IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

MELVIN C.

~

Maryland Correctional Institution

Jessup

~

Box 549

Jessup, Maryland 20794

and

ARTHUR W.

Patuxent Institution

Box 700 Jessup, Maryland 20794

*

and

BILLY D.

Roxbury Correctional Institution ~

18701 Roxbury Road

Hagerstown, Maryland 21746

~

and

~

(

SCOTT C., by and through his

*

mother and next friend, DENISE P.

Roxbury Correctional Institution ~

16701 Roxbury Road

Hagerstown, Maryland 21746

~

ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

CASE NO.

Plaintiffs

vs.

JOSEPH L. SCHILLING, in his official capacity as Maryland State Superintendent of Schools Maryland State Department of Education 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201

and

RICHARD J. STEINKE, in his official capacity as Assistant State Superintendent, Division of Special Education Maryland state Department of Education

, .

(

200 West Baltimore street

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

*

and

*

JOHN LINTON, in his official

*

capacity as Director of

Correctional Education of the Maryland state Department of

*

Education Maryland state Department of

*

Education

*

200 West Baltimore street

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

*

and

*

HELEN MILLER, Ed.D., in her

*

official capacity as a

Correctional Special Education

*

Specialist with the Maryland

State Department of Education

*

Maryland State Department of

Education

*

200 West Baltimore Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

*

and

*

HENRIETTA HESTICK, Ph.D.,

*

in her official capacity as a

Correctional School Psychologist *
with the Maryland State

Department of Education

*

Maryland State Department of

Education

*

200 West Baltimore Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

*

and

*

BISHOP L. ROBINSON, in his

*

official capacity as Secretary

of Public Safety and

*

Correctional Services

Department of Public Safety and

Correctional Services

Suite 310

6776 Reisterstown Road

Baltimore, Maryland 21215

*

and

*

2

1,

(

(

RICHARD LANHAM in his

~

official capacity as

Commissioner of the Division of

*

Correction

Department of Public Safety and

~

Correctional Services

Suite 311

~

6776 Reisterstown Road

Baltimore, Maryland 21215

~

and

*

HAROLD D. JENKINS, in his

*

official capacity as Educational

Liaison, Division of Correction

~

Department of Public Safety and

Correctional Services

*

Suite 311

6776 Reisterstown Road

*

Baltimore, Maryland 21215

*
Defendants

COHPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
1. This is a civil rights class action challenging the failure of the Defendants to provide legally required special education and related services to youth confined at_Maryland's ten adult correctional facilities and pre-release units, including the Maryland Correctional Training Center ("MCTC"), the Maryland Correctional Institution at Hagerstown ("MCI-H"), Roxbury Correctional Institution ("Roxbury"), Eastern Correctional Institution ("ECI"), Maryland Correctional Institution at Jessup ("MCI-J"'), the Maryland House of Corrections ("MHC"), the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women ("MCI-W"), the Maryland State Penitentiary, the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, and
3

---_._----- -------

-----.----

(

(

Patuxent Institution ("Patuxent") (hereinafter c'ollect i vely

referred to as "Maryland Adult Correctional Facilities" or

"Maryland Adult Correctional Systemll ).

2. Under federal law, every disabled child up to the age of

twenty-two (22) has the right to a free appropriate public

education. That right is not ext inguished by conf inement in a

Maryland Adult Correctional Facility. In fact, imprisonment in a

Maryland Adult Correctional Facility only increases the urgency and

importance of ensuring the delivery of that education. For many

young disabled inmates, special education will mean the difference

between a life marred by a cycle of failure and a life of

productive employment.

3.

Both the Maryland state Department of Education,

Correctional Education Office ("MSDE"), and the Maryland Department

of Public Safety and Correctional Services ("PSCS"), which jointly

administer the legally required special education program~ within

Maryland's Adult Correct ional Facil i ties, fai 1 to implement federal

special education laws by: .(1) unlawfully failing to screen

disabled or potentially disabled students for special education

needs; (2) unlawfully operating special education programs without

parental, or surrogate parental part1cipation; (3) unlawfully

failing to develop Individualized Educat10n Plans ("IEP's"); (4)

unlawfully failing to train personnel chiefly responsible. for the

screening, referral and implementation of special education within

the Maryland Adult Correctional System; (5) unlawfully failing to

have an administrative appeals processi (6) unlawfully failing to

4

(
provide related services to disabled youth legally entitled to such ~ervicesi and (7) unlawfully operating under policies which, during the student assessment and classification process, exclude nearly seventy-five (75'.\) percent of eligible prisoners from special education and related services. Currently, there are over 1700 youth (Le., those under age 22) confined in Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities. At least four hundred (400) of these youth are in need of special education and related services and are legally entitled to them. Upon information and belief, less than eighty (80) youth are presently enrolled in special education programs.
4. Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief on behalf of themselves and all other disabled youth confined in Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities. It is brought to redress Defendants' violation of federal const i tut i onal and statutory rights. This act ion is brought pursuant to The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983; The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("P.L. 94-142"), 20 U.S.C. §§1401, et ~, and l.ts implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300, ~ seq.; Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section ~04"), 29 U.S.C. §794, and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. 8§104, et seq.; and, the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth-amendment to the United states Constitution.
II. JURISDICTION 5. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of this
5

(

(

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; The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

S1983i Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.

§794; and, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20

U.S.C. SS140l, et ~

6. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action. under

28 U.S.C. S l343(4), this being 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, Section 504 and P.L. 94-142.

7. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under

28 U.S.C. S133l, this being a civil action arising under the

Constitution and laws of the United states.

8.

Plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment is

authorized by 28 U.S.C. SS2~01 and 2202, which authorize this Court

to "declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested

party seeking such declaration."

III. PLAINTIFFS

9. Melvin C. is nineteen (19) years old and a citizen of the

United States. He was born on November 21, 1971. Since December

22, 1988, he has been confined in several Maryland Adult

Correctional Facilities including MCTC, MCI-H, Baltimore City

Correctional Center, MHC and MCI-J. Prior to his incarceration,

he resided in Baltimore City, Maryland.

10. Arthur W. is eighteen (18) years old and a citizen of the

6

(
United states. He was born on July 5, 1972. Since September 24, 1988, he has been confined in Maryland's Adult Correctional System. H-e is currently confined at Patuxent which is located in Jessup, Maryland. Prior to his incarceration, he resided in Baltimore City, MarylCl:nd.
11. Billy D. is eighteen (18) and a citizen of the United States. He was born on.April 17, 1972. Since December 13, 1988, he has been confined in Maryland's Adult Correctional System. He is currently confined at Roxbury which i~ located in Hagerstown, Maryland. Pr ior to his incarcerat ion, he res ided in Baltimore City, Maryland.
12. Scott C. is seventeen (17) and a citizen of the United States. He was born on July 18, 1973. Since September 18, 1989 he has been confined in Maryland's Adult Correctional System. He is currently confined at Roxbury which is located in Hagerstown, Maryland. I?r ior to his incarceration, he resided in Bal timore County, Maryland.
13. Plaintiff Scott C. brings this action by and through his mother and next friend, Denise .P. At all times relevant, Denise P. has resided in Baltimore County, Maryland.
14. Plaintiffs bring this action anonymously in order to preserve the privacy to which they are legally entitled pursuant to provisions of the Buckley Amendments, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. S1232g (1982 & Supp. V), and to protect the~ from possible humiliation.
7

IV. DEFENDANTS

15. Defendant Joseph L. Schilling is the Maryland State

,
Superintendent of Schools.

In that capacity, he has direct

supervisory responsibility for the operation, management and

administration of MSDE. He is ultimately responsible for assuring

that disabled youth in the Maryland educational system, including

disabled incarcerated youth, receive special education and related

services mandated by federal law. He is sued in his official

capacity.

16. Defendant Richard J. Steinke is the Maryland State

Assistant Superintendent of Schools. In that capacity, he has

direct supervisory responsibility for the operation, management and

administration of MSDE. He is responsible for assuring that

disabled youth in the Maryland educational system, including

disabled incarcerated youth, receive special education and related

services mandated by federal law. He is sued in his official

capacity.

17. Defendant John Linton is the Director of Correctional

Education for MSDE. As such,. he is responsible for educational

services, including special, educational services, provided to

inmates confined in institutions and facilities operated by PSCS.

As Director, Defendant Linton is responsible for assur ing that

disabled youth confined in Maryland I s Adult Correctional Facilities

receive special education and related services as mandated by

federal law. He is sued in his official capacity.

18. Defendant Helen Miller, Ed.D., is a Correctional Special

8

(

(

Education Specialist with MSDE. In that capacity, she has direct supervisory responsibility for the operation, management and administration of special education programs administered in Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities. She is responsible for assuring that disabled youth confined in Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities receive special education and related services in compliance wi th federal law. She is sued in her official capacity.
19. Defendant Henrietta HesticK, Ph.D., is a Correctional School Psychologist with MSDE. In that capacity, she evaluates and classifies for special educational eligibility, youth confined in Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities who are suspected of having a disabling condition and thus in need of special education and related services. She is responsible for assuring that youth with special education disabling conditions receive special education and related services in compliance with federal law. She is sued in her official capacity.
20. Defendant Bishop L. Robinson is the State Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional ~ervices. In that capacity, he has direct supervisory responsibllity for the operation, management and administration of PSCS, which is jointly responsible, together with MSDE, for assuring that disabled youth in Maryland's Adult Correctional System receive special education and related services in compliance with federal law. He is sued in his official capacity.
21. Defendant Richard Lanham is the Commissioner of the
9

(
Division of Correction, Maryland State Department of Public Safety and Corr ect ional Serv ices. I n that capac i ty, he has direct supervisory responsibility for the operation, management and administration of the Division of Correction which is jointly responsible, together with MSDE, for assuring that disabled youth in Maryland's Adult Correctional System receive special education and related services in compliance with federal law. He is sued in his official capacity.
22. Defendant Harold D. Jenkins is the Educational Liaison for the Maryland Division of Correction. In that capacity, he has direct supervisory responsibility for the operation, management and administration of special education programs administered in Maryland's Adult Correct ional Faci 1 i ties. He is respons ible for assuring that disabled youth confined in Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities receive special education and related services in compl iance wi th federal law. He is sued in his official capacity.
23. At all relevant times, the Defendants have acted, and continue to act, under color of. state law.
V. CLASS ACTION
24. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. The class consists of all current and future inmates of Maryland's Adult Correctional System who are educationally disabled and are or will be eligible for special education and related services pursuant to federal law.
25. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
10

(

(

impracticable. The average daily population of inmates under the

age of twenty-two (22) confined in Maryland's Adult Correctional

Facilities is in excess of one thousand seven hundred (l,700).

Upon information and belief, at least twenty-five (25%) percent of

this population has a disabling condition and is entitled to

special education and related services.

26. In addition, there are questions of law and fact common

to members of the Plaintiff class regarding the D.efendants'

policies and practices. These include: (a) whether Defendants'

failure to identify and assess the special education needs of all

incarcerated disabled youth in a timely manner and in accordance

with procedural safeguards, violates Plaintiffs' legal rights, (b)

(

whether the Defendants' failure to provide incarcerated disabled

youth with properly developed IEPs violates Plaintiffs' legal

rights, (c) whether the Defendants' failure to include parents,

guardians or surrogate parents, in the special education screening,

assessment and monitoring process violates Plaintiffs' legal

rights, (d) whether the Defendants' failure to tra i n personne 1

chiefly responsible for the referral, assessment and implementation

of special education in Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities,

violates Plaintiffs' legal rights, and, (e) whether Defendants'

failure to provide related services to incarcerated disabled youth,

violates Plaintiffs' legal rights. The claims of the named

Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the

Plaintiff class.

27. The named Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' attorneys will

11

.'

(

('

fairly and adequately represent the interest of the members of the class. Plaintiffs know of no conflict of interest among the class members. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel exper ienced in civil rights class action litigation.
28. By their policies and practices, the Defendants have acted and continued to act on grounds and in a manner generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. The injur les suf fered by the named Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff class as a result of the policies and practices of the Defendants, are capable of repetition, yet may evade review, thereby making class relief appropriate.
VI. FACTS RELEVANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS
A. Melvin C. 29. Plaintiff Melvin C. has been incarcerated in the Maryland Adult Correctional System since December 22, 1988. He has a three (3) year sentence and has been confined at var ious correct ional facilities, includlng MCTC, Mel-H, Baltimore City Correctional Center, MHC, and MCl-J. 30. Melvin C. has three (3) disabling condltions that qualify him as eligible for special education: he is severely emotionally disturbed ("SED"), specific learning disabled ("SLD"), and has chronic and severe asthma, a qualifying health impairment that precludes him from attending regular education classes. These disabling conditions limit Melvin C. I S ability to learn in a
12

(

(

regular educational environment. 31. Melvin C. has a long history of placements in special
education programs. While he was in elementary school in Baltimore City, Melvin C. was certified as eligible for special education. He was classified as SLD. An IEP describing his special education needs was developed. For the next several years, Melvin C. was continually identified as eligible for special education.
32. On or about February, 1982, through December, 1988, Melvin C. was confined in various facilities administered by the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services ("JSA"), including the Montrose School and the Charles H. Hickey, Jr. School (the "Hickey School"). At the JSA facilities, he was certified as eligible for special education, and IEP's were developed. At the Hickey School, in 1986, Melvin C., who was then fourteen (14) years old, was tested to determine his academic level. His grade level was 2.5 in reading and 3.2 in mathematics.
33. Melvin C.' s academic functioning is severely delayed. His severe learning problems interfere with his ability to benefit from an education. He has been classified as SLD since elementary school and, until his confin.ement in December, 1988, has been in special classes geared towards SED and SLD youth.
34. Melvin C. also has severe asthma. When Melvin C. was first confined in the Maryland Adult Correctional System, he was placed in a regular education class. When the teacher and students began to smoke outs ide of the classroom, Melvin C. suffered a severe asthmatic attack. He was forced to miss four (4) days of
13

('
classes. Because of this absence, he was expelled from school. From the time that he was expelled from school until January 31, 1991, Melvin C. was not given any educational training in Maryland's Adult Correctional System. Since January 31, 1991, he has received only two (2) hours per week of regular education.
35. Melvin C. 's asthma is a severe physical impairment which interferes with his ability to benefit from an education in a regular classroom setting.
36. Since his confinement, Melvin C. has also been suicidal. On or about December 25, 1988, Melvin C. attempted suicide by swallowing glass. Since that time, he has attempted suicide, or made serious suicidal gestures, on at least five (5) other occasions, with the last occasion being on or about April 26, 1990. His severe emotional disturbance interferes with his ability to benefit from an education in a regular classroom environment.
37. Despite these multiple educational disabilities, the Defendants have failed to provide Melvin C. any special education and related services des igned to meet his unique needs. The Defendants have not developed an IEP for Melvin C.; upon information and belief, no Admission-Review-Dismissal (liARD") Planning Conference for Melvin C. has been scheduled or held; the Defendants have not notified Melvin C. 's mother about an ARD Planning Conference, nor has she attended a'ny such conference.
3 8 . Sinc e Mel vi n C.' s i ncar c era t ion i n Mar y 1 and's Ad u 1 t Correctional System, neither Melvin C., nor his mother, nor a parent surrogate, have been informed about the rights of disabled
14

youth to procedural safeguards and a free appropr iate publ ic

education.

39. As a r esul t 0 f his severe emot lonal and phys lcal

problems, Melvin C. has been confined in administrative or

disciplinary segregation (collectively "segregation") for the

major i ty of his time served in Maryland' s Adult Correctional

Facilities.

40.

Upon information and belief, while confined in

segregation Melvin C. has informed the Defendants of his right to

special education and related services pursuant to federal law, and

has requested that the Defendants assess him for special education

need, or alternatively, place him in a special educational program.

Despite these requests for assessment and/or placement, the

Defendants have continually denied Melvin C.'s right to special

education. In fact, on at least one occasion Melvin C. was told

that MSDE and PSCS do not provide special education to prisoners

confined in segregation.

41. Melvin C. is disabled within the meaning of P.L. 94-142

and Section 504. Since his confinement, Defendants have denied

Melvin C. a free appropriate education as mandated by federal law and the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth

amendment to the United states Constitution.

B. 'Arthur W.

42. Plaintiff Arthur W. has been incarcerated in Maryland's

Adult Correctional System since September 24, 1988. He has a forty

(40) year sentence and has been confined at various adult

15

(
correctional facilities, including MCTC, MCI-H and Patuxent. 43. Arthur W. has two disabling conditions that qualify him
as eligible for special education: severe emotional disturbance and specific learning disability.
44. Prior to his incarceration, Arthur W. had a long history of placements in special education programs. While he was in elementary school in Baltimore City I Arthur W. was certi f ied as eligible for special education. He was classified as SLD. An IEP describing his special education needs was developed. For the next several years, Arthur W. was continually identified as eligible for special education. Arthur W. last attended public school at the Joseph C. BI:iscoe School ("Briscoe") which is located in Baltimore, Maryland. Briscoe is a special education school.
45. Arthur W. was also confined in various JSA facilities, including the Hickey School. At these facilities, he was ceI:tified as eligible for.special education and IEP's were developed.
46. Arthur W.' s academic functioning is severely delayed. His severe leaI:ning problems interfere with his ability to benefit from an education. He has beep classified as learning disabled since elementary school and, .until his confinement in September, 1988, has participated in special education classes geared towards SED and SLD youth. Upon information and belief, Arthur W. was last given academic testing in January, 1990. At that time, his reading level was 6.7 and his mathematics level was 5.3.
47. In an evaluation conducted by Fred S. Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, The Johns Hopkins University School of
16

(

Medicine, on or about March 25, 1988, it was observed that "the

best type of psychiatric facility, in terms of the evaluation

recommended for this young man, would be one which specializes in

the assessment and treatment of emotionally disturbed youth."

48.

Despite Arthur W. 's educational disabilities/ the

Defendants have failed to provide Arthur W. any special education

and related services designed to meet his unique needs. The

Defendants have not developed an IEP for Arthur W.; upon

information and belief, no ARD Planning Conference for Arthur W.

has been scheduled and held; and Defendants have not notified

Arthur W.'s mother about an ARD Planning Conference, nor has she

attended any such conference.

(

49. Upon information and belief/ Arthur W. was denied S!.ll.

access to education in the Maryland Adult Correctional Facilities

until or about January 14, 1991, and then he was merely placed into

a regular education program.

50. Since Arthur W. 's incarceration in the Maryland Adult

Correctional System, neither Arthur W., nor his mother, nor a

parent surrogate, have been in~ormed about the rights of disabled

youth to procedural safeguards and a free appropr iate publ ic

education.

51. Arthur W. is disabled within the meaning of the P.L. 94-

142 and Section 504. The Defendants have denied Arthur W. a free

appropr iate education as mandated by federal law, and the due

process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment

to the United states Constitution.

17

(

(

C. Billy D.

52. Plaintiff Billy D. has been incarcerated in Maryland's

Adult Correctional System since December 13, 1988. He has a seven

(7) year sentence and is confined at Roxbury.

53. Billy D. has at least one disabling conditions that

qualifies him as eligible for special education: severe emotional

disturbance.

54. Prior to his incarceration, Billy D. had a long history

of placements in special education programs. In 1980, when Billy

D. was eight (8) years old, he was certified as eligible for

special education by the Pimlico Elementary School, which is

located in Baltimore City. He was classified as SED. An IEP

(

describing his special education needs was developed. For the next

several years, Billy D. was continually identified as eligible for

special education. Billy D. last attended public school at the

Garrison Middle School ("Garrison"), which is located in Baltimore

City. At the time of his arrest he was attending Garrison and was

in a special education program.

55. Billy D. was also confined in various JSA facilities,

including the Maryland Youth Resident Center, the Montrose School

and the Hickey School. On information and belief, at these

facilities, he was certified as eligible for special education and

IEP's were developed.

56. Bi lly D.' s academic funct ioni ng is severe ly de layed .

His severe emotional problems interfere with his ability to benefit

from an education. Upon information and belief, Billy D. was given

18

(

(

academic testing in 1990. At that time, his reading level was 4.1

and his mathematics level was 6.6.

57.

Despite Billy D.'s educational disabilities, the

Defendants have failed to provide Billy D. any special education

and related services designed to meet his unique needs. Upon information and belief, in May, 1990 Billy D. was referred for

special education assessment to the ARD Planning Conference.

Although the assessment was completed and special education

programing was recommended for Billy D., the ARD Committee

determined that Billy D. is ineligible for special education and

related services.

58. Upon informat ion and bel i ef, Bi lly D. spoke wi th the

Principal of Roxbury to find out why the ARD Committee determined

that he was ineligible for special education and related services.

The Principal explained the reasons to Billy D. but failed to take

any further action and failed to inform him of any other means to

appeal the decision of the ARD Committee.

59. Upon information and belief, Billy D. also spoke with the

special education teacher at Roxbury to find out why the ARD

Committee determined that he was ineligible for special education

and related services. The special education teacher explained the

reasons to Bi lly D. but fal led to take any further act ion. The

special education teacher also expressly told Billy D. that the ARD

Committee would not allow him to be retested for special education

eligibility.

60. Upon information and belief, the De£endi'mts have not

19

(

(

developed an rEP for Billy D.; the Defendants have not notified

Billy D. 's mother about the ARD Planning Conference, nor has she

attended any such conference.

61. Since Billy D. 's incarceration in the Maryland Adult

Correctional System, neither his mother, nor a parent surrogate,

have been informed about the rights of disabled youth to procedural

safeguards and a free appropriate public education.

62. Upon information and belief, Billy D. was placed in a

regular educational program. On or about October, 1990, Billy D.

was confined in segregation and since that date the Defendants have

not allowed him to attend school.

63. Billy D. is disabled within the meaning of the P.L. 94-

(

142 and Section 504. The Defendants have denied Billy D. a free

appropr iate educat ion as mandated by federal law, and the due

process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment

to the United States Constitution.

D. Scott C.

64. Plaintiff Scott C. has been incarcerated in Maryland's

Adult Correctional System since September 18, 1989. He has a thirty (30) year sentence and has been confined at various correctional facilities, including Patuxent, MCTC, MCI-H and

Roxbury. 65. Scott C. has at least one disabling condition that
qualifies him as eligible for special education: severe emotional

disturbance.

66. Prior to his incarceration, Scott C. had a long history

20

(

(

of placements in special education programs. While he was in elementa;-y school (2nd grade) in Baltimore county Scott C. was

certified as eligible for special education. Upon information and

belief, he was classified as SED and was placed in a special education program. An IEP describing his special education needs

was developed.

For the next several years, Scott C. was

continually identified as eligible for special education. Scott

C. 's last school of attendance was the Woodlawn Middle School. At

the time of his arrest he had an existing and then current IEP.

He was classified as severely emotionally disturbed.

67. Scott C. 's academic functioning is severely delayed and

his severe emotional problems continue to interfere with his

ability to benefit from an education. Upon information and belief,

the last known academic test administered to Scott C. in the

Maryland Adult Correctional Facilities was tne Test of Adult Basic

Education on August 27, 1990. At that time, his reading level was

5.3 and his mathematics level was 4.4.

68. Upon information and belief, while incarcerated Scott

C.'s severe emotional disturba~ce has continued to interfere with

his ability to benefit from an education in a regular classroom

environment. Scott C. was enrolled in an Adult Basic Education -

- i.e. regular education -- class, beginning about July 2, 1990.

Upon information and belief, on or before January 8, 1991, Scott

C. told his teacher that the class was "too hard" and "went too

fast." In response, Scott C. was removed from the class and has

not attended class since.

21

"

(

69. Upon information and belief, Scott C. has inquired as to

the possibility of placement in an easier class, or a class that

is suited to his unique needs. The Defendants have not responded

to this inquiry.

70.

Despite Scott C. 's educational disabilities, the

Defendants have failed to provide him any special education and

related services designed to meet his unique needs.

Upon

information and belief, the Defendants have not developed an IEP

for Scott C.; no ARD Planning Conference for Scott C. has been

scheduled or held; the Def endants have not not if i ed Scott C.' s

mother, Denise P., about an ARD Planning Conference, nor has she

attended any such conference.

71. Since Scott C. 's incarceration in Maryland's Adult

Correctional System, neither Scott C. nor his mother, Denise P.,

have been informed about the rights of disabled youth to procedural

safeguards and a free appropriate public education.
72. Scott c. is disabled within the meaning of P.L. 94-142

and Section 504. Since his confinement, Defendants have denied

Scott C. a free appropriate ed~cation as mandated by federal law

and the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth

amendment to the United states Constitution.

VI I • FACTS RELEVANT TO THE CLASS

73. The Maryland State Department of Publ ic Safety and

Correct i onal Services operates ten (10) adult institutions and

eight (8) pre-release centers throughout Maryland. -Youth are

commi tt ed to the cus tody 0 f PSCS either: (1) be for e the age 0 f

22

(

c·

eighteen (18), by the determination of a juvenile court that "waiver" into the adult system is warranted or as a result of automatic waivers; or, (2) upon reaching the age of eighteen (18), by Maryland District and Circuit Courts in Baltimore City and the counties of Maryland. All of the facilities operated by PSCS are "state correctional facilities" as that term is used in 34 C.F.R. S300.2.
74. P.L. 94-142 designates a state's educational agency as the agency that administers special educational programs for disabled youth. MSDE is a "local education agency" as that term is used in 20 U.S.C. 81401(8) and a "public agency" as that term in used in 34 C.F.R. SS300.2 and 300.11.
75. The purpose of P.L. 94-142 is "to assure that all disabled chi ldren have avai lable to them ... a free appropr iate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique, needs to assure that the rights of disabled children and their parents or guardian are protected." 20 U.S.C. S1400(c).
76. P.L. 94-142 require? that each state provide a free appropriate public education for all disabled children between the ages of three (3) and twenty-one (21), unless this requirement is inconsistent with state law or practice.
77. Upon information and belief, the state of Maryland, through both MSDE and PSCS, receives federal funds under P.L. 94142, including funds to provide special education and related services to inmates through the age of twenty-one (21).
23

(
78. MSDE and PSCS jointly administer and are responsible for the implementation of P.L. 94-142 in Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities.
79. As part of MSDE and PSCS's established procedure within Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities, all prisoners are initially evaluated to determine their educational abilities at an intake facility ("Maryland Adult Correctional Intake Facility"). Eligible prisoners are given the Test of Adult Basic Education, which is group administered, and determines academic performance in mathematics and reading. It does not determine special education needs. Upon information and belief, only prisoners who
are under twenty-one (2l) years of age aru1 score below a seventh
grade academic level are "tagged" at this time for further testing, even though P.L. 94-142 requires that all disabled students under twenty-two ( 22) years of age (hereafter "Age EI ig i ble Disabled Students") be provided 'special education and related services. Following this assessment, inmates are sent to their "home institution."
80. Upon information and belief, at the home institution, "tagged" prisoners are divided into two groups: those with short prison sentences and those with "significant" sentences. Prisoners with short sentences are "screened out" of the special education process. On information'and belief, these youth are excluded from placement under the provisions of P.L. 94-142 in furtherance of Defendants' policy of excluding youth from special education.
81. Upon information and belief, MSDE and PSCS continue to
24

evaluate "tagged" youth with "significant" sentences (hereafter "student" or "prisoner"). At this time, however, these tagged, prisoners are neither placed in special education or related services programs nor referred for special education assessment. Rather, as part of the screening process, they are merely given pr ior i ty for !;>lacement in avai lable regular education programs. Often, however, regular educational space is not available, and students who would otherwise be eligible for special education or related services programs are not placed in any educational program for long periods of time. This time lapse violates federal law.
82. Upon information and belief, students placed in regular educational programs 'within the prison are not taught by certified special educational teachers.
83. Upon information and belief, after tagged students have been in the regular educational program for some time, the regular education t~acher evaluates each student to determine whether the student seems to have a disabling condition. Upon information and belief, a regular education teacher's determination that the student does not have a disabling condition -- that is a condition that indicates a need or potential need for special education and related services -- is conclusive, even though Defendants know or should know that such a determination requires specialized training and certification.
84. Students identified as possibly having a disabling condition are scheduled to attend an ARD Planning Conference. Upon information and belief, MSDE and PSCS fail to provide training and
25

.'

(

instruction on the requirements and procedures of P.L. 94-142, to the members of the ARD Committee, even though federal law requires that every member of the evaluation and monitoring team -- i.e. the ARD Committee -- receive such training and instructions.
85. Upon information and belief, MSDE and PSCS send a form letter to the student's parent or guardian informing the student's parent or guardian that an ARD Planning Conference is sCheduled. In applying this poli,cy and practice, however, MSDE and PSCS violate federal law in at least two respects: (1) MSDE and PSCS send the letter only to the parents of students under the age of eighteen (18), even though MSDE and PSCS are required to include the parents of all Age Eligible Disabled or potentially Disabled Students i and (2} parents who are contacted are not given any alternative dates or times for attending the ARD Planning Conference if the Conference is inconvenient for their schedule, even though federal law requires that the ARD Planning Conference be held at a mutually convenient time. On information and belief, all or almost all ARD Planning Conferences are held during regular business hours, even though the· Defendants know that many of the parents live and work more than one hundred (100) miles from the respective prisons, or are unable to take off from work.
86. When inmates' parents are either "unavailable" or "inaccessible," upon information and belief, MSDE and PSCS will appoint parent surrogates, but only if the inmate is under the age of eighteen (18), even though federal law requires that parent surrogates be appointed for all Age Eligible Disabled or
26

(
potentially Disabled students whose parents are either "unavailable" or "inaccessible." Upon information and belief, in the rare instances where a parent surrogate is appointed for the disabled or potentially disabled student, MSDE and PSCS fail to provide any training and instruction in special education to the parent surrogate in violation of federal law.
87. Upon information and belief, MSDE and PSCS's pollcies and practices with respect to parents and parent surrogates effectively exclude them from participation in special education referral, assessment and monitoring, even though federal law requires that the parent, guardian or parent surrogate participate in all evaluation and monitoring conferences for all students who qualify as e I ig i ble or potent ially el igible for spec ial educat ion and related services under P.L. 94-142.
88. Upon information and belief, Defendants operate under policies and practices that routlnely fail to provide students and their parents, guardians or parent surrogates with written summaries of ARD Planning Conferences, even though the Defendants k.now or should know that such. practices and policies violate federal law.
89. Upon information and belief, Defendants fail to inform students, including students excluded from participation in special education programs, and their parents, guardians or parent surrogates of the legally guaranteed right to special education, including the right to an administrative appeal and due process hearing, even though such notice is legally required.
27

(

90. Upon information and belief, following the ARD Planning

Conference, specific special education testing is conducted. The

student is also assigned to another regular education classroom,

if available, for further observation.

91. Upon information and belief, a second ARD Planning

Conference ("second ARD") is convened to review the results of the

tests and classroom observation. The second ARD determines whether

the student needs special education and related services.

92. Upon information and belief, during the second ARD, MSDE

and PSCS knowingly employ assessment criteria for special education

eligibility that, as a matter of policy and practice, excludes all

or virtually all SED youth, including youth who were eligible for

special education and related services as SED before they were

incarcerated. On information and belief, MSDE and PSCS currently

provide services to few SLD youth who are legally entitled to

special education and related services; on information and belief,

MSDE and PSCS also currently provide services to few, if any,

mentally retarded students, who are legally entitled to special

educat ion and related services.

Contrary to Defendants I

determinations of eligibility, these students

SED, SLD and

mentally retarded - compose a vast majority (approximately 75%) of

any eligible special education prisoner population.

Thus,

Defendants routinely fail to identify and assess close to seventy-

five (75%) percent of all youth who are eligible for special

education and related services, and are legally entitled to such

services, in direct contravention of the requirements of P.L. 94-

28

(

(

142 and its implement ing regulat ions. These "mi ssed" students often are not even placed in a regular educational program.
93. Upon information and belief, Defendants fail to assess students needs and implement student rEP's in a timely manner, fail to include in IEP's short-term instructional objectives and fail to utilize existing and current rEP's in implementing special education programs, thus denying Plaintiffs and the class they represent the legally guaranteed right to an appropriate education.
94. Upon information and belief, Defendants deliberately allow regular education teachers to instruct special education students in classes that mandate the expertise of trained special education instructors.
95. Upon information and belief, the identification, referral and assessment process from the student's arrival at a Maryland Adult Correctional Intake Facility, until the student is placed into a special education program, routinely takes up to a year, even though this time lapse is excessive and violates Plaintiffs' rights under federal law, inclCl6ing the right to have the IEP implemented in a timely fashion;
96. Upon information and belief, there has never been an administrative appeal or due process hearing conducted in Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities for a prisoner contesting any issue regarding special education eligibility or services, even though students have requested such an appeal or hearing, and an administrative appeal or due process hearing is required by federal law.
29

(
97. Upon i nformat ion and be lie f, the De f endan ts do not provide for an independent asse~sment or evaluation, even though the student, or their parent(s) have requested such an assessment, and the assessment is required by federal law.
98. Upon information and belief, when IEP's are developed and students are placed in special education classes, Defendants routinely fail to monitor student progress by conducting follow-up ARD Planning Conferences in a timely fashion as required by P.L. 94-142 and its implement of regulations.
99. Defendants know or should have known that their actions, omissions, policies and practices fail to comply with the requirements of federal law.
100. In this action, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required because: (1) the Defendants have failed to provide required special education services; (2) the Defendants have abridged the procedural rights of special education eligible prisoners and their parents; (3) the Defendants have adhered to po 1i c i es or pract ices whi ch ar e contrary to law; (4) it is improbable that adequate relief can be obtained through an administrative process; (5) an emergency situation r~quiring immediate action exists; and, (6) it would otherwise be futile or inadequate to use the administrative due process procedures.
VIII. vEGAL CLAIHS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 101. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 100, and further allege:
30

(

I
\. .
102. Defendants' policies, practices, acts, and omissions

complained of herein, and in particular, Defendants' failure to

properly identify, refer and assess special educational. needs by

employing criteria which intentionally exclude students who are

severely emotionally disturbed, specific learning disabled, and

mentally retarded, deprive Plaintiffs and the class they represent

of rights guaranteed .to them by P.L. 94-142, Section 504, and the

due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth

amendment to the United States Constitution.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

103. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all

facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 102, and further allege:

(
\

104. Defendants' policies, practices, acts, and omissions

complained of herein, fail to provide Plaintiffs with the legally

required procedural safeguards during the screening, assessment and

monitoring stages of special education in Mqryland Adul t

Correctional Facilities. In particular, Defendants:

a. fail to develop Individualized Education Plans in a

timely manner:; b. fail to ensure that. all Individualized Education Plans

are complied with, by periodically reviewing student

progress;

c. fail to include in the Individualized Education Plans

short-term instructional objectives;

d. fail to utilize existing and current Individualized Education plans in implementing special education

31

, '

(

programs; e . fail to conduct the initial Admission-Review-Dismissal
Conference for inmates in a timely fashion; f. fail to conduct subsequent and per iodic Admiss ion-Review-
Dismissal Planning Conferences in a time~y fashion; g. fail to provide students and their parents, guardians or
parent surrogates with written summaries of the Admission-Review-Dismissal minutesi h. fail to provide training and instruction for all members of Admission-Review-Dismissal Committee; i. fail to provide training for personnel employed by MSDE and PSCS who make referrals for special education ass~ssment including regular education teachers, classification counselors and corrections officers; j . fai 1 to provide students wi th the proper amount of spec ial educat ion, as determ.ined in the Admi ss ion-Rev iewDismissal Planning Conference and set forth in the Individualized Education Plani k. fail to inform stude1')ts of the statutorily guaranteed right to special education, includ ing the right to an administrative appeal and due prucess hearing; 1. fail to provide a meaningful and distinct procedure for administrative appeals and due process hearings; and, m. fail to provide for an independen~. assessment of special
education eligibility. Defendants' policies, practices, acts, and omissions complained of
32

< '

(

('

herein, deprive the Plaintiffs and the class they represent of rights guaranteed to them by P.L. 94-142, Section 504, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment to the United states Constitution.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 105. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 104, and further allege: 106. Defendants' policies, practices, acts, and omissions complained of herein, fail to provide Plaintiffs with legally required procedural safeguards by excluding parents, guardians and parent surrogates from the screening, referral, assessment and monitoring stages of special education in Maryland Adult Correctional Facilities. In particular, Defendants: a. fail to contact parents and guardians for Admission-
Review-Dismissal Planning Conferences during the special education sc~eening, referral, assessment and monitoring process; b. fail to notify parents, guardians or parent surrogates of the statutorily guaranteed right to special education, including the right to an administrative appeal and due process hearing; c. fail to appoint parent surrogates in those instances where a natu'ral parent or guardian is unavailable or inaccessible; and d. fail to maintain legally qualified parent surrogates in Mar y 1 and Ad u 1 t Cor r e c t ion a 1 Fa c i 1 i tie s by fa ilL n g to
33

(
provide training and instruction for parent surrogates. Defendants' policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein, deprive Plaintiffs and the class they represent of rights guaranteed to them by P.L. 94-142, Section 504, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 107. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
a. assume jurisdiction over this action; b. permit Plaintiffs to proceed anonymously; c. certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; d. issue a declaratory judgment declaring that Defendants' actions, omissions, policies and practices violate rig~ts guaranteed to Plaintiffs and the members of their class by P.L. 94-142, Section 504 and the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitutioni e. issues a preliminary and permanent i.njunction requiring that Defendants:
1. identify, evaluate and assess the special educational needs of all disabled incarcerated youth according to the criteria mandated by federal law;
2. provide disabled youth in Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities with special education and - related services in accordance with properly developed Individualized Education Plans, and develop appropriate Individualized Education Plans in a timely manner and in accordance with procedural
34

(

( safeguards;

3. surrogate planning;

include parent, guardian or parent participation in special education

f. order the Defendants to develop and implement a

remedial plan that ends the unlawful policies, practices, acts

and omissions complained of herein, and to submit this plan

to the Court and to the attorneys for ~laintiffs for their

review;

g. appoint a Special Master to review and insure

implementation of the plan submitted by the Defendants and to

protect the rights of Plaintiffs during the pendency of this

act-i oni

h. retain jurisdiction over this action until

implementation of this Court's decree has been completed;

i. award Plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs of this

proceeding, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)

and 20 U.S.C. § 1415;

j. issue such other and further relief as this Court may

deem just and proper.

PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER, INC.

MICHAEL A. MILLEMANN 13009 Bottom Road Hydes, Maryland 21082 (301) 625-9409

35

LOREN M. WARBOYS

t (

CLAUDIA WRIGHT

Youth Law Center

114 Sansome street, Suite 950

San Francisco, California 94104-3820

(415) 543-3379

W. MICHEL PIERSON Pierson, Pierson & Nolan Suite 1600 217 East Redwood Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (301) 727-7733

101 East Redwood Street, Suite 2A Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (301) 625-9409
CAROLYN W. STAMP St. Ambrose Legal Services 321 East 25th Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (301) 366-8621

36

 
 Melvin C. v. Shilling

I" 11111 III 111111 III J I-MD-OO 1-002

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

MELVIN C., et al.,

*

Plaintiffs, *

v. JOSEPH L. SHILLING, et al.,

* CIVIL ACTION NO. BAR 91-497 *

Defendants. *

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON CONDITIONS
The parties to the instant case, through their undersigned counsel, agree and stipulate, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, to the dismissal of the instant case without prejudice, on the conditions stated below:
1. Plaintiffs and Defendants have addressed the sUbstantive claims raised in the instant case and have embodied Defendants' commitments regarding the Maryland state correctional special education program in the attached "Action Plan." Defendants agree to implement the Action Plan as a condition of this Dismissal without Pr,ejudice on Conditions ("Dismissal").
2. All terms used in this Dismissal shall be construed consistent with the Action Plan.
3. Within ninety (90) days after approval of this Dismissal by the Court, Defendants agree to make all revisions in the Correctional Special Education Handbook that are necessary to fulfill their obligations under the Action Plan.

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
4. Although the instant case is dismissed in all other respects, the Court shall retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the procedural provisions of this Dismissal. The court shall not retain jurisdiction over the substantive provisions of the Action Plan. The procedures provided in this Dismissal, and any proceedings for enforcement of an arbitration award resulting from the procedures provided in this Dismissal, shall be the sole means for enforcement of the sUbstantive provisions of the Action Plan.
5. The parties agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction
. ,.
for this 11m1ted purpose unless and until (a) Plaintiffs agree that the Action Plan has been fully implemented, either expressly or by failing to identify in writing any areas of alleged nonimplementation, as provided in Paragraph 15 below, or (b) the Arbitrator issues his/her final decision as set out in Paragraph 21 below.
ACCESS AND EVALUATING XMPLEKENTATION OF THE ACTION PLAN
6. The parties agree that Osa D. Coffey, Ph.D., will serve as Implementation Coordinator. The Implementation Coordinator will monitor whether Defendants have implemented the terms of the Action Plan, and, if not, state specifically in what way(s) one or more terms of the .Action Plan have not been implemented. The Implementation Coordinator will report in writing his/her findings, conclusions and recommendations to the parties. Defendants agree to compensate the Implementation Coordinator up to $20,000 for all
- 2-

reasonably incurred costs, including compensation for the time spent evaluating and monitoring the extent to which the Action Plan has been implemented.
7. In the event that Dr. Coffey is unable to continue in the role of Implementation Coordinator, the parties shall select a replacement. The replacement shall have expertise in the field of special education.
S. Beginning within sixty (60) days following approval of this Dismissal by the Court, Defendants agree to provide the Implementation Coordinator with reasonable access to all state correctional facilities, as well as all relevant non-privileged documents, for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the terms of the Action Plan. If Defendants deny any specific request by the Implementation Coordinator for access to documents on the basis of privilege, Oefendants will identify the withheld documents, individually or by category, with sufficient particularity to explain the basis for the assertion of privilege.
9. In providing documents to the Implementation Coordinator as provided in Paragraph S, the Oefendants will provide to counsel for Plaintiffs:
a. Copies of all documents copied and provided to the Implementation Coordinator;
b. After review of the quarterly or final reports of the Implementation Coordinator and identification of specific item(s) addressed in the Action Plan and contained in or omitted from the reports about which
- 3-

, .

Plaintiffs seek clarification, copies of all documents

identified by the Implementation Coordinator which

relate to or provide a basis for those specific items.

The Implementation Coordinator will maintain records

sufficient to identify those documents which he or she

has inspected;

c. Copies of any identification of privileged

documents provided to the Implementation Coordinator

pursuant to Paragraph 8.

The parties recognize that the process of providing documents to

the Implementation Coordinator and the Plaintiffs' counsel pursuant

to Paragraphs 8 and 9 will proceed informally. The parties will

work in good faith to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with reasonable

•

access to the documentary support for the Implementation

Coordinator's conclusions and recommendations while avoiding

placing undue burdens to produce documents on the Defendants. The

parties will seek to resolve informally any disputes over access to

documents before submitting any such disputes to the Court.

10. The Implementation Coordinator shall monitor Defendants'

implementation of each term of the Action Plan and shall conduct

four (4) quarterly reviews of Defendants' compliance with those

terms. The first quarter shall begin on the first day of the first

full month following the qate this Dismissal is approved by the

Court. Each quarter shall last three calendar months.

11. Fifteen (15) days after the end of each quarter,

Defendants will provide the Implementation Coordinator and

Plaintiffs with a report setting forth the following information

- 4-

concerning activity during that quarter: a. In the first quarterly report, Defendants will
provide a listing of the Maryland state Department of Education staff engaged in providing special education assessments and services at each Maryland adult correctional facility and institution. In each subsequent quarterly report, Defendants will report any personnel changes involving the departure or hiring of personnel in such positions.
h. In each quarterly report, Defendants will provide the following data for the quarter just concluded:
1. The total number of prisoners under the· age of twenty-one (21) years in the Maryland adult correctional system as of a particular date during the quarter;
2. The total number of prisoners under the age of twenty-one (21) years who entered the Maryland adult correctional system during the
~quarter;.
3. The number of prisoners entering the Maryland adult correctional system who were identified, during the quarter, as having an exi~ting Individualized Education Program;
4. The number of prisoners referred to the Admission-Review-D~smissal committee as a result of the student find process initiated at the Maryland
- 5-

adult correctional intake facilities; (
5. The number of prisoners screened for

special education eligibility;

6. The number of prisoners referred for

special education assessments;

7. The number of prisoners for whom an

Individualized Education Program was developed and

who were placed for special education services;

8. The number of prisoners for whom a sixty

(60) day special education review was conducted;

9. The number of prisoners for whom an

annual special education review was conducted;

10. The number of prisoners terminated from

(

special education placements; and

11. The total number of prisoners who

received special education services, broken down by

type of educational disabling condition.

The data provided under items 4 through 11 will be

broken down by correctional facility.
c. Defendants may provide with any quarterly

report any additional information the Defendants believe

is useful in monitoring implementation of the Action

Plan.

12. In conducting the quarterly reviews, the Implementation

Coordinator shall be permitted to make reasonable on~site

inspections at all Maryland adult correctional facilities and

institutions, review non-privileged documents, and interview staff,

- 6-

contractors, sub-contractors, agents, employees, and prisoners as needed in order to evaluate the implementation of the terms of the Action Plan. The Implementation Coordinator shall also be permitted to review student files, subject to a Protective Order, attached hereto as Appendix A, after appropriate notice is provided to the prisoner and/or his/her parent.
13. For each quarterly review, the Implementation Coordinator shall provide a written report of findings, conclusions and recommendations with respect to implementation of each term of the Action Plan. The Implementation Coordinator shall present that report to the parties no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the statistics and information required by Paragraph 11 of this Dismissal.
14. If any of the first three quarterly reports reveals that Defendants have not implemented one or more terms of the Action Plan, Defendants shall have fifteen (15) days to state in writing their intention to cure or not to cure the identified problem(s) •
a. If Defendants state in writing that they do not intend to cure, then Plaintiffs may, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of Defendants' written statement of intention, file a statement of Position with, and submit the dispute to, the Arbitrator as set forth in Paragraphs 18 through 21.
b. If Defendants state in writing that they intend to cure, then, in the quarter following such statement, the Implementation Coordinator shall make a specific written finding as to whether Defendants have
- 7-

taken sUbstantial steps to do so. If the Implementation Coordinator finds that Defendants have not taken sUbstantial steps to cure, then Plaintiffs may, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the Implementation Coordinator's written finding, file a statement of Position with, and submit the dispute to, the Arbitrator as set forth in Paragraphs 18 through
21.
15. After the fourth quarterly review, the Implementation Coordinator will issue a final report. within thirty (30) days following receipt of the final report, Plaintiffs will indicate whether they believe Defendants have implemented the Action Plan. If Plaintiffs believe. that Defendants have not implemented one or more terms of the Action Plan, Plaintiffs will identify in writing the specific terms of the Action Plan that they assert have not been implemented. Defendants shall have fifteen (15) days after receipt of the Plaintiffs' statement to state in writing their intention to cure or not to cure each of the specific terms of the Action Plan that Plaintiffs or the Implementation Coordinator assert have not been implemented.
a. If Defendants state that they do not intend to cure one or more terms of the Action plan identified by Plaintiffs or the Implementation coordinator as having not been implemented, then Plaintiffs may, within sixty (60) days, file a statement of Position with, and submit the dispute(s) as to th-ose terms to, the Arbitrator as set forth in
- 8-

Paragraphs 18 through 21. b. If Defendants state their intention to cure
one or more terms of the Action Plan identified by Plaintiffs or the Implementation Coordinator as having not been implemented, but at the end of sixty (60) days Plaintiffs are not satisfied that Defendants have or intend to cure the identified problem(s}, then Plaintiffs may, within fifteen (15) days, file a statement of Position with, and submit the dispute(s} as to those terms to, the Arbitrator as set forth in Paragraphs 18 through 21.
16. Plaintiffs' decision not to proceed to arbitration to implem~nt or enforce specific terms of the Action Plan, at the earliest times permitted by Paragraphs 14 or 15 of this Dismissal, shall not preclude Plaintiffs from seeking arbitration as to those same terms, as otherwise permitted by this Dismissal. Nothing in this Dismissal shall preclude the parties from negotiating a settlement to any dispute in good faith, without resort to arbitration.
ARBITRATION 17. ~he parties agree that George L. Russell, Jr., Esquire, will serve as Arbitrator. In the event that Mr. Russell is unable to continue in the role, the parties shall select a replacement. The Arbitrator shall be compensated up to "a total of $10,000 for all reasonably incurred costs, including compensation for the time spent in deciding disputes about implementation of the terms of the
- 9-

Action Plan. As part of his/her decision, the Arbitrator shall determine which party has prevailed on each issue and shall assess the costs of arbitration against the non-prevailing party. The Arbitrator shall apportion the costs if he/she determines that a party has prevailed on some issues and not others.'
18. The parties agree that the Arbitrator's authority is limited strictly to determining whether Defendants have implemented the Action Plan. The Arbitrator shall not construe or interpret federal or state law, including but not limited to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. SS 1401 et seq., as a
basis for decision. The Arbitrator shall not find a failure to implement any term of the Action Plan based on isolated or infrequent failures to follow any particular term.
19. Defendants may file a statement of Position with the Arbitrator within thirty (30) days of receipt of Plaintiffs' statement of Position, submitted pursuant to Paragraphs 14 or 15 of this Dismissal. Plaintiffs may file a Reply statement with the Arbitrator within ten (10) days following receipt of Defendants' statement of position. If Plaintiffs file statements of position under botH subsections (a) and (b) of Paragraph 15, then Defendants may file a single statement of position in opposition to both of Plaintiffs' statements and Defendants' single statement shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the later filed of Plaintiffs' two statements.
20. The Arbitrator will conduct an informal hearing on ~ny dispute(s) brought before the Arbitrator pursuant to this Dismissal. Plaintiffs and Defendants each will have an opportunity
- 10 -

to present their case, although the Arbitrator may prescribe the schedule for the presentations after consultation with the parties. The Arbitrator should consider the testimony and reports of the Implementation Coordinator, but the Arbitrator shall not be bound to accept any finding, conclusion or recommendation of the Implementation Coordinator. In rendering a decision, the Arbitrator also may take into account the state's fiscal constraints, although the parties agree that such constraints alone will not justify a failure to implement the Action Plan.
21. The Arbitrator will issue a written decision within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the hearing. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be binding upon the parties.
22. Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this Dismissal shall be interpreted to limit any right, remedy or obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401, et seg., or existing law of any individual prisoner asserted in any individual proceeding.
23. A failure to implement the Action Plan shall not create a new, independent private cause of action for damages or compensatdry relief for any person or entity, and the Action Plan shall be enforceable solely by the means created by this Dismissal. Causes of action existing outside the Action Plan and this Dismissal are in no way limited by this Dismissal.
LITIGATION EXPENSES 24. Defendants shall pay to the Public Justice Center, Inc. the total sum of $61,050 for costs and expenses in connection with litigating this lawsuit. $31,050 shall be paid within thirty (30)
- 11 -

days following execution of this Stipulation, and the remaining $30,000 shall be paid on or before August 1, 1993. In consideration of these payments, the Plaintiffs and each of the undersigned Plaintiffs' counsel, on behalf of himself and the firm or organization he represents, hereby release forever the State of Maryland and any of its agencies, officials, or employees from any claim for attorney's fees, costs, expenses, damages, or money in connection with the above-captioned lawsuit and the events and actions alleged in it, specifically including but not limited to all claims accruing before the lawsuit was commenced, while it is pending, and through the conclusion of any and all arbitration proceedings as defined in Paragraph 21 of this Dismissal. In the event that any proceedings to enforce any arbitration award become necessary, Plaintiffs may claim additional attorney's fees and costs in connection with such proceedings, and the Defendants may assert any available defense to such a claim. Subject to the limitations set out below, this release also applies to any claim by the undersigned Plaintiffs' attorneys arising from the representation of any individual person who is now or in the past may have b~en a prisoner in the Maryland adult correctional system and whom any of the undersigned Plaintiffs' attorneys represented in connection with special education matters. This release does not apply to or limit any claim by an individual Plaintiff and/or the undersigned Plaintiffs' attorneys for services'rendered after the date this Dismissal is executed by the Defendants and their counsel and related to the representation of any individual prisoner in the Maryland adult correctional system by the Public Justice center, Inc., its staff and/or agents.
- 12 -

PARTIES: PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER, INC.

J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND

LAWRENCE P. FLETCHER-HILL Assistant Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Place Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 576-6345

MICHAEL A. MILLEMANN 13009 Bottom Road Hydes, Maryland 21082
7 IYI ;« (410) 625-9409 ' __e'
~ . A/{);
~'~N M. WARBOYS olith Law Center
114 Sansome Street, suite 950 San Francisco, California 94104 (415) 543-3379

Assistant Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Place Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 576-6340

RICHARD S. GORDON 330 North Charles Street suite 500 Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 625-9409
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND THE PLAINTIFF CLASS

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

Approved this __ day of __________, 1993, as to both form and content:

LFH9217

John R. Hargrove United states District Judge

- 13 -

MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL SPECIAL EDUCATION ACTION PLAN

A. Introduction and Definitions

1. This Action Plan prescribes the steps the Maryland State

Department of Education, Correctional Education Office and the

Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

have taken or will take to enhance the programs and services

provided to prisoners with educational disabilities confined in

Maryland's Adult correctional Facilities.

Except where

specified, the specific terms of this Action Plan are not

necessarily required by the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq. ("IDEA") or by Maryland

State law. Nothing in this Action Plan is intended to abrogate

/

or restrict any rights, remedies or obligations such prisoners

\

have under federal or state law.

2. This Action Plan is adopted in conjunction with the

stipulated Dismissal on Conditions filed in Melvin C., et al. v.

Shilling, et al., C.A. No. HAR-91-497 (United states District

Court f,or the District of Maryland), to resolve the issues

presented in that lawsuit without further litigation. Nothing in

this Action Plan shall be construed as an admission of liability

by any party to that suit.

3. Maryland's correctional special education programs

currently .are operated by the Maryland state Department of

Education, correctional Education Office ("MSDE") with the

cooperation and assistance of the Maryland state Department of

Public Safety and Correctional Services ("DPSCS"). In the event (
that MSDE transfers part or all of its responsibility for the correctional special education programs to DPSCS, DPSCS shall be bound by this Action Plan to the same extent as MSDE would have been bound had MSDE retained responsibility for ·the programs.
4. The terms "Maryland Adult Correctional Facilities" and "Adult Correctional Facility" as used throughout this Action Plan refer to all correctional facilities and institutions for sentenced individuals operated by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, including, but not limited to, the Patuxent Institution and all Division of Correction facilities, including Pre-Release units and the Reception, Diagnostic and Classification Center ("RDCC").
5. The term "Maryland Adult Correctional Intake Facility" (
as used throughout this Action Plan refers to'all facilities and institutions used for the intake or screening of prisoners by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, including, but not limited to RDCC, the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women, and any other intake facility that may be established in the future.
6. The term "prisoner" or "student" as used throughout this Action Plan will mean any individual who is not a high school graduate and does not possess the equivalent of a high school diploma, wh.o is under the age of twenty-one· (21) years, and who is incarcerated in a Maryland Adult Correctional Facility.
- 2-

B. Identification, Screening, Referral and Assessment 1. All prisoners will be screened for possible special
education eligibility through an intake interview and educational and medical tests which will be administered upon a prison~r's entry to the system. Absent extraordinary circumstances relating to individual inmates, within twenty-one (21) days after each prisoner's arrival at a Maryland Adult Correctional Intake Facility, MSDE and/or DPSCS will conduct the intake interview, administer educational screening·tests, and review the results of the interview and educational tests to identify those prisoners with a history of special education services and/or with indicators of special education eligibility. The interview and educational screening tests will be administered and reviewed by staff with specific training designed to enable them to perform those functions. DPSCS also will conduct medical screening tests (hearing, vision and general physical condition) upon a prisoner's entry into the system.
2. with respect to any prisoner for whom the intake interview indicates that the prisoner previously received special education and/or related services, within five (5) working days of receipt of that information, MSDE will request the prisoner's prior special education records, including but not limited to prior IEPs, evaluations and assessments, and any reports indicating.Qr regarding stUdent progress in fulfilling the goals and obj ectives of the IEPs. When received, MSDE will forward those records to the MSDE staff at the prisoner's maintaining
- 3-

institution. In implementing this provision, MSDE will use the following procedures:
a. In every instance in which the intake interview reveals an indication of prior special education eligibility, MSDE will make both'a telephone and a written request for records to the school system;
b. In every instance in which MSDE does not receive a definitive response to the initial requests within fifteen (15) days, MSDE will make appropriate follow-up contact(s) by telephone or in writing to obtain, if possible, a definitive response;
c. For students whose last known school was within a Maryland school system, MSDE will make the initial request to the specific individual whom MSDE has identified as the contact person for the particular school system;
d. For students from out-of~state school systems, the same initial and, if needed, follow-up requests will be m,ade to the out-of-state school system;
Y e. If MSDE is not able to obtain the student's prior educational records but is able to obtain other relevant information about the prisoner's prior special educational placement, that information will be communicated promptly to the MSDE staff at the prisoner's maintaining institution and will be recorded in the prisoner's education file; and
- 4-

f. MSDE will maintain records of all ,contacts made in an attempt to obtain prior educational records, and that information will be transferred to the prisoner's educational file once all efforts to obtain the prior records are completed.
3. MSDE will develop and implement a tracking protocol (s) or formes) designed to ensure that the procedures set out in 11 B.1 and B.2 of this Action Plan are implemented.
4. If the information gathered under! B.2 above indicates that the prisoner was previously placed in a special education program, then upon transfer to the prisoner's maintaining facility, that prisoner (A) will be referred promptly to the Admission-Review-Dismissal (ARO) Committee for appropriate action and (B) will be placed, within ten (10) working days after arrival at the maintaining institution, in an interim educational program as follows:
a. Each prisoner who was the subject of an individualized education program (IEP) developed by a school, local education agency (LEA), or other qualified agency within one (1) year prior to the prisoner's most recent arrest will be placed in a comparable special education program for a period up to sixty (60) days while the ARD Committee assesses the prisoner, and, if appropz:i,ate, develops a new IEP for the prisoner. The prisoner's exisitng IEP will be implemented on an interim basis by the school officials to the extent
- 5-

feasible and appropriate, without referral to the ARD Committee, unless (a) there is specific information or reason(s) which would make such placement infeasible and/or inappropriate, or (b) MSDE has been unable after diligent effort to obtain the IEP from the education agency that developed it. In a case in which interim implementation is determined not to be feasible and/or appropriate, the specific information or reason(s) will be documented in the prisoner's education file and the prisoner will be placed in a regular education program.
b. Each prisoner who was the subject of an IEP developed by a school, LEA, or other qualified agency more than one (1) year prior to the prisoner's most recent arrest will be placed in a regular education program for a period up to sixty (60) days while the ARD committee assesses the prisoner and, if appropriate, develops a new IEP for the prisoner.
5. Each month, DPSCS will provide to the principal or educati.onal supervisor at each Maryland Adult correctional Fac•1l1• t'yf a list of all prisoners under twenty-one (21) years of age then incarcerated in that Facility. MSDE will ensure that these lists are reviewed to identify any prisoner who has not previously been screened for special education eligibility and who may be. .eligible. Any prisoner so identified will be screened for eligibility using techniques consistent with this Action Plan within thirty (30) days following such identification.
- 6-

,.,
6. within six months after the effective date of this Action Plan, MSDE will ensure that any prisoner who entered the Maryland Adult Correctional System before June 1, 1991, who currently is under twenty-one (21) years of age, and who is not a high school graduate and does not possess the equivalent of a high school diploma has been screened for special education eligibility using techniques consistent with this Action Plan.
7. Upon assignment or transfer to a special mental health unit, any prisoner who is under twenty-one (21) years of age, who is not a high school graduate and does not possess the equivalent of a high school diploma, and who is not currently receiving special education or related services shall be referred automatically to the ARD Committee for consideration of whether the prisoner should be assessed for special education eligibility, unless the prisoner already has been screened and his/her educational condition has not changed since that screening.
8. within six (6) months after the effective date of this Action .;Plan, MSDE will develop. and provide to all ARD Committees a list" of assessment tools available to such Committees for assessing the existence and extent of the various educational disabilities enumerated in the IDEA and state law.
C. Deve10pment and Imp1ementation of Individua1ized Education Programs 1. In developing individualized education programs (IEPs)
for prisoners with educational disabilities, MSDE will ensure
- 7-

"
that the ARD committee will assess each prisoner's individual educational needs and will develop IEPs consistent with those needs.
2. IEPs will include a statement of the prisoner's present level of educational performance, a statement of specific shortterm measurable instructional objectives within the capability of the prisoner, and a statement of the special education and related services to be provided to the student.
3. If the ARD committee determines that a prisoner needs counseling services, MSDE will ensure that the prisoner will be provided with counseling services that relate to the prisoner's individual education needs and that the prisoner's IEP will include a statement of the type and frequency of counseling services to be provided.
4. MSDE will include, in each IEP, a transition plan which will include vocational or training services, where such vocational or training services are deemed appropriate by the ARD committee.
5. MSDE will ensure that the goals and short-term instruc~ional objectives of each IEP will be reviewed by the ARD committee sixty (60) days after implementation of the IEP and at least annually thereafter to determine whether the goals and objectives are being met, whether specific services are being provided, and whether modifications are necessary.
- 8-

D. Provision of Specia1 Education Services, continuum of Services and Re1ated Services 1. MSDE currently provide's special education and related
services at most Maryland Adult Correctional Facilities. Nothing in this Action Plan shall prevent MSDE and DPSCS from modifying the manner in which services are distributed by making certain services available to eligible prisoners, specifically including but not ,limited to modifications consolidating'services at fewer locations and transferring prisoners eligible for those services to those locations, provided that such modifications do not relieve MSDE or DPSCS of any obligation to locate eligible inmates and to prepare IEPs for eligible inmates under this Action Plan, including but not limited to Parts Band C of this Action Plan, and provided that such modifications do not affect inmate probation, parole or release dates. Until this Action Plan has been implemented fully, as provided in the stipulated Dismissal on Conditions described in ~ A.2 above, MSDE and DPSCS shall not implement any fundamental change in the manner in which special education services are distributed, without describing the proposed,. changes to and consulting with plaintiffs' counsel before the changes are to be implemented.
2. MSDE will not place any generalized maximum or limit on the amount, type or intensity of special education and related services provided to prisoners with educational disabilities. MSDE will provide such services to prisoners in the amount, type or intensity specified in their rEPs.
- 9-

3. Prisoners who are eligible to receive special education and related services and who are housed in a mental health or medical unit will be provided adjusted services to account for the prisoner's particular situation and condition. A prisoner placed in one of these special units need not receive special education and related services if the prisoner is not expected to remain in the unit for-more than ten (10) days. If a prisoner is expected to remain in the special unit for more than ten (10) days, MSDE will consult with the prisoner's physician or other appropriate health professional to initiate the delivery of educational services. A prisoner in one of these special units shall receive a minimum of six (6) hours per week of educational services, provided that the prisoner's physician or other health professional agrees that the prisoner's condition does not require further limitations on the quantity or type of services. If a prisoner is expected to remain in the special unit for more than sixty (60) days, the ARD committee must meet to review the services being provided no later than the sixtieth day of the inmate's assignment to the special unit.
4. ~ Prisoners who are eligible for special education and related services and who are placed in disciplinary segregation will receive services as follows:
a. A prisoner may spend up to ten (10) days in segregation without receiving any special education or related services;
- 10 -

b. A prisoner in segregation for more than ten (10) and up to thirty (30) days will receive modified special education services, generally consisting of two hours per week of direct instructional time and, if such are provided in the prisoner's IEP, related services to the fullest extent practicable;
c. If a prisoner is expected to remain in segregation for more than thirty {3~) days, the prisoner will be referred for scheduling of an ARD Committee meeting, to be held no later than forty-five (45) days after the prisoner's entry into segregation, to determine the appropriate services to be provided to the prisoner while in segregation;
d. MSDE will not impose any generalized maximum or limit on the quantity of services provided to prisoners who are in segregation for more than thirty {3~) days, although security and other issues associated with disciplinary segregation will be considered by the ARD Committee as factors in determining the adjustment of ~the quantity and type of services provided to a prisoner in segregation for- more than thirty (30) days.
e. In addition to the procedures set forth in this paragraph, MSDE is currently exploring the use of computer and other technology to supplement the special education services offered to prisoners confined in segregation. Although MSDE will make all efforts to do
- 11 -

so, it is explicitly agreed that a failure by MSDE to identify and utilize such technology in this context shall not constitute a failure to implement this Action Plan, for which the parties may invoke arbitration as provided by Paragraphs 18 through 21 of the stipulated Dismissal Without Prejudice on Conditions. 5. Prisoners classified to the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center ("Supermax") will be subject to the procedures concerning disciplinary segregation above, including the circumstances in which an ARD Committee meeting is required.
6. MSDE will ensure that all prisoners who are in need of Intensity IV and V special education and/or related services, as determined by the ARD Committee, will receive those services, subject to the provisions of this Action Plan.
E. Procedural Safeguards 1. For each prisoner referred for assessment to the ARD
Committee, MSDE will seek the participation and involvement of the prisoner ' s parent (s) or guardian. or, where appropriate under applica15le law, a surrogate parent. MSDE will establish the following timetable for contacting parents or guardians, or, where appropriate, appointing a surrogate parent:
a. Within ten (10) days of a referral to the ARD Committee, MSDE will prepare and mail to the prisoner's parent(s) or guardian notice of the ARD Committee meeting. This notice will include a summary of the
- 12 -

parent's or guardian's procedural rights, instruction on how to contact school officials to arrange a mutually convenient time and place for the ARD committee meeting, and information concerning resources available to assist the parent or guardian in the ARD process;
b. If, within ten (10) days of the mailing of the notice to the prisoner's parent(s) or guardian, MSDE has not received a response from the parent(s) or guardian, MSDE will attempt alternative means of contacting the parent(s) or guardian; and
c. If a prisoner's parent(s) or guardian cannot be identified or located or if the prisoner is a ward of the state, MSDE will appoint a surrogate parent for the prisoner. 2. MSDE will ensure that the prisoner's parent(s), guardian, or surrogate parent is afforded a reasonable opportunity to be present for each ARD committee meeting.
3. Within three months after the effective date of this Action Plan, MSDE, with the assistance of plaintiffs' cou~sel, will de~elop a listing of resources available to provide parents, guardians, and/or prisoners with information and assistance concerning the ARD process. This listing will include Parent Information and Training centers as such are available throughout the state and legal and other advocacy groups offering assistance to educationally disabled individuals. MSDE will update this listing annually. In addition to notifying prisoners and their
- 13 -

parents or guardians of the availability of this listing in the initial notices of the ARD Committee meetings, MSDE will maintain the listing at each institution school and make it available upon request.
4. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Action Plan, MSDE, with the assistance of Plaintiffs' counsel, will develop a Notice that contains a concise summary of inmate rights, remedies and responsibilities for special education. The Notice will be posted in each correctional facility (a) in the library; (b) in the institution school; and (c) on the facility's inmate bulletin board (s) • The Notice also will be provided to all inmates under the age of twenty-one (21) years upon entry into the corrections system.
5. MSDE will assign one (1) or more persons to serve as Parent Coordinator(s). The Parent coordinator(s) will ensure that the procedural safeguards described in this Action Plan are provided.
F. In-Service Training 1. T within six (6) months before or six (6) months after the
effective date of this Action Plan, all employees in each of the groups described below will have attended at least one in-service training program:
a. All employees of MSDE or DPSCS who participate in ARD committee meetings;
b. All school principals and assistant principals at Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities;
- 14 -

c. All special teachers' aides at Facilities;

education teachers and special Maryland's Adult Correctional

d. All non-special education teachers and teachers' aides at Maryland's Adult Correctional Facilities;

e. The Parent Coordinator;

f. All Classification Counselors; and

g. All employees responsible for conducting intake interviews.

2. MSDE's in-service training will emphasize the importance

of notifying the appropriate personnel if a prisoner is believed

to be educationally disabled and properly assessing and placing

the prisoner in a timely manner.

3. MSDE's in-service training for ARD committee members

will include specific training concerning the identification of

each educational disabling condition enumerated in the IDEA and

state law and instruction on any revised IEP procedures. MSDE's

in-service training will emphasize the importance of identifying

each prisoner's individual educational needs as well as the

importance of developing IEPs that are tailored to and consistent

with those needs.

4. MSDE will ensure that the MSDE Correctional Education

Handbook is available to every individual who performs

psychological or educational evaluations in connection with a

prisoner's confinement in a Maryland Adult Correctional Facility.

- 15 -

SIGNATORIES: PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER, INC •

• CHAP Arnold & Porter 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 872-6750

NANCY GRASMICK State Superintendent of Schools Maryland State Department
of Education 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 333-2100

MICHAEL A. MILLEMANN 13009 Bottom Road Hydes, Maryland 21082 (410) 592-2590

BISHOP L. ROBINSON Secretary Maryland Department of public
Safety and Correctional Services 6776 Reisterstown Road Baltimore, Maryland 21215 (410) 764-4100

O~ N M. WARBOYS uth Law Center
114 Sansome Street, Suite 950 San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 543-3379

RICHARD~S. GORDON 330 N. Charles Street, suite 500 Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 625-9409

A:DPC:LFH9216

- 16 -

 
 District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 1 of 15

CLOSED, MAG
U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:91-cv-00497-JRH

C., et al v. Schilling, et al Assigned to: Sr. Judge John R. Hargrove Referred to: Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake Demand: $0 Case in other court: ProtectiveOrder #50 Cause: 20:1401 Education: Handicapped Child Act

Date Filed: 02/22/1991 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Melvin C.

represented by Carolyn Chappell Williamson CeCe Williamson, LLC 401 Washington Avenue Suite 204 Towson, MD 21204 14107698555 Fax: 14105831053 Email: cece@ccwlegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jerome I. Chapman Arnold and Porter 555 12th St NW Washington, DC 20004-1202 12029425000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael A Millemann University of Maryland School of Law 500 W Baltimore St Baltimore, MD 21201 14107063295 Fax: 14107065856 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard S Gordon Quinn Gordon and Wolf Chtd 102 W Pennsylvania Ave Ste 402 Towson, MD 21204 14108252300 Fax: 14108250066 Email: rgordon@quinnlaw.com

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 2 of 15

Plaintiff Arthur W.
Plaintiff Billy D.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Michel Pierson Circuit Court for Baltimore City 111 N Calvert St Baltimore, MD 21202 14103964916 Email: wm.pierson@verizon.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark B Martin Law Offices of Mark B Martin One N Charles St Ste 1215 Baltimore, MD 21201 4107797770 Fax: 4105769391 Email: mmartin@markmartinlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carolyn Chappell Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jerome I. Chapman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A Millemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard S Gordon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Michel Pierson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carolyn Chappell Williamson (See above for address)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 3 of 15

Plaintiff
Scott C. by and through his mother and next friend, Denise P. ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jerome I. Chapman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A Millemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard S Gordon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Michel Pierson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carolyn Chappell Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jerome I. Chapman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A Millemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard S Gordon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Michel Pierson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 4 of 15

V. Defendant Joseph L. Schilling in his official capacity as Maryland State Superintendent of Schools Maryland State Department of Education
Defendant Richard J. Steinke in his official capacity as Assistant State Superintendent, Division of Special Education Maryland State Department of Education
Defendant John Linton in his official capacity as Director of Correctional Education of the

represented by JoAnn Grozuczak Goedert State of Maryland Office of the Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Pl Baltimore, MD 21202-2021 14105766300 Fax: 14105766309 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence Paul Fletcher Hill Gordon Feinblatt Rothman Hoffberger and Hollander LLC 233 E Redwood St Baltimore, MD 21202 14105764000 Fax: 14105764246 Email: lfletcherhill@gfrlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Lane Weber State of Maryland Office of the Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Pl Baltimore, MD 21202-2021 14105766300 Fax: 4105766880
represented by JoAnn Grozuczak Goedert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence Paul Fletcher Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Lane Weber (See above for address)
represented by JoAnn Grozuczak Goedert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 5 of 15

Maryland State Department of Education Maryland State Department of Education
Defendant Ed.D. Helen Miller in her official capacity as a Correctional Special Education Specialist with the Maryland State Department of Education Maryland State Department of Education
Defendant Ph.D. Henrietta Hestick in her official capacity as Correctional School Psychologist with the Maryland State Department of Education Maryland State Department of Education
Defendant Bishop L. Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services in his official capacity as Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence Paul Fletcher Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Lane Weber (See above for address)
represented by JoAnn Grozuczak Goedert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence Paul Fletcher Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Lane Weber (See above for address)
represented by JoAnn Grozuczak Goedert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence Paul Fletcher Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Lane Weber (See above for address)
represented by JoAnn Grozuczak Goedert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence Paul Fletcher Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Lane Weber

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 6 of 15

Defendant Richard Lanham in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Division of Correction Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Defendant Harold D. Jenkins in his official capacity as Educational Liaison, Division of Correction Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

(See above for address)
represented by JoAnn Grozuczak Goedert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence Paul Fletcher Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Lane Weber (See above for address)
represented by JoAnn Grozuczak Goedert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence Paul Fletcher Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Lane Weber (See above for address)

Date Filed 02/22/1991 02/22/1991 02/22/1991 02/22/1991 02/22/1991 02/22/1991
02/22/1991

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/1991)

2 MOTION by Plaintiff Melvin C. to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/1991)

3 MOTION by Plaintiff Arthur W. to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/1991)

4 MOTION by Plaintiff Billy D. to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/1991)

5 MOTION by Plaintiff Scott C. to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/1991)

6 MOTION with memorandum in support by Melvin C., Arthur W., Billy D., Scott C. to proceed Anonymously , and to Seal Court Documents (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/1991)

7 AFFIDAVIT by Melvin C. Re: Indigency (SEALED) (mdd, Deputy

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 7 of 15

02/22/1991 02/22/1991 02/22/1991 02/25/1991 02/25/1991 02/25/1991 02/25/1991 02/25/1991 02/25/1991 03/18/1991
03/19/1991
04/02/1991

Clerk) Modified on 02/28/1991 (Entered: 02/27/1991)
8 AFFIDAVIT by Arthur W. Re: Indigency (SEALED) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 02/28/1991 (Entered: 02/27/1991)
9 AFFIDAVIT by Billy D. Re: Indigency (SEALED) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 02/28/1991 (Entered: 02/27/1991)
10 AFFIDAVIT by Scott C. Re: Indigency (SEALED) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 02/28/1991 (Entered: 02/27/1991)
11 ORDER (dated 2/25/91) granting [5-1] motion of Plaintiff Scott C. to Proceed in Forma Pauperis signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 02/28/1991 (Entered: 02/27/1991)
12 ORDER (dated 2/25/91) granting [4-1] motion of Plaintiff Billy D. to Proceed in Forma Pauperis signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 02/28/1991 (Entered: 02/27/1991)
13 ORDER (dated 2/25/91) granting [3-1] motion of Plaintiff Arthur W. to Proceed in Forma Pauperis signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 02/28/1991 (Entered: 02/27/1991)
14 ORDER (dated 2/25/91) granting [2-1] motion of Plaintiff Melvin C. to Proceed in Forma Pauperis signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 02/28/1991 (Entered: 02/27/1991)
15 SUMMONS(ES) issued for Joseph L. Schilling, Richard J. Steinke, John Linton, Helen Miller, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham, Harold D. Jenkins (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 02/28/1991 (Entered: 02/27/1991)
16 ORDER (2/25/91) granting [6-1] motion of Plaintiffs to proceed Anonymously granting [6-2] motion of Plaintiffs to Seal Court Documents as therein setforth. (c/m 2/26/91, daf) ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/1991)
17 MOTION with memorandum in support by Defendants Joseph L. Schilling, Richard J. Steinke, John Linton, Helen Miller, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham, Harold D. Jenkins to Dismiss , Request for Hearing. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/18/1991)
18 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Joseph L. Schilling, Richard J. Steinke, John Linton, Helen Miller, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham, Harold D. Jenkins 2/25/91 Answer due on 3/18/91 for Harold D. Jenkins, for Richard Lanham, for Bishop L. Robinson, for Henrietta Hestick, for Helen Miller, for John Linton, for Richard J. Steinke, for Joseph L. Schilling (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/19/1991)
19 MOTION by Plaintiffs Melvin C., Arthur W., Billy D., Scott C. to Extend Time to File Opposition to Motion of Defendants to Dismiss (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/1991)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 8 of 15

04/02/1991 04/15/1991 04/24/1991 04/24/1991
05/10/1991
05/10/1991 05/10/1991 05/23/1991 05/23/1991 06/03/1991

20 ORDER (dated 4/1/91) granting [19-1] motion of Plaintiffs to Extend Time to File Opposition to Motion of Defendants to Dismiss, Response to Motion reset to 4/15/91 for [17-1] motion to Dismiss (c/m 4/3/91, daf) ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/1991)
21 MEMORANDUM by Melvin C., Arthur W., Billy D., Scott C. in opposition to [17-1] motion of Defendants to Dismiss, Exhibits A-B, Request for Hearing. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/1991)
22 MOTION by (Defendants) Joseph L. Schilling, Richard J. Steinke, John Linton, Helen Miller, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham, Harold D. Jenkins to Extend Time to file Reply Brief responding to Memorandum of Law of Plaintiffs in Opposition to Motion of Defendants to Dismiss (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/25/1991)
23 ORDER (dated 4/24/91) granting [22-1] motion to Extend Time to file Reply Brief responding to Memorandum of Law of Plaintiffs in Opposition to Motion of Defendants to Dismiss, Reply to Response to Motion reset to 5/10/91 for [17-1] motion to Dismiss ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (c/m 4/25/91, daf) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/1991)
24 JOINT MOTION by Melvin C., Arthur W., Billy D., Scott C., Joseph L. Schilling, Richard J. Steinke, John Linton, Helen Miller, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham, Harold D. Jenkins to Defer a hearing and decision on the Motion to Dismiss until Discovery is completed (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 05/13/1991 (Entered: 05/13/1991)
24 ORDER (dated 5/10/91) granting [24-1] joint motion to Defer a hearing and decision on the Motion to Dismiss until Discovery is completed ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (c/m 5/13/91, daf) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 05/13/1991 (Entered: 05/13/1991)
25 REPLY by Defendants Joseph L. Schilling, Richard J. Steinke, John Linton, Helen Miller, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham, Harold D. Jenkins to response in Opposition of Plaintiffs to [171] motion of Defendants to Dismiss, Exhibits A-D. (Exhibits A-B filed on 5/13/91) (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
26 MOTION by Melvin C., Arthur W., Billy D., Scott C. to Extend Time to file Memorandum of Law (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/23/1991)
27 ORDER (dated 5/22/91) granting [26-1] motion to Extend Time to file Memorandum of Law, Response to Motion reset to 6/3/91 for [17-1] motion to Dismiss ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (copies h/d attorney for Plaintiff) (c/m 5/23/91, daf) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/23/1991)
28 REPLY by Melvin C., Arthur W., Billy D., Scott C. to response of Defendants to Memorandum in Opposition of Plaintiffs to [17-1] motion of Defendants to Dismiss. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered:

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 9 of 15

07/19/1991 07/19/1991 07/31/1991 07/31/1991
08/02/1991
08/05/1991 08/07/1991 08/15/1991 09/06/1991
09/18/1991 10/10/1991

06/03/1991)
29 MOTION by Harold D. Jenkins, Helen Miller, John Linton, Richard J. Steinke, Joseph L. Schilling, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham for Protective Order (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/1991)
30 Certificate of Counsel Pursuant to Local Rule 104.7. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/1991)
31 MOTION of Defendant's counsel to Substitute Attorney (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/01/1991)
31 ORDER dated 7/29/91, granting [31-1] motion to Substitute Attorney terminated James P. Abbott Added Lawrence Paul Fletcher-Hill, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove )(c/m 8/1/91 gb) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 08/02/1991 (Entered: 08/02/1991)
32 ORDER REFERRING CASE dated 7/25/91, for hearing and determination of non-dispositive pretrial matters - all discovery matters and motions for protective orders; for hearing, proposed findings of fact, and making recommendations as to dispositive pretrial matters - Motion of Defendants' to Dismiss to Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove )(c/m 8/2/91 hsg) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/02/1991)
33 MEMORANDUM by Scott C., Billy D., Melvin C., Arthur W. in opposition to [29-1] motion for Protective Order, Request for Hearing, and Attachments. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/05/1991)
34 LETTER ORDER, "DIRECTING" that discovery in the case is hereby stayed, temporarily, pending a hearing on the motion for protective order scheduled on 9/6/91 at 10:00. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m 8/7/91, bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/07/1991)
35 Letter (Blake U.S. Mag. Judge) (dated 8/14/91) to counsel advising that the hearing on the motion for protective order will be moved to 2:00 p.m. instead of 10:00 a.m. on 9/6/91 (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/1991)
36 LETTER ORDER, "DIRECTING" Counsel for Plaintiff to redraft the discovery requests and serve the revised requests on Defense Counsel by 9/17/91; "DIRECTING" Defense Counsel to respond to Counsel for Plaintiff by 9/24/91; "DIRECTING" both Counsel to submit a joint status report by 10/8/91 as setforth. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m 9/6/91, bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/09/1991)
CASE reassigned to Judge Benson E. Legg (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/19/1991)
37 MOTION to Extend Time to discuss discovery and other matters (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/11/1991)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 10 of 15

10/10/1991 10/17/1991 10/23/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/15/1991
11/21/1991 12/05/1991 12/05/1991
12/09/1991 12/16/1991 12/16/1991

37 ORDER granting [37-1] motion to Extend Time to discuss discovery and other matters, reset Status Report deadline to 10/29/91 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m by chambers) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/11/1991)
38 MOTION with memorandum in support by Scott C., Billy D., Melvin C., Arthur W. for Preliminary Injunction , and Exhibits A-E. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/25/1991)
CASE reassigned to Judge John R. Hargrove (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/23/1991)
39 JOINT MOTION to Extend Time to file status report (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/09/1991)
39 ORDER granting [39-1] joint motion to Extend Time to file status report - status report due 11/8/91. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 10/30/91 ) (c/m by chambers) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/09/1991)
40 MEMORANDUM by Harold D. Jenkins, Helen Miller, John Linton, Richard J. Steinke, Joseph L. Schilling, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham in support of [29-1] motion for Protective Order, and Affidavits (3). (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/18/1991)
41 LETTER ORDER (dated 11/20/91), "CONFIRMING" that a hearing has been scheduled for 12/10/91 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss Protective Order of Defendants as setforth. ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (c/m 11/21/91, daf) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
42 Letter MOTION by Scott C., Billy D., Melvin C., Arthur W. to Extend Time to file Response to Supplemental Memorandum of Defendants (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/06/1991)
42 ORDER granting [42-1] motion of Plaintiffs to Extend Time to file Response to Supplemental Memorandum of Defendants, Response to Motion reset to 12/16/91 for [29-1] motion for Protective Order ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m 12/5/91, bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/06/1991)
43 ORDER REFERRING CASE (dated 11/27/91) to Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake for other proceedings, specifically Motion for Protective Order. ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (c/m 11/27/91, hg) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/09/1991)
44 MOTION with memorandum in support by Scott C., Billy D., Melvin C., Arthur W. for class certification (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/18/1991)
45 MEMORANDUM by Scott C., Billy D., Melvin C., Arthur W. in opposition to [29-1] motion of Defendant for Protective Order. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/18/1991)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 11 of 15

12/18/1991
12/19/1991 12/19/1991 12/19/1991 12/30/1991
01/02/1992
01/15/1992 01/15/1992 01/29/1992 01/30/1992 01/30/1992 02/05/1992

46 REPLY by Defendants Harold D. Jenkins, Helen Miller, John Linton, Richard J. Steinke, Joseph L. Schilling, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham to response in Opposition to [29-1] motion of Defendants for Protective Order. (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/1991)
Motion hearing held before Blake, U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Reporter: Tape: Eley) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/1991)
Motion of Defendant for Protective Order. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/1991)
Argued - Held subcuria. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/1991)
47 MOTION by Defendants Harold D. Jenkins, Helen Miller, John Linton, Richard J. Steinke, Joseph L. Schilling, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham to Extend Time for Deferral of Motion of Plaintiffs for Class Certification (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/31/1991)
48 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, "DIRECTING" that Discovery ordered is to be provided as to four institutions within the Maryland adult correctional system no later than 1/13/92 as setforth; "DIRECTING" that records relating to individual students are to be produced subject to an appropriate protective order insuring strict confidentiality, and parties should submit a proposed protective order by 1/13/92 as setforth; "DIRECTING" Responses of Defendants shall be served on Plaintiffs as available on a staggered bases, with all responses to be served no later than 2/28/92 as setforth; "DIRECTING" that a status report indicating what responses have been served and what information remains be be served is due on 1/31/92. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (jc/m 1/2/92, kjb) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/06/1992)
49 Correspondence from counsel for Plaintiffs RE: designation of four correctional institutions for which the Plaintiffs seek Discovery. (rec'd in chambers) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/16/1992)
50 PROTECTIVE ORDER ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m 1/15/92, kjb) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/16/1992)
51 MOTION by Scott C., Billy D., Melvin C., Arthur W. for Jerome I. Chapman to Appear Pro Hac Vice (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/1992 (Entered: 01/30/1992)
52 Inmate notices sent to the Honorable Cahterine C. Blake. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/31/1992)
52 ORDER granting [52-1] Notices; "APPROVING" nunc pro tunc 1/24/92. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/31/1992)
53 ORDER (dated 2/4/92) granting [51-1] motion of plaintiffs for Jerome I. Chapman to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (c/m 2/5/92, daf) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/1992)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 12 of 15

02/05/1992 02/05/1992 03/30/1992 03/30/1992 03/30/1992 03/30/1992 04/08/1992 04/16/1992 04/28/1992
04/28/1992
05/22/1992

54 MOTION (COPY) by Scott C., Billy D., Melvin C., Arthur W. for Jerome I. Chapman to Appear Pro Hac Vice (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/1992)
54 ORDER (COPY) (dated 2/4/92) granting [54-1] motion of Plaintiffs for Jerome I. Chapman to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m 2/5/92 by chambers) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/1992)
55 Letter from Defendants - RE: Objections to Disclosures. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/1992)
56 Letter from Defendants RE: Discovery Deadlines. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/1992)
57 Correspondence from the Honorable Catherine C. Blake to counsel of record RE: Disclosures objections as set forth. (c/m by chambers) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/1992)
58 List of Objecting Inmates and Objections. (SEALED) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/1992)
59 ORDER, "APPROVING" request for additional time prior to supplemental briefing; "DIRECTING" that Patuxent memoranda on 4/16/92, status report on 4/27/92. ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove) (c/m by chambers) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/1992)
60 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs Scott C., Billy D., Melvin C., Arthur W. in opposition to Assertion of Defendants of the Patuxent Hearing. (c/s) (SEALED) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/21/1992)
61 Letter MOTION by Harold D. Jenkins, Helen Miller, John Linton, Richard J. Steinke, Joseph L. Schilling, Scott C., Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Billy D., Melvin C., Arthur W., Richard Lanham to Extend Time for Defendants to file their memorandum in support to their Motion for Summary Judgment, and for Plaintiffs to file their opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and for Defendants to file their reply (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/28/1992)
61 ORDER granting [61-1] motion to Extend Time for Defendants to file their memorandum in support to their Motion for Summary Judgment, and for Plaintiffs to file their opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and for Defendants to file their reply, "DIRECTING" that Defendants will file their memorandum in further support of the Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment by 6/5/92; reset Motion Filing deadline to 6/19/92 , Reply to Response to Motion reset to 7/1/92 for [17-1] motion to Dismiss "DIRECTING" that Hearing Scheduled for 7/17/92 at 10:00 a.m. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m 4/28/92, bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/29/1992)
62 Letter MOTION by Defendants Harold D. Jenkins, Helen Miller, John Linton, Richard J. Steinke, Joseph L. Schilling, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham to Extend Time for briefing schedule.

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 13 of 15

05/22/1992 05/29/1992 05/29/1992 07/15/1992
07/15/1992 08/04/1992
09/02/1992 09/25/1992 11/02/1992 11/02/1992 11/16/1992

(mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/27/1992)
62 ORDER (dated 5/21/92) granting [62-1] motion of Defendants to Extend Time for Briefing Schedule as setforth. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/27/1992)
63 Letter MOTION by Defendants Harold D. Jenkins, Helen Miller, John Linton, Richard J. Steinke, Joseph L. Schilling, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Richard Lanham to Extend Time for Supplemental Briefing Schedule (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/29/1992)
63 ORDER (dated 5/28/92) granting [63-1] motion of Defendants to Extend Time for Supplemental Briefing Schedule; "DIRECTING" that hearing on 7/17/92 is cancelled. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m 5/29/92, bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/29/1992)
64 Letter MOTION by Defendants Harold D. Jenkins, Helen Miller, John Linton, Richard J. Steinke, Joseph L. Schilling, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Billy D., Melvin C., Arthur W., Richard Lanham to Extend Time (Postpone) the Briefing Schedule (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/16/1992)
64 ORDER granting [64-1] motion of Defendants to Extend Time (Postpone) the Briefing Schedule. Status report due by 8/3/92. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake) (c/m 7/15/92, bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/16/1992)
65 JOINT STATUS REPORT, by Harold D. Jenkins, Helen Miller, John Linton, Richard J. Steinke, Joseph L. Schilling, Scott C., Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson, Billy D., Melvin C., Arthur W., Richard Lanham; "DIRECTING" Parties to submit further status report on 8/31/92. (dated 8/3/92) (Blake, U.S. Mag Judge). (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/05/1992)
66 ORDER (Letter) (copy) "DIRECTING" counsel to provide further updated Status Report on 09/21/92. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (org/m chambers) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/04/1992)
67 ORDER (Letter) (copy) "DIRECTING" counsel to submit further Status Report on 10/30/92. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (org/m chambers) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/28/1992)
68 JOINT STATUS REPORT and JOINT MOTION by parties to Extend Time to file report on progress of case (Rec. 10/30/92 in Mag. J. Blake chambers) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1992)
68 ORDER "granting" [68-1] joint motion of parties to Extend Time to file report on progress of case to 11/16/92. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m 11/02/92 bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1992)
69 STATUS REPORT and "APPROVAL" and "DIRECTING" that next Status Report due 12/07/92. (signed by Mag. Judge Blake) (c/m 11/16/92

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 14 of 15

12/09/1992 12/09/1992 01/07/1993 01/07/1993 01/28/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/12/1993 03/25/1993 03/25/1993 06/09/1993 06/09/1993

bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/18/1992)
70 STATUS REPORT and Letter MOTION by plaintiffs to Extend Time of next Status Report to 01/06/93 (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/14/1992)
70 ORDER "granting" [70-1] letter motion of plaintiffs to Extend Time of next Status Report to 01/06/93 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m 12/08/92 bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/14/1992)
71 Letter MOTION by defendants to Extend Time to file Status Report on 01/22/93 (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/12/1993)
71 ORDER "granting" [71-1] motion of defendants to Extend Time to file Status Report on 01/22/93 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m 01/07/93 bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/12/1993)
72 ORDER (Letter) dated 01/27/93 "DIRECTING" Counsel to submit next Status Report on 02/12/93. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake ) (c/m chambers) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/29/1993)
73 STATUS REPORT by Harold D. Jenkins, Helen Miller, John Linton, Richard J. Steinke, Joseph L. Schilling, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson and Richard Lanham. (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/1993)
73 MOTION by Harold D. Jenkins, Helen Miller, John Linton, Richard J. Steinke, Joseph L. Schilling, Henrietta Hestick, Bishop L. Robinson and Richard Lanham to file a further status report . (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/1993)
73 ORDER granting [73-1] motion of defendants to file a further status report on March 12, 1993 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 3/2/93). (c/m 3/2/93-bc) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/1993)
74 JOINT STATUS REPORT and "APPROVAL". (signed Magistrate Judge Catherine Blake 3/12/93) (c/m 3/16/93-bc) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/17/1993)
75 MOTION by Defendants to Extend Time to File Status Report . (cdl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/31/1993)
75 ORDER Granting [75-1] Motion of Defendants to Extend Time to File Status Report, to and including April 9, 1993 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake 3/25/93). (c/m 3/25/93-bc) (cdl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/31/1993)
76 PROTECTIVE ORDER "setting" forth procedures and restrictions RE: Production of information and education records, as therein set foth. ( signed by Judge John R. Hargrove ) (c/m 06/10/93 cr) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
77 STIPULATION of dismissal and ACTION PLAN and "APPROVAL"

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 2.3) - Docket Report

Page 15 of 15

06/09/1993 06/02/1995 06/02/1995 06/06/1995

"dismissing" case without prejudice on conditions, as therein set forth; "setting" conditions, procedurec and responsibilities, as therein set forth; "directing" that Court shall retain jurisdiction for the limited purposes of enforcing the procedural provisions of this Dismissal. (c/m 06/10/93 cr) (Microfilmed 06/15/93) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
Case closed (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
78 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Melvin C., et al by Mark B. Martin. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/14/1995)
79 JOINT MOTION of Parties to Enter Order of Dismissal . (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/14/1995)
80 ORDER "DISMISSING" this Action without Prejudice. ( signed by Sr. Judge John R. Hargrove 6/6/95 ) (MICROFILMED 6/14/95) (c/m) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/14/1995)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

10/19/2005 17:01:47

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:91-cv-00497-JRH

Billable Pages: 10

Cost:

0.80

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592973390420404-L_280_0-1

10/19/2005