecticut rather than in Virginia. Although a Connecticut trial may be inconvenient for the defendant and some of the parties’ witnesses, the defendant has failed to satisfy his heavy burden of establishing that the convenience of the parties and witnesses tip decidedly in his favor. See Jackson, 89 F.Supp.2d at 52–54 (involving District of Columbia prisoners housed in Virginia pursuant to a contract between the two forums). In addition, because this case alleges serious constitutional violations by the Commissioner of the CDOC against Connecticut citizens in his custody, the interest of justice also requires that this case proceed in Connecticut. See id; Red Bull Assocs., 862 F.2d at 966–67. The motion to transfer is therefore denied on these bases as well.4

*4 The Court must grant significant deference to the plaintiffs’ chosen forum, however. This deference is heightened because the plaintiffs are Connecticut citizens and were convicted, sentenced, and initially incarcerated in Connecticut. There are also several factors indicating this case should proceed in the District of Connecticut, including the following: (1) many of the putative class members have been, and continue to be, transferred back to Connecticut; (2) the transfer of prisoners between Virginia and Connecticut is routine under the ICC, and therefore not unduly burdensome to the CDOC or the VDOC; (3) defendant’s counsel and most of plaintiffs’ counsel are located in Connecticut; (4) plaintiffs’ counsel, who are litigating this case pro bono, would not be able to

III. Conclusion For the preceding reasons, the defendant’s motion to transfer [Document # 12] is DENIED.
The parties are directed to submit a joint proposed planning report within two weeks. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), 26(f); D. Conn. L Civ. R. 38. The defendant is also directed to respond to the plaintiffs’ complaint and class certification motion within thirty days.
	  

Footnotes

1

The plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint also references Red Onion State Prison, a “supermax” prison located in Pound, Virginia.

However, no Connecticut prisoners are currently housed at that facility.

2

The Court held a hearing on the motion to transfer on May 9, 2001.

3

Notwithstanding these allegations, the Court notes that the defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support many of

these purported factors favoring transfer. For example, the defendant has not presented any evidence that transferring prisoners

3

Joslyn v. Armstrong, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

between Virginia and Connecticut for the purpose of trial would create significant staffing and security problems for the VDOC.

4

Any argument by the defendant that the plaintiffs have sued him improperly, and that they should have sued the VDOC officials

who allegedly applied excessive force against them, may still be raised in a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.

VDOC officials may also move to join or intervene in this action.

	  

4

 
 SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 1 of 10

CLOSED, REFCNF, WIG
U.S. District Court District of Connecticut (New Haven) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:01-cv-00198-CFD

Joslyn, et al v. Armstrong Assigned to: Judge Christopher F. Droney Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Robert Joslyn Ind & O/B/O others similarly situated

Date Filed: 02/07/2001 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alan Neigher Byelas & Neigher 1804 Post Rd East Westport, CT 06880 203-259-0599 Email: aneigher@snet.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David C. Fathi National Prison Project of the ACLUF 915 15th St NW 7th Fl. Washington, DC 20005 202-393-4930 Fax: 202-393-4931 Email: dfathi@npp-aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip D. Tegeler Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 32 Grand St. Hartford, CT 06106 860-247-9823 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Toya Alek Graham 141 East Main Street P.O. Box 2242 Waterbury, CT 06722-2242 203-573-1411 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?809160761388851-L_280_0-1

11/2/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 2 of 10

Plaintiff Abdul Haqq
V. Defendant John J. Armstrong Comm, DOC

represented by Alan Neigher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David C. Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip D. Tegeler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Toya Alek Graham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by 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

Date Filed 02/07/2001 02/07/2001 02/07/2001
02/07/2001 02/07/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 02/07/2001)

SUMMONS(ES) issued for John J. Armstrong (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 02/07/2001)

2 ORDER on Pretrial Deadlines handed to counsel Discovery cutoff 8/9/01 ; Dispositive Motions due 9/8/01 Amended Pleadings due 4/7/01 Motions to Dismiss due 5/7/01 (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 02/07/2001)

3 MOTION by Robert Joslyn for David C. Fathi to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 02/07/2001)

4 MOTION by Robert Joslyn to Certify Class (Brief Due 2/28/01 ) (Bauer,

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?809160761388851-L_280_0-1

11/2/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 3 of 10

02/07/2001 02/14/2001 02/15/2001 02/16/2001 02/28/2001
03/01/2001 03/07/2001 03/14/2001 03/16/2001 03/19/2001 03/19/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001
03/23/2001 03/23/2001

J.) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
5 MEMORANDUM by Robert Joslyn in support of [4-1] motion to Certify Class (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed on 02/07/01 as to John J. Armstrong (Grady, B.) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
7 APPEARANCE of Attorney for John J. Armstrong -- Steven R. Strom (Grady, B.) (Entered: 03/09/2001)
8 MOTION by John J. Armstrong to Extend Time to 04/13/01 to respond to the Complaint and to the Motion for Class Certification (Grady, B.) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [8-1] motion to Extend Time to 04/13/01 to respond to the Complaint and to the Motion for Class Certification, Brief Deadline set for 4/13/01 [4-1] motion to Certify Class ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 03/01/2001)
9 AMENDED MOTION by John J. Armstrong to Extend Time referring to [8-1] motion to Extend Time to 04/13/01 to respond to the Complaint and to the Motion for Class Certification (Grady, B.) (Entered: 03/01/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [9-1] amended motion to Extend Time, Brief Deadline set for 4/13/01 [4-1] motion Certify Class ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
10 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Robert Joslyn adding Abdul Haqq amending [1-1] complaint (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
11 MOTION by John J. Armstrong for Scheduling Conference (Grady, B.) (Entered: 03/19/2001)
12 MOTION by John J. Armstrong to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia (Brief Due 4/9/01 ) (Montgomery, C.) (Entered: 03/21/2001)
13 MEMORANDUM by John J. Armstrong in support of [12-1] motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia (Montgomery, C.) (Entered: 03/21/2001)
14 MOTION by John J. Armstrong for Protective Order Regarding all discovery to wait until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Transfer (Brief Due 4/10/01 ) (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 03/21/2001)
15 AFFIDAVIT of Perry Zinn Rowthorn by John J. Armstrong Re [14-1] motion for Protective Order Regarding all discovery to wait until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Transfer (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 03/21/2001)
16 REPORT of Parties Planning Meeting by plaintiffs (Grady, B.) (Entered: 03/26/2001)
17 REPORT of Parties Planning Meeting by John J. Armstrong (Grady, B.) (Entered: 03/26/2001)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?809160761388851-L_280_0-1

11/2/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 4 of 10

04/02/2001 04/06/2001 04/06/2001 04/06/2001 04/06/2001 04/09/2001 04/09/2001 04/12/2001 04/12/2001 04/16/2001 04/19/2001
04/23/2001

18 SECOND MOTION by John J. Armstrong to Extend Time to respond to complaint and motion for class certification until 30 days after a ruling on the pending motion to transfer (Kunofsky, L.) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
19 MEMORANDUM by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in opposition to [12-1] motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
20 AFFIDAVIT of David C. Faith by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in opposition [12-1] motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
21 AFFIDAVIT of Nancy B. Alisbert by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in opposition to [12-1] motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
22 RESPONSE by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq to [11-1] motion for Scheduling Conference (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
24 MEMORANDUM by Robert Joslyn in opposition to [14-1] motion for Protective Order Regarding all discovery to wait until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Transfer (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/16/2001)
25 AFFIDAVIT of David C. Fathi by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq Re [14-1] motion for Protective Order Regarding all discovery to wait until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Transfer (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/16/2001)
23 OBJECTIONS by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq to [18-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to complaint and motion for class certification until 30 days after a ruling on the pending motion to transfer (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/12/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [3-1] motion for David C. Fathi to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/16/2001)
26 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq -- Alan Neigher (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/17/2001)
Motion hearing re: [18-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to complaint and motion for class certification until 30 days after a ruling on the pending motion to transfer by John J. Armstrong set at 10:00 5/9/01, [141] motion for Protective Order Regarding all discovery to wait until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Transfer by John J. Armstrong set at 10:00 5/9/01, [12-1] motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia by John J. Armstrong set at 10:00 5/9/01, [11-1] motion for Scheduling Conference by John J. Armstrong set at 10:00 5/9/01, [4-1] motion to Certify Class by Robert Joslyn set at 10:00 5/9/01 ( CFD) (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
27 MOTION by John J. Armstrong to Extend Time to 05/04/01 to file a reply brief in support of the Motion to Transfer (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/23/2001)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?809160761388851-L_280_0-1

11/2/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 5 of 10

04/26/2001 04/30/2001
05/01/2001 05/01/2001 05/03/2001
05/03/2001 05/04/2001 05/04/2001 05/07/2001 05/07/2001 05/09/2001
05/09/2001

28 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq -- Philip D. Tegeler (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/27/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [27-1] motion to Extend Time to 05/04/01 to file a reply brief in support of the Motion to Transfer, Brief Deadline set for 5/4/01 [12-1] motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/30/2001)
29 MOTION by John J. Armstrong to Quash deposition subpoenas (Brief Due 5/22/01 (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/01/2001)
30 AFFIDAVIT of Raymond Rivera by John J. Armstrong, re [29-1] motion to Quash deposition subpoenas (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/01/2001)
31 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of David C. Fathi by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in support [24-1] opposition memorandum, re: [14-1] motion for Protective Order Regarding all discovery to wait until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Transfer (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/03/2001)
32 SUPPLEMENT Exhibits by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq to opposition to [14-1] motion for Protective Order Regarding all discovery to wait until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Transfer (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/03/2001)
33 REPLY MEMORANDUM by John J. Armstrong in support of [12-1] motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
34 AFFIDAVIT of Steven R. Strom by John J. Armstrong Re [12-1] motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
35 MEMORANDUM by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in opposition to [29-1] motion to Quash deposition subpoenas (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/08/2001)
36 AFFIDAVIT of David C. Fathi by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in support of [35-1] opposition memorandum, re: [29-1] motion to Quash deposition subpoenas (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/08/2001)
37 Motion hearing held re: [11-1] motion for Scheduling Conference, [12-1] motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia, [14-1] motion for Protective Order Regarding all discovery to wait until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Transfer, [18-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to complaint and motion for class certification until 30 days after a ruling on the pending motion to transfer, [29-1] motion to Quash deposition subpoenas (CFD) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/11/2001)
MINUTE Entry: [11-1] motion for Scheduling Conference, [12-1] motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia, [14-1] motion for Protective Order Regarding all discovery to wait until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Transfer, [18-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to complaint and motion for class certification until 30 days after a ruling on

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?809160761388851-L_280_0-1

11/2/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 6 of 10

05/14/2001 05/17/2001 05/17/2001 05/17/2001
05/17/2001
05/17/2001 05/29/2001 05/29/2001 05/31/2001 06/11/2001 06/11/2001 06/14/2001 06/14/2001 06/14/2001 06/18/2001

the pending motion to transfer, [29-1] motion to Quash deposition subpoenas under advisement (CFD) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/11/2001)
38 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq -- David C. Fathi (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/16/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying [11-1] motion for Scheduling Conference ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/17/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying [29-1] motion to Quash deposition subpoenas ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/17/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying [14-1] motion for Protective Order Regarding all discovery to wait until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Transfer ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/17/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying [18-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to complaint and motion for class certification until 30 days after a ruling on the pending motion to transfer ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/17/2001)
39 RULING denying [12-1] motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Virginia ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) 8 Page(s) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/17/2001)
40 REPORT of Parties Planning Meeting (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/30/2001)
41 MOTION by John J. Armstrong for Leave to Depose persons confined (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/30/2001)
Motion hearing re: [4-1] motion to Certify Class by Robert Joslyn set at 2:00 7/5/01 ( CFD) (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 05/31/2001)
42 MOTION by John J. Armstrong for Protective Order regarding confidentiality of VDOC DOP No. 432 and WRSP IOP No. 432 (Brief Due 7/2/01 ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 06/12/2001)
43 MOTION by John J. Armstrong for in Camera Review (Brief Due 7/2/01 ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 06/12/2001)
44 MEMORANDUM by John J. Armstrong in opposition to [4-1] motion to Certify Class (Grady, B.) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
45 MOTION by John J. Armstrong to Dismiss (Brief Due 7/5/01 ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
46 MEMORANDUM by John J. Armstrong in support of [45-1] motion to Dismiss (Grady, B.) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
47 MOTION by Robert Joslyn, John J. Armstrong, Abdul Haqq for Protective Order to maintain confidentiality of VDOC DOP No. 432 and/or WRSP IOP No. 432 (Grady, B.) (Entered: 06/20/2001)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?809160761388851-L_280_0-1

11/2/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 7 of 10

06/25/2001 06/29/2001 07/02/2001 07/02/2001 07/03/2001 07/05/2001
07/05/2001 07/05/2001 07/05/2001 07/05/2001 07/05/2001 07/05/2001 07/05/2001 07/06/2001
07/06/2001

48 MOTION by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq for Leave to File oversized brief (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/26/2001)
49 MOTION by Robert Joslyn to Extend Time by one week to respond to Motion to Dismiss (Montgomery, C.) (Entered: 06/29/2001)
50 REPLY MEMORANDUM by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in support of [4-1] motion to Certify Class (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/03/2001)
51 AFFIDAVIT of David C. Fathi by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq Re [4-1] motion to Certify Class (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/03/2001)
53 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of John Armstrong by John J. Armstrong in opposition [4-1] motion to Certify Class (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [47-1] motion for Protective Order to maintain confidentiality of VDOC DOP No. 432 and/or WRSP IOP No. 432 ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/05/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [41-1] motion for Leave to Depose persons confined ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/05/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [48-1] motion for Leave to File oversized brief ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/05/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [43-1] motion for in Camera Review ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/05/2001)
52 In Camera Review of Virginia Department of Corrections DOP 432 effective 05/15/95 and 10/16/00 (FILED UNDER SEALED) by John J. Armstrong (Grady, B.) Modified on 07/05/2001 (Entered: 07/05/2001)
54 Motion hearing held re: [4-1] motion to Certify Class by Robert Joslyn ( CFD) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
MINUTE Entry: [4-1] motion to Certify Class under advisement ( CFD) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [42-1] motion for Protective Order regarding confidentiality of VDOC DOP No. 432 and WRSP IOP No. 432 ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
55 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 4/1/02; Dispositive Motions due 6/1/02; Filing of Joint Trial Memorandum by 8/1/02. Trial Ready Date Set for 9/1/02 ( Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
56 ORDER of referral to Mag. Judge William I. Garfinkel for settlement conference (signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/09/2001)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?809160761388851-L_280_0-1

11/2/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 8 of 10

07/09/2001 07/12/2001 07/13/2001 07/13/2001 07/16/2001 07/16/2001 07/18/2001 07/18/2001 07/23/2001 07/25/2001 07/26/2001 08/01/2001 08/02/2001 08/02/2001 08/02/2001

ENDORSEMENT granting [49-1] motion to Extend Time by one week to respond to Motion to Dismiss ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
57 SUPPLEMENTAL Memorandum by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in support of [4-1] motion to Certify Class (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/13/2001)
58 Second Supplemental Affidavit in opposition to class certification John J. Armstrong (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
59 AFFIDAVIT of Donna Wnuk by John J. Armstrong Re [4-1] motion to Certify Class (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
60 MEMORANDUM by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in opposition to [45-1] motion to Dismiss by John J. Armstrong (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
61 AFFIDAVIT of David C. Fathi by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq Re [45-1] motion to Dismiss by John J. Armstrong (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
62 MOTION by John J. Armstrong for Protective Order staying all discovery during the pendency of settlement discussions (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
63 AFFIDAVIT of aff. by John J. Armstrong Re [62-1] motion for Protective Order staying all discovery during the pendency of settlement discussions (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying [62-1] motion for Protective Order staying all discovery during the pendency of settlement discussions ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
64 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by 8/15/01 Re: why case should not be dismiss ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
65 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of David C. Fathi by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq Re [45-1] motion to Dismiss (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
66 ANSWER and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to Complaint by John J. Armstrong (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
67 Calendar and Order re: Status/Settlement Conference set for 8/23/01 at 2:30 ( signed by Mag. Judge William I. Garfinkel ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
68 MOTION by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq to Hold in abeyance defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Brief Due 8/23/01 (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
69 MEMORANDUM by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in support of [68-1] motion to Hold in abeyance defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/02/2001)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?809160761388851-L_280_0-1

11/2/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 9 of 10

08/02/2001
08/02/2001
08/09/2001 08/09/2001 08/09/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/15/2001 08/15/2001
08/15/2001 08/15/2001
08/15/2001
08/23/2001 08/28/2001 08/28/2001 08/29/2001 08/29/2001

70 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of David C. Fathi by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in support of [4-1] motion to Certify Class (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
71 AFFIDAVIT of David C. Fathi by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in support of [68-1] motion to Hold in abeyance defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
72 MOTION by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq Publication (Brief Due 8/30/01 (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
73 MEMORANDUM by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in support of [72-1] motion Publication (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
74 AFFIDAVIT of David C. Fathi by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq Re [72-1] motion Publication (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued for Abdul Haqq on 8/23/01 at 2:00 (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued for Robert Joslyn on 8/23/01 at 2:00 (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
75 Response by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq to [64-1] order to show cause (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
76 AFFIDAVIT of David C. Fathi by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in support [75-1] response to [64-1] order to show cause (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
77 Brief in response by John J. Armstrong to [64-1] order to show cause (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
78 AFFIDAVIT of John J. Armstrong by John J. Armstrong in support of [77-1] response, re: [64-1] order to show cause (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
79 AFFIDAVIT of Donna Wnuk by John J. Armstrong in support of [77-1] response, re: [64-1] order to show cause (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
80 Settlement Conference held ( WIG) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
81 MOTION by John J. Armstrong to Quash deposition subpoenas (Brief Due 9/18/01 (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/29/2001)
82 AFFIDAVIT of Steven R. Strom by John J. Armstrong Re [81-1] motion to Quash deposition subpoenas (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/29/2001)
83 MEMORANDUM by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in opposition to [81-1] motion to Quash deposition subpoenas (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
84 AFFIDAVIT of Toya Alek Graham by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in support of [81-1] motion to Quash deposition subpoenas (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/30/2001)

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?809160761388851-L_280_0-1

11/2/2005

SDSD District Version 1.3 - Docket Report

Page 10 of 10

08/29/2001 08/29/2001
09/19/2001 09/27/2001 09/27/2001 09/27/2001 09/28/2001
10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/15/2001
10/15/2001 10/17/2001

85 MEMORANDUM by John J. Armstrong in support of [81-1] motion to Quash deposition subpoenas (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
86 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of Steven r. Strom by John J. Armstrong in support of [81-1] motion to Quash deposition subpoenas by John J. Armstrong (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
87 Telephonic Status of Settlement Conference held ( WIG) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
88 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal as to Robert Joslyn, John J. Armstrong, Abdul Haqq (Grady, B.) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
ENDORSEMENT ordered accordingly [88-1] notice of dismissal (signed by Clerk) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
Case closed (Grady, B.) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
89 RULING denying as moot [4-1] motion to Certify Class ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) 1 Page(s) (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 09/28/2001)
90 MOTION by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq for relief from Judgment (Brief Due 10/30/01 ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
91 MEMORANDUM by Robert Joslyn, Abdul Haqq in support of [90-1] motion for relief from Judgment (Grady, B.) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [90-1] motion for relief from Judgment ( signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
92 CORRECTED STIPULATION of dismissal of case as to Robert Joslyn, John J. Armstrong, Abdul Haqq (Grady, B.) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
ENDORSEMENT ordered accordingly [92-1] corrected stipulation of dismissal (signed by Clerk) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 10/17/2001)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

11/02/2005 16:45:03

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:01-cv-00198-CFD

Billable Pages: 6

Cost:

0.48

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?809160761388851-L_280_0-1

11/2/2005