Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. of Ed.

—

— - v- • * • • _ _ • _ • W B H I I HI • • S H I I H a i l l • • ! ! •

•••

JI-IL-002-001

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DONNELL C , EDWARD C , ROBERT Ma.,

)

MARVIN S., TALMAS E., ROBERT Mu,

)

WILLIAM D., CLIFFORD C. , ERIC B. ,

)

CHRISTOPHER P., TOMMY H. , SALEEM L. , )

ANDRE B., SHAUN M. , RACHEL T. ,

)

KATRINA B., MARYANN M. , FRANKLIN J. , )

MICHAEL B., STEVEN F. , EUGENE B. ,

)

LASHAWN H., RICKY B. , individually

)

and on behalf of all others similarly )

situated,

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

„„„ , _ K. siVHt.TESOTUSATXAT7ESCrUNN""j":

v.

) N o . - f ; — •••-'

•';• T) ~)

THE ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF

)

EDUCATION; ROBERT LEININGER,

)

Superintendent of the Illinois

)

State Board of Education; THE

)

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF

)

CHICAGO; TED D. KIMBROUGH,

)

Superintendent of the Chicago

)

Public Schools; and CONI BATLLE,

)

JACKIE B. BRECKENRIDGE, MARCENE

)

M. BROADWATER, HUGH R. BROWN,

)

RICK L. CATT, DOREEN CREWE, MARY

)

ANN S. MACLEAN, DEBORAH MILLER,

)

LYLE NEUMANN, DOROTHY O'NEILL,

)

JESSE M. RIOS, HERB R. ROACH,

)

MICHAEL W. SKARR, AND G. HOWARD

)

"BUD" THOMPSON, members of the

)

Illinois State Board of Education,

)

)

Defendants.

)

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. The 23 named plaintiffs bring this action to assure that

they, as well as all other present and future school-age pretrial

detainees at the Cook County Jail ("CCJ"), will no longer be denied

the educational services guaranteed them by law and required for

their development as economically self-sufficient, socially

responsible adults. By denying all educational services to most such pretrial detainees and by providing the rest with educational services that are vastly inferior to what defendants provide nonpretrial detainees, defendants are violating plaintiffs' rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereafter "IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. . and under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (hereafter "§ 504") 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Ilinois law.
2. Special education and related services, as used in this complaint, are those services that, according to the IDEA and implementing regulations, meet the educational needs of children who suffer from educational disabilities, who include children identified as mentally retarded, hard of hearing, deaf, speech impaired, visually handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed, orthopedically impaired, other health impaired, deal-blind, multihandicapped, or as having specific learning disabilities. Regular education services, as used in this complaint, are those services that school boards are required to provide all eligible students in order to secure for them their statutory right to an equal education.
3. Defendants have denied plaintiffs' rights to appropriate educational services in five distinct ways:
a. defendants deny completely the special education and related services needed by those educationally disabled plaintiffs whose need for such services defendants have failed to identify;

b. defendants deny completely the special education and related services needed by plaintiffs who have been identified as needing such services because defendants' failure to provide sufficient teachers, programs and related services to meet the need for such services among the population of youthful detainees has caused many plaintiffs to be completely excluded from special education services;
c. defendants deny appropriate special education and related services to the educationally disabled plaintiffs who are enrolled in the CCJ School because defendants have failed to provide sufficient teachers, programs, related services, and procedural protections to meet federal standards for the provision of appropriate, individualized special education services to disabled students;
d. defendants completely deny regular education services to the great majority of plaintiffs who are eligible for such services; and
e. defendants deny to plaintiffs who are eligible for and receive regular education services such services that are equal to the services made available to eligible children who are not pretrial detainees.
JURISDICTION 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 20 U.S.C.§ 1415(e)(2) and (e) (4) , 28 U.S.C. § 794 (a) (2) , and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and 1367. The federal claims also arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

PARTIES 5. The individual plaintiffs who bring this action on their own behalf and as class representatives are as follows: i. Donnell S., born October 17, 1974, is a pretrial detainee who began his detention at the CCJ on October 28, 1992. The last grade Donnell completed was tenth grade in the Chicago Public Schools. Donnell signed up for attendance at the CCJ School shortly after his detention, but has never been allowed to enroll in the School. Donnell has been diagnosed as having a learning disorder and has been in special education programs since seventh grade. During his last year in school, Donnell took courses in English, Science, Social Studies and Computers. Donnell wants and needs special education instruction especially to help him with his learning problems regarding math and spelling. Donnell is now enrolled in a GED program at the CCJ, which for one and one-half hours each day teaches English and Math. This program does not address Donnell's learning disability nor his wish for education in subjects in addition to English and Math. ii. Edward C , born May 27, 1972, is a pretrial detainee who began his detention on September 27, 1972. The last grade Edward completed was eleventh grade in the Chicago Public Schools. Edward has been identified by the Public Schools as in need of special education because of learning and behavioral disorders. Edward has not been offered any educational opportunities at the CCJ and is not aware of any such opportunities in his present assignment to
Division II in the CCJ. Edward's IEP has not been reviewed nor

implemented by defendants at the CCJ. Edward would like to attend a school program at the CCJ that offers courses generally available in the Chicago Public Schools and that would provide him with instruction specifically directed toward his educational disabilities.
iii. Robert Ma., born January 1, 1975, is a pretrial detainee at the CCJ, who began his detention on June 1, 1991. The last grade Robert completed was tenth grade in the Chicago Public Schools. Shortly after his detention at the CCJ, Robert was placed in the School Wing of Division VI, which placement enabled him to attend the CCJ's regular school program, which offered classes in English and Math. In September, 1991, Robert was moved to a different floor on his wing of the CCJ after which he was told he could no longer attend the CCJ School. Robert asked a teacher about attendance at the CCJ's GED program, but was told he was too young and should be in the regular CCJ School program instead. However, when he requested return to the CCJ School program, his request was denied. Robert would like to attend school with a regular high school curriculum that would allow him to obtain a regular high school diploma.
iv. Marvin S., born November 3, 1973, is a pretrial detainee who began his detention at the CCJ on October 25, 1972. The last grade Marvin completed was tenth grade in the Chicago Public Schools. Although Marvin was told about the CCJ School by a CCJ social worker, he has not been placed in a CCJ wing that would enable him to attend the CCJ School. Although Marvin has a learning

and behavior disorder and has been in Chicago Public School special education classes, his IEP has neither been reviewed nor implemented while at the CCJ. Marvin wants to continue in school and wishes especially to enroll in courses in algebra, history and science.
v. Talmas E., born January 22, 1975, is a pretrial detainee who began his detention at the CCJ on July 9, 1992. The last grade Talmas completed was ninth grade in the Chicago Public Schools. Talmas has been identified by the Public Schools as in need of special education because of learning and behavioral disorders. Talmas has not been offered any educational opportunities at the CCJ and is not aware of any opportunities there. Talmas's IEP has not been reviewed nor implemented by defendants at the CCJ. Talmas would like to attend a school program at the CCJ that offers courses generally available in the Chicago Public Schools, including Science, Math and Reading, and that would provide him with instruction specifically directed toward his educational disabilities.
vi. Robert Mu., born on April 26, 1974, is a pretrial detainee at the CCJ, who began his detention there on August 6, 1992. Prior to detention, he had been identified as learning disabled and had attended learning disabled classes at St. Joseph Academy in Niles pursuant to his own Individualized Educational Plan ("IEP") . Although Robert is eligible for and in need of special education services, and has requested education services at the CCJ, his IEP has not been implemented and he has not been placed in any educational program since his detention at the CCJ.

vii. William D., born June 1, 1974, is a pretrial detainee at the CCJ, who began his detention there on September 29, 1992. Prior to detention he was identified as having a severe learning disability by the Chicago Public Schools, which had created and implemented his own IEP. Although William is eligible for and in need of special educational services, his IEP has not been implemented and he has not been placed in a special education program since his detention at the CCJ. When William was first incarcerated at the CCJ he was placed in Division IX where he was allowed to attend regular education classes. However, several days later, William was transferred to Division VIII, where he requested enrollment in an educational program, but was told by CCJ officials that he would have to wait 2 to 3 months before he could be enrolled in such a program.
viii. Clifford C , born on August 28, 1975, is a pretrial detainee at the CCJ, who began his detention there on August 28, 1992. Prior to detention, he was identified as behavior disordered by the Chicago Public Schools, which had created and implemented his own IEP. Although Clifford is eligible for and in need of special educational services, his IEP has not been implemented and he has not been placed in any educational program since his detention at the CCJ. Clifford has requested enrollment in an educational program at the CCJ, but was told by a teacher that there was no room for more students.
ix. Eric B., born September 3, 1975, is a pretrial detainee at the CCJ, who began his detention on August 28, 1992. The last

grade Eric completed was eighth grade in the Chicago Public Schools. After having been told there were long waiting lists for admission to education programs at the CCJ, Eric asked to be placed on the waiting list.
x. Christopher P., born April 18, 1975. is a pretrial detainee at the CCJ, who began his detention on October 2, 1992. The last grade Christopher completed was eleventh grade at Evanston High School in Evanston, Illinois. Just before his arrest Clifford was to be evaluated for special education services because of a suspected educational disability. When Clifford requested enrollment in the CCJ School program, he was told there was a long waiting list and was denied enrollment.
xi. Tommy H., born October 19, 1972, is a pretrial detainee at the CCJ, who began his detention on March 30, 1992. The last grade Tommy completed was tenth grade in the Chicago Public Schools. Tommy requested admission to the CCJ School program, but received no response to his request. Tommy is being given some instruction in classes at the CCJ which are supposed to teach enough math and reading to qualify detainees to take the examination for the General Equivalency Degree ("GED"). Although such instruction is supposed to last for two hours, four days a week, Tommy and his CCJ classmates are allowed in the classroom for only about 30 minutes per day on each of the four days. During that time, he and his classmates are rarely taught math and never taught reading. In addition to wanting regular high school instruction,
8

Tommy wants the opportunity for vocational education that will qualify him for skilled labor after he is released.
xii. Saleem L., born on October 7, 1973, is a pretrial detainee at the CCJ, who began his detention there on March 7, 1992. The last grade Saleem completed was ninth grade in the Chicago Public Schools. Prior to detention Saleem was classified as learning disabled by the Chicago Public Schools and, therefore, in need of special education services. Shortly after his detention at the CCJ, Saleem was placed in the School Wing of Division VI, which placement enabled him to attend the CCJ's regular school program. In that program Saleem received instruction each day for two hours in reading and math. Before placement in the CCJ School program, Saleem was tested for approximately 45 minutes. In April, 1992, Saleem was taken off the school wing and, thereby denied the opportunity to attend the CCJ School. Further, Saleem has never had his IEP implemented nor has he been placed in a special education program since his detention at the CCJ. In April, 1992, Saleem requested in writing that he be allowed to attend the CCJ School again, but has received no response. Saleem would like regular education classes, including classes in reading as well as instruction to help him cope with his learning disability.
xiii. Andre B., born June 7, 1973, is a pretrial detainee who began his detention on August 2, 1992. The last grade Andre completed was eleventh grade at Lyons Township High School. Andre would like to complete his high school education and gain a high school diploma, but because of the lack of sufficient regular

education programs at the CCJ is being denied the opportunity to obtain the requisite education.
xiv. Shaun M., born December 2, 1972, is a pretrial detainee who began his detention at the CCJ on January 27, 1992. shaun was in the twelfth grade Proviso East High School in Maywood Illinois at the time of his detention. Shaun requested in writing to be placed in the CCJ School program, but was denied admission on the ground that it was for younger detainees. Shaun is enrolled in the CCJ's GED program which offers instruction in reading and math for approximately 45 minutes a day, four days a week. Shaun would like to attend school with a regular high school curriculum that would allow him to obtain a regular high school diploma.
xv. Rachel T., born March 19, 1973, is a pretrial detainee who began her detention at the CCJ on October 1, 1992. Rachel was in the second semester of twelfth grade in "the Chicago Public Schools at the time of her detention. She has been attending classes in the Jail School where her instruction has consisted almost entirely of work on vocabulary and sentence formation. She has had no instruction in math or reading or in any of the courses she was taking before her detention, which included Trigonometry, English IV, Social Studies, Biology and Food Services. There are no texts or workbooks used in her school program and the teaching is directed almost entirely to the remedial vocabulary and grammar problems of younger students. Rachel would like to attend a school program similar to her program before her detention so that she can graduate from high school and obtain a degree in nursing.
10

xvi. Katrina B., born January 25, 1973, is a pretrial detainee who began her detention at the CCJ on September 9, 1992. The last grade Katrina completed was tenth grade in the Chicago Public Schools. Although a CCJ teacher advised her in September that she would be going to the CCJ School, she has never been permitted to attend. Katrina was taking business and accounting courses when she was attending Westinghouse Vocational High School in Chicago and would like to continue with such courses in the CCJ so that she will have a better opportunity for employment after her release.
xvii. Maryann M., born April 26, 1972, is a pretrial detainee who began her detention at the CCJ on November 2, 1992, The last grade Maryann completed was seventh grade in Hillsborough County, Florida. Maryann has been diagnosed as having a severe learning disorder and has been in self-contained special education classes since second grade. Maryann asked to be enrolled in the CCJ School when she was first detained there but was told by a correctional officer that she could not enroll because there were too many people in the School already. Maryann reads at a third grade level and would like instruction to enable her to read better and learn at a faster rate.
xviii. Franklin J., born April 7# 1975, is a pretrial detainee who began his detention at the CCJ August 20, 1992. At the time of his detention Franklin was in the tenth grade in the Chicago Public Schools where he was taking courses in Geometry, English, Art, Social Studies and Physical Education. Franklin was never informed of the possibility of enrolling at the CCJ in a regular school
11

program. He was told that he could attend classes for a GED. Franklin wishes, however, to enroll in a regular high school program so that he can obtain his high school diploma and attend college.
xix. Michael B., born December 18, 1974. is a pretrial detainee who began his detention at the CCJ on September 26, 1972. The last grade Michael completed was eleventh grade in the Chicago Public Schools. Michael has not been informed of any opportunity to attend school at the CCJ and until he learned about the possibility of the instant lawsuit in late November, 1992, he did not know there was any school program at the CCJ. Michael would like to earn his high school diploma in order to help him gain employment after his release from the CCJ.
xx. Steven F., born July 18, 1972, is a pretrial detainee who began his detention at the CCJ on October 9, 1992. The last grade Steven completed was tenth grade in the Chicago Public Schools. His courses in his last school year were Science, History, Algebra and Woodshop. Robert is in the GED program at the CCJ in which he receives instruction in English and Math for 75 minutes four days a week. Robert has learned little in this program because of its limited duration and its abreviated instruction. Robert wishes to enroll in a regular high school degree program that would offer a normal range of high school courses, including, in particular Math, History, Accounting and vocational education that would help him toward his goal of becoming an electrician. Robert has not been
12

informed of or offered the opportunity to attend the CCJ School program.
xxi. Eugene B., born September 29, 1973, is a pretrial detainee who began his detention at the CCJ on April 2, 1991. The last grade Eugene completed was ninth grade in the Chicago Public Schools. For three months Eugene was in a GED Program where he was taught Math and English three days a week for two hours. However, when he was transferred to a different wing of the CCJ, he was removed from the GED program and has subsequently been given no opportunity for participation in any instructional program. Eugene has been identified as educationally disabled by the Chicago Public Schools and experiences substantial learning difficulties in reading and spelling. When he last attended school Robert took courses in Math, Science, English, Social Studies, Drafting, Health and Physical Education. Robert would like to attend a school program at the CCJ that offers courses generally available in the Chicago Public Schools and that would provide him with instruction specifically directed toward his educational disabilities.
xxii. Lashawn H., born April 17, 1973, is a pretrial detainee who began his detention at the CCJ on August 7, 1992. The last grade Lashawn completed was eleventh grade in the Chicago Public Schools. When attending high school Lashawn took courses in Math, Science, Social Studies, English, Art and Physical Education. Lashawn has requested enrollment in the CCJ School program, but was told by a teacher that there were no spaces then available. Lashawn would like to attend a five day a week full-time school program at
13

the CCJ that offers courses generally available in the Chicago Public Schools, including in particular Math, Social Studies, Science and Reading.
xxiii. Ricky B, born November 17, 1974, is a pretrial detainee who began his detention at the CCJ on May 3, 1992. The last grade Ricky completed was tenth grade in the Chicago Public Schools. During his last year in school, Ricky took courses in Geometry, English, Reading, Math, Geography, Graphics and Horticulture. Ricky would like to attend a school program at the CCJ that offers courses generally available in the Chicago Public Schools and that would provide him with instruction helpful to his future employment. Ricky has not been offered the opportunity to enroll in the CCJ School program, but did take GED classes of one hour for two days a week in July, 1992.
6. Defendant Illinois State Board of Education (hereinafter "Illinois Board") is a state educational agency as defined in 2 0 U.S.C. § 1401(7). As a recipient of federal funds that have been granted pursuant to the Illinois Board's agreement to abide by the terms of its State plan that has been approved by the United States Secretary of Education, the Illinois Board, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1412(6), is responsible for assuring that all children with disabilities within Illinois are identified, located, evaluated and provided with a free appropriate public education. The Illinois Board also has the following duties regarding the education of students with and without disabilities: pursuant to 111. Rev. Stat. Ch.122 § 2-3.3, "(t)o supervise all the public schools in the
14

State;" pursuant to 111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 122 § 2-3.6, "(t)o make rules necessary to carry into efficient and uniform effect all laws for establishing and maintaining free schools in the State," and; pursuant to 111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 122 § 2-3.25, "(t)o determine for all types of schools conducted under this Act (conferring powers and duties on the State Board) efficient and adequate standards for the . . .instruction and teaching, curriculum, library operation, maintenance, administration and supervision, and to issue, refuse to issue or revoke certificates of recognition for schools or school districts pursuant to standards established . . . . (under the Act). . . ."
7. Defendants CONI BATLLE, JACKIE B. BRECKENRIDGE, MARCENE M. BROADWATER, HUGH R. BROWN, RICK L. CATT, DOREEN CREWE, MARY ANN S. MACLEAN, DEBORAH MILLER, LYLE NEUMANN, DOROTHY O'NEILL, JESSE M. RIOS, HERB R. ROACH, MICHAEL W. SKARR, AND G. HOWARD "BUD" THOMPSON are the members of the Illinois State Board of Education and have the duties specified in 5 6 above.
8. Defendant ROBERT LEININGER is the Superintendent of the Illinois Board. He is responsible for the overall administration of the Illinois Board pursuant to 111. Rev. Stat. ch. 122, para. 1A-4(B) (1989).
9. Defendant BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO (hereinafter "Chicago Board") is a "local educational agency" as defined in 20 U.S.C. § 1401(8), and therefore, according to 34 C.F.R. § 300.2 is bound by the requirements of the IDEA. The Chicago Board is responsible for the administration of Chicago
15

Public School District # 299, which includes the CCJ School. Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1414 and 111. Rev. Stat. ch. 122, para. 34-18 (1989), the Chicago Board is responsible for the administration of special education services for all persons with School District # 299, which includes CCJ detainees, from age 3 until age 21 or successful completion of their secondary program. Pursuant to 111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 122 § 10-20.12 (1991) the Chicago Board is required to secure for all persons within School District # 299, which includes CCJ detainees, from age 6 to 21 the right and opportunity to an equal education by establishing and operating a sufficient number of free schools for the education of all such persons.
10. Defendant TED D. KIMBROUGH is Superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools. He is responsible for the overall administration of the Chicago Public Schools pursuant to 111. Rev. Stat. ch. 122, para. 34-6 (1989).
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 11. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), the named plaintiffs bring this class action on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons who are or will be similarly situated. The plaintiff class consists of all CCJ pretrial detainees who are, or will be after December 17, 1992, entitled under state and federal law to free regular or special education services. Included in this class are pretrial detainees who, while in or under their twenty-first year, a) have been identified as requiring special education and related services, but are being denied the requisite
16

services at the CCJ, b) need special education and related services, but are being denied all such services because they have not been identified by defendants as needing such services, and c) are being denied the regular education services to which they would be entitled under state law were they not incarcerated as pretrial detainees.
12. The defined class is so numerous that joinder of all plaintiffs is impracticable. Upon information and belief, in August of 1992 approximately 2,274 detainees under age 21 resided at the CCJ. Upon information and belief, a minimum of forty percent of such youthful detainees at the CCJ are disabled and in need of special education and related services. Consequently, the number of youthful detainees in need of special education is a minimum of 900, and the number of individuals in need of regular education may be as high as 1,374.
13. There are questions of fact and law common to the class, and those questions predominate over all other questions affecting individual class members. All of the youthful plaintiffs have either the same federal statutory right to special education services or the same federal constitutionally protected right not to be arbitrarily denied their state statutory right to regular education services.
14. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. The named plaintiffs' claims arise from the same conduct — the denial of any or adequate regular and special
17

education services to eligible detainees — that gives rise to the absentee members' claims.
15. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. They have no interests antagonistic to the class; the plaintiffs and class members both seek to make available to all detainees free, appropriate and equal special and regular education services. Thus, the relief that the named plaintiffs seek will benefit all members of the class.
16. By routinely denying regular and special education to members of the class, the defendants' have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class. As a result, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the entire class is appropriate. The plaintiffs' rights to education can best be addressed in one action on their behalf.
17. A class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Because of the continually changing composition of the CCJ pretrial detainee population, a remedy for defendants' ongoing violation of detainees rights to special and regular education can be obtained only through class relief.
ENTITLEMENTS UNDER THE IDEA, S ..504. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ILLINOIS LAW
18. Pursuant to the IDEA and § 504, all defendants have a duty to assure appropriate educational services to all school-age pretrial detainees with educational disabilities at the CCJ.
19. The Illinois Board receives federal funds under the IDEA. As a condition of receiving federal funds, the Illinois Board,
18

Illinois Board members and Robert Leininger are statutorily required under the IDEA:
a. to assure for all children with disabilities as defined by 34 C.F.R. § 300.5, who include members of the plaintiff class, until they are 21 years of age or the successful completion of their secondary program (23 111. Admin. Code § 226.120) the right to a free appropriate public education as defined by 34 C.F.R. § 300.4 (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(1) and (2)(B), 1414(a)(2) and (6), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.l(a), 300.121(a), 300.300(a));
b. to provide special education and related services to children residing in the geographic area served by the Chicago Board when it determines that the Chicago Board is unable or unwilling to establish and maintain programs of free appropriate public education for those children (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)).
c. to have policies and procedures to assure that all children with disabilities who are in need of special education, including members of the plaintiff class, regardless of the severity of their disabilities, are identified, located and evaluated (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(2)(C), 1414(a)(1)(A), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.128(a)(1)), 300.220);
d. to have policies and procedures to assure that a practical method is developed and implemented to determine which eligible children, including plaintiff class members, are currently receiving needed special education and related services and which eligible children are not currently receiving needed special
19

education and related services (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(2)(C), 1414(a) (1) (A) , 34 C.F.R. § 300.128(a)(2));
e. to develop monitoring policies and procedures to insure that the Illinois Board both (i) knows the number of disabled children, including plaintiff class members, within each disability category that have been identified, located and evaluated and (ii) obtains information adequate to evaluate the effectiveness of its policies and procedures in meeting its obligations under subparagraphs c and d of this paragraph (34 C.F.R. § 300.128(b) (5)) ;
f. to assure that the Chicago Board develops and implements an individualized education program (hereinafter "IEP") for each child with a disability, including plaintiff class members (34 C.F.R. § 300.341(a));
g. to assure that the Chicago Board maintains records of the IEP for each child with a disability, including plaintiff class members, and that the IEP for each such child shall be established, reviewed and, if necessary, revised (20 U.S.C. § 1412(4), 34 C.F.R. § 300.130(a)) ;
h. to provide for procedures for evaluation of the effectiveness of programs, including IEPs, in meeting the educational needs of children with disabilities, including plaintiff class members (20 U.S.C. § 1413(a)(ll);
i. to assure that disabled students in the CCJ School are provided special education services that are comparable in kind and quality to the services the Chicago Board provides for disabled
20

and non-disabled students in regular and special education programs outside of the CCJ School (20 U.S.C. § 1414 (a) (2) (c) , 34 C.F.R. § 300.231(b), 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33(b) and 104.34(c))
j . to assure that there is an adequate supply of qualified special education and related services personnel ( 20 U.S.C. §§ 1413(a)(3)(A), 1414(a)(1)(C)(i));
k. to assure that the special education and related services personnel are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained (20 U.S.C. §§ 1413(a)(3)(B) and (a)(14), 1414(a)(l)(C)(i), 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b)(1));
1. to assure that it and the Chicago Board maintain genuine procedural safeguards for children with disabilities, including plaintiff class members, and their parents or guardians (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(5)(A), 1414(a)(7), 1415, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.131, 300.501, 300.506);
m. to assure that the Chicago Board provides written notice to the parents or guardians of children with disabilities, including plaintiff class members, informing them of the available procedural safeguards whenever the Chicago Board proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, educational placement or free appropriate public education of the child (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1)(C), (D) , 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.504, 300.505)) ;
n. to evaluate at least annually the effectiveness of the Chicago Board's programs, including IEPs, in meeting the
educational needs of children with disabilities, including
21

plaintiff class members (20 U.S.C. § 1413(a)(ll), 34 C.F.R. § 300.146);
o. to assure the Chicago Board's compliance with all requirements of the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(6), 34 C.F.R. § 300.600).
20. The Chicago Board receives federal funds under the IDEA. As a condition of receiving federal funds, the Chicago Board and Ted D. Kimbrough are required under the IDEA:
a. to provide for all children with disabilities as defined by 34 C.F.R. § 300.5, who include members of the plaintiff class, until age 21 or successful completion of their secondary program (23 111. Admin. Code § 226.120) a free appropriate public education as defined by 34 C.F.R. § 300.4 (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(1) and (2)(B), 1414(a)(2) and (6), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.l(a), 300.121(a), 300.300(a));
b. to identify, locate and evaluate all children with disabilities, including plaintiff class members, who are in need of special education regardless of the severity of their disabilities (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(2)(C), 1414(a)(1)(A), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.128(a)(1), 300.220);
c. to develop and implement a practical method for determining which eligible children, including plaintiff class members, are currently receiving needed special education and related services and which children are not currently receiving needed special education and related services (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(2)(C), 1414(a)(1)(A), 34 C.F.R. § 300.220);
22

d. to conduct a meeting, for the purposes of developing an IEP for each child with a disability, including plaintiff class members, within 30 days of a determination that each such child needs special education and related services (34 C.F.R. § 300.343(c)) ;
e. to provide an IEP for each child with a disability, including plaintiff class members (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(5), 34 C.F.R. § 300.342);
f. to consult with individuals involved in or concerned with the education of school-age pretrial detainees with disabilites at the CCJ including parents of such detainees (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(7), 1414(a)(1)(C)(iii), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.226, 300.345) ;
g. to maintain records of the IEPs for each child with a disability, including plaintiff class members, so that the IEPs can be reviewed and, if necessary, revised (20 U.S.C. § 1412(4), 34 C.F.R. § 300.130(a));
h. to review each IEP of children with disabilities, including plaintiff class members, and, if appropriate, to revise the IEP to better meet the needs of each such child (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(5), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.130(a), 300.343(d));
i. to provide disabled students in the CCJ School special education services that are comparable in kind and quality to the services it provides for disabled and non-disabled students in regular and special education programs outside of the CCJ School
23

(20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(c), 34 C.F.R. § 300.231(b), 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33(b) and 104.34(c));
j. to assure that there is an adequate supply of qualified special education and related services personnel (20 U.S.C. §§ 1413 (a) (3) (A), 1414(a)(l) (C) (i));
k. to assure that the special education and related services personnel are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained (20 U.S.C. §§ 1413(a)(3)(B) and (a)(14) , 1414(a)(l)(C)(i));
1. to maintain genuine procedural safeguards for children with disabilities, including plaintiff class members, and their parents or guardians (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(5) (A), 1414(a)(6) and (7), 1415, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.237, 300.501, 300.506).
m. to provide written notice to the parents of a child with a disability, including plaintiff class members, informing them of the available procedural safeguards whenever the Chicago Board proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, educational placement or free appropriate public education of the child (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1)(C), (D), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.504, 300.505);
n. to assure and guarantee compliance with all requirements of the IDEA and its implementing regulations (34 C.F.R. § 300.231(a));
21. Section 504 provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States.. .shall, solely by reason of her or his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
24

be subjected to discrimination through any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
22. Plaintiffs are guaranteed regular education opportunities by 111. Rev. Stat. ch. 122, § 10-2 0.12 which requires the Chicago Board of Education to "establish and keep in operation in each year during a school term. . . a sufficient number of free schools for the accommodation of all persons in the district over the age of five and under 21 years, and to secure for all such persons the right and opportunity to an equal education in such schools. . . . "
23. Plaintiffs are guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution the right not to be deprived of special and regular educational services for arbitrary reasons or for reasons not rationally or substantially related to a valid state interest. Plaintiffs are guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution the right not to be deprived of special and regular educational services without prior notice and the opportunity for a fair hearing. Plaintiffs are also guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution the right not to be deprived entirely of special and regular education services where such services are necessary for their attainment of the basic, minimal skills necessary for the enjoyment of the right of speech, for full participation in the political process and for minimal economic self-sufficiency.
25

COUNT I; DEPRIVATION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Factual Statement
24. Most of the detainees at the CCJ have been detained by the criminal courts because they are awaiting trial and cannot afford to post the bond required for their release pending trial. A small proportion of the detainees at the CCJ are serving misdemeanor sentences. All of the CCJ detainees are over sixteen years of age. The average length of stay at the CCJ for detainees of school age is 180 calendar days, although a substantial number of school age detainees are incarcerated at the CCJ while awaiting trial for between one and two years.
25. In July, 1992, approximately 2,274 detainees under age 21 were incarcerated in the CCJ. A minimum of 39%, or 887, of such school-age detainees at the CCJ are eligible for and in need of special education and related services. As of July, 1992, 598, or 39%, of the 1,535 detainees whose prior Chicago Public School records were available to CCJ officials had been identified in such records as having been eligible for special education services.
26. In July, 1992, only 325 to 350 CCJ detainees under age 21 were receiving any special education services. Thus, over 500 detainees who are eligible for and in need of special education services are being completely excluded from any special education services by defendants.
27. The 325 to 350 CCJ detainees under age 21 who are receiving some special education services are not being provided with all of the appropriate special education and related services
26

for which they are both eligible and have need. Specifically, defendants have failed, inter alia:
1) to hold multidisciplinary staffings for all, rather than a very few, disabled students with the result that teachers have been unable to individualize their instruction to account for the unstaffed students' particular disabilities;
2) to teach classes in which the teacher-student ratio varies with the nature of the students' disabilities as required by a State regulation (23 111. Admin. Code § 226.225) that has been approved as part of the State plan by the United States Secretary of Education, with the result that most CCJ School teachers are teaching students in classes of between 15 to 18 students, regardless of the nature and severity of the students' disabilities and consequent differential need for smaller classes;
3) to teach subjects to disabled students in addition to Reading and Math, including Vocational Education, Art, Social Studies, History and Science;
4) to make textbooks, workbooks and writing paper and pencils available to students; and
5) to provide students with needed related services such as speech-language assessment and instruction, other learning disabilities assessment and instruction and social work services.
28. Defendants Chicago Board and Ted D. Kimbrough have failed to provide any IEPs for some of the detainees who are receiving special education services, for others they have provided inadequate IEPs and for most, if not all, special education students at
27

the CCJ School they have failed to provide the services specified in the IEPs.
29. Defendants Chicago Board and Ted D. Kimbrough have failed to maintain records of the IEPs and their implementation for each detainee receiving special education services so that the IEPs can be reviewed and, when necessary, revised. Although CCJ School staff have made frequent efforts to obtain for CCJ School students their previous Chicago Public School records, such records are not routinely available and are often unobtainable or obtainable only after substantial delays.
30. Defendants Illinois Board, Board members and Leininger have failed to assure that the Chicago Board maintained records of the IEPs and their implementation for each detainee receiving special education services.
31. Defendants Illinois Board, Board members and Leininger have failed to require, and defendants Chicago Board and Kimbrough have failed to provide, a sufficient number of qualified special education and related services personnel at the CCJ School to guarantee that all pretrial detainees eligible for special education receive a free appropriate public education.
32. Defendants Chicago Board and Ted D. Kimbrough have failed to provide special education services which are comparable to the regular and special education services defendants provide to otherwise similarly situated students who are not CCJ pretrial detainees. Unlike CCJ pretrial detainees who are eligible for regular or special education, similarly situated non-detainee
28

students in the Chicago Public Schools are i) taught courses in addition to reading and math, including vocational education, art, social studies and science and ii) provided with textbooks and workbooks and other instructional materials. Also unlike CCJ pretrial detainees who are eligible for special education and related services, similarly situated non-detainee students in special education programs in the Chicago Public Schools are: i) provided multidisciplinary staffing conferences; ii) taught in classes in which the teacher student ratio is 1 to 8; and iii) provided with needed related services such as speech-language assessment and instruction, other learning disabilities assessment and instruction and social work services.
33. CCJ School students, both special education and nonspecial education eligible, who attempt to enroll in their neighborhood Chicago public school after release from the CCJ are routinely denied admission solely because of their status as expretrial detainees. Defendants Chicago Board and Kimbrough have no liaison or transition programs or staff available to assure that each detainee released from the CCJ who is eligible for enrollment in a public school is able to take advantage of his/her right to such enrollment and is not refused admission because of his/her status as an ex-pretrial detainee.
34. Defendants Chicago Board and Kimbrough have failed to implement any system for: i) notifying CCJ detainees of the availability of, and their potential eligibility for, special
education services; ii) notifying CCJ detainees of any procedures
29

by which they can exercise their right to such services and contest their deprivation of such right, and; iii) determining after the aforesaid notice and hearing the educational eligibility and needs of each CCJ detainee who requests special educational services. As a result of defendants' failure to implement such a system, the majority of plaintiff class members have been deprived of their right to special education services without having knowledge of such right and without having had an opportunity to contest their deprivation of such right.
35. On August 21, 1992, the Office for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education (hereinafter "OCR") determined that the Chicago Public School District was in violation of § 504 for failing to provide a free appropriate public education to all youthful detainees with disabilities at the CCJ. OCR arranged a settlement agreement with the Chicago Board to resolve its failure to comply with § 504. According to this settlement, the Chicago Board agreed to make available to all detainees eligible for and wanting special education services a free appropriate education, provided such detainees can be expected to remain at the CCJ more than 30 days. The agreement provided further that the Chicago Board will implement procedures to: a) identify within 10 days of notice of their availability for screening detainees who are suspected of, or who have been found to have, disabilities requiring special education or related services; b) evaluate within 60 days of identification such detainee's need
for special education and develop and implement an individualized
30

educational program; and c) provide educational services to detainees once they are suspected of having, or have been found to have, a disability, provided they want such services and can be expected to remain at the CCJ for more than 30 days.
36. Rather than taking the steps necessary to implement the terms of this settlement agreement with OCR, the Chicago Board and Kimbrough have further reduced the already inadequate availability of special education programs to eligible detainees. On August 28, 1992, shortly after the OCR Settlement Agreement, the Chicago defendants ordered the CCJ School staff to make the following program reductions: 1) reduce the school year from 52 weeks to 39 weeks; 2) eliminate 9 staff positions, including four teacher positions, and; 3) reduce the CCJ School budget from $4 million to $2-$3 million. These defendants made these reductions in the CCJ School's budget in spite of the July, 1991 request by the Sheriff of Cook County, the official with ultimate governmental responsibility for the CCJ, that the Chicago Board double the current capacity of the CCJ School program in light of the unprecedented overcrowding at the CCJ and the scheduled opening of fourteen new classrooms.
37. The CCJ School's reduction in budget, in the length of the school year and in staff positions will further deprive CCJ detainees who are eligible for and in need of special education and related services of their right to a free appropriate public education. Besides adding to the overcrowding of special education classes and a reduction in the number of eligible detainees who can
31

be served at the CCJ School, these reductions have virtually eliminated the CCJ School staff's capacity to: i) provide timely initial evaluations of and multidisciplinary staffings for their special education students; ii) provide such students with social work services; iii) provide such students with related services and; iv) provide such students with transition or liaison services to enable them to return to their home schools or alternative education programs after release.
38. Plaintiffs are suffering immediate and irreparable harm from the defendants' actions, omissions, policies and practices complained of herein and will continue to suffer such harm unless defendants are enjoined. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
LEGAL VIOLATIONS 39. Defendants Illinois Board, Board members and Leininger have violated and continue to violate plaintiffs' rights under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300 et seq and under § 504 and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104 et seq by:
a. failing to assure for all children with disabilities as defined by 34 C.F.R. § 300.5 until age 21 or successful completion of their secondary program (23 111. Admin. Code § 22 6.120) the right to a free appropriate public education as defined by 34 C.F.R. § 300.4 (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(1) and (2) (B) , 1414(a)(2) and (6), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.l(a), 300.121(a), 300.300(a));
32

b. failing to provide special education and related

services to youthful detainees at CCJ after it has been made clear

that the Chicago Board is unable or unwilling to establish and

maintain programs of free appropriate public education for those

detainees (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)).

c. failing to have policies and procedures to assure

that all detainees with disabilities who are in need of special

education regardless of the severity of their disabilities are

identified, located and evaluated (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(2)(C),

1414(a) (1) (A) , 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.128(a) (1)), 300.220);

d. failing to have policies and procedures to assure

that a practical method is developed and implemented to determine

which detainees are currently receiving needed special education

and related services and which children are not currently receiving

/

needed special education and related services (20 U.S.C. §§

1412(2) (C) , 1414(a)(1)(A), 34 C.F.R. § 300.128(a) (2));

e. failing to develop monitoring policies and

procedures to assure that the Illinois Board both (i) knows the

number of handicapped detainees within each disability category

that have been identified, located and evaluated and (ii) obtains

information adequate to evaluate the effectiveness of its policies

and procedures in meeting its obligations under paragraphs c and d

of this paragraph (34 C.F.R. § 300.128(b)(5));

f. failing to assure that the Chicago Board develops

and implements an individualized education program for each

detainee with a disability (34 C.F.R. § 300.341(a));

33

g. failing to assure that the Chicago Board maintains records of the IEP for each school-age detainee with a disability and that the IEP for each detainee shall be established, reviewed and, if necessary, revised (20 U.S.C § 1412(4), 34 C.F.R. § 300.130(a));
h. failing to provide for procedures for evaluation of the effectiveness of programs, including IEPs, in meeting the educational needs of school-age detainees with disabilities (20 U.S.C. § 1413(a)(11);
i. failing to assure that disabled students in the CCJ School are provided special education services that are comparable in kind and quality to the services the Chicago Board provides for disabled and non-disabled students in regular and special education programs outside of the CCJ School (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(c), 34 C.F.R. § 300.231(b), Section 504, 34 C.F.R; §§ 104.33(b) and 104.34(C));
j . failing to assure that there is an adequate supply of qualified special education and related services personnel (20 U.S.C. §§ 1413(a)(3)(A), 1414(a)(1)(C)(i));
k. failing to assure that the special education and related services personnel are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained (20 U.S.C. §§ 1413(a)(3)(B) and (a)(14), 1414(a)(1)(C)(i), 34 C.F.R. § 300.153(b)(1))?
1. failing to assure that it and the Chicago Board maintain genuine procedural safeguards for school-age detainees with disabilities and their parents or guardians (20 U.S.C. §§
34

1412(5) (A), 1414(a)(7), 1415, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.131, 300.501, 300.506) ;
m. failing to assure that the Chicago Board provides written notice to the parents or guardians of school-age detainees with disabilities informing them of the available procedural safeguards whenever the Chicago Board proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, educational placement or free appropriate public education of the detainees (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) (1) (C), (D) , 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.504, 300.505));
n. failing to evaluate at least annually the effectiveness of the Chicago Board's programs, including IEPs, in meeting the educational needs of detainees with disabilities (20 U.S.C. § 1413(a)(ll), 34 C.F.R. § 300.146);
o. failing to assure the Chicago Board's compliance with all requirements of the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(6), 34 C.F.R. § 300.600)
40. Defendants Chicago Board and Kimbrough have violated and continue to violate plaintiffs' rights under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300 et seq and under § 504 and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104 et seg by:
a. failing to provide for all children with disabilities as defined by 34 C.F.R. § 300.5 until age 21 or successful completion of their secondary program (23 111. Admin. Code § 226.120) a free appropriate public education as defined by 34
35

C.F.R. § 300.4 (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(1) and (2)(B), 1414(a)(2) and (6), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.l(a), 300.121(a), 300.300(a));
b. failing to identify, locate and evaluate all schoolage detainees at CCJ with disabilities who are in need of special education regardless of the severity of their disabilities (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(2)(C), 1414(a)(1)(A), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.128(a)(1), 300.220) ;
c. failing to develop and implement a practical method for determining which school-age detainees at CCJ are currently receiving needed special education and related services and which are not. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(2) (C), 1414 (a) (1) (A) , 34 C.F.R. § 300.220);
d. failing to conduct a meeting, for the purposes of developing an IEP# within 30 days of a determination that a schoolage detainee at CCJ needs special education and related services (34 C.F.R. § 300.343(c));
e. failing to provide an IEP for each school-age detainee at CCJ with a disability (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(5), 34 C.F.R. § 300.342);
f. failing to consult with individuals involved in or concerned with the education of school-age detainees at CCJ with disabilities, including their parents (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(7), 1414(a)(1)(C)(iii), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.226, 300.345);
g. failing to maintain records on the IEPs for each school-age detainee at CCJ with a disability so that the IEPs can
36

be reviewed and, if necessary, revised (20 U.S.C. § 1412(4), 34 C.F.R. § 300.130(a));
h. failing to review each IEP and, if appropriate, to revise the IEP to better meet the needs of the school-age detainees with disabilities (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(5), 34 C.F.R. §§ 3OO.130(a), 300.343(d));
i. failing to provide disabled students in the CCJ School special education services that are comparable in kind and quality to the services it provides for disabled and non-disabled students in regular and special education programs outside of the CCJ School (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(C), 34 C.F.R. § 300.231(b), 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33(b) and 104.34(c));
j . failing to assure that there is an adequate supply of qualified special education and related services personnel at CCJ School (20 U.S.C. §§ 1413(a)(3)(A), 1414(a)(1)(C)(i)) ;
k. failing to assure that the special education and related services personnel at CCJ School are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained (U.S.C. §§ 1413(a)(3)(B) and (a)(14), 1414(a)(l)(C)(i));
1. failing to maintain genuine procedural safeguards for school-age detainees at CCJ with disabilities and their parents or guardians (20 U.S.C. §§ 1412 (5) (A), 1414 (a) (6) and (7), 1415, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.237, 300.501, 300.506);
m. failing to provide written notice to parents of school-age detainees at CCJ with disabilities, informing them of the available procedural safeguards whenever the Chicago Board
37

proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, educational placement or free appropriate public education of children (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) (1) (C) , (D) , 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.504, 300.505); and
n. failing to assure and guarantee compliance with all requirements of the IDEA and its implementing regulations (34 C.F.R. § 300.231(a)).
41. It is the policy of defendants to comply with all of the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in paragraphs 19 and 20 above in regard to their provision of special education and related services to students who are not pretrial detainees. Defendants' failure to provide plaintiffs with the special education and related services and procedural safeguards that defendants provide persons similarly situated to plaintiffs except for their status as pretrial detainees denies plaintiffs the equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
42. Defendants' denial of all special education and related services to certain plaintiffs who are eligible for and in need of such services violates those plaintiffs' right to substantive due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by putting them at an inordinate risk of intellectual deterioration and life-long illiteracy and economic dependency.
43. Defendants' failure to implement any system for i) notifying school-age CCJ detainees of the availability of, and their potential eligibility for, special education and related
38

services; ii) notifying CCJ detainees of any procedures by which they can exercise their right to such services and contest their deprivation of such right, and; iii) determining after the aforesaid notice and hearing the educational eligibility and needs of each CCJ detainee who requests special educational services denies plaintiffs' right to procedural due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
COUNT II; REGULAR EDUCATION Factual Statement
44. Illinois Rev. Stat. Ch. 122 § 10-20.12 (1991) mandates that the Chicago Board secure for all persons within its school district who are older than 5 and younger than 21 the right and opportunity to an equal education by establishing and operating a sufficient number of free schools.
45. The Chicago Board makes free secondary education services available to non-pretrial detainees who are under 21, reside within the City of Chicago and have not received a high school diploma.
46. The Chicago Board currently provides a program of regular education services for a few eligible school-age CCJ detainees. However, the Chicago Board and Kimbrough, with the acquiescence of the State defendeants, have failed to develop and implement policies to provide regular education services to all of the eligible detainees in the CCJ who desire regular education services. According to the Chicago Defendants' own data, in October 1992. The Chicago Board was not providing educational
39

services to approximately 1,500 CCJ school-age detainees. 47. The program of regular educational services that the
Chicago Board does provide to school-age detainees lacks the teachers and materials necessary to provide such detainees educational services equal to those defendants provide to students who are not pretrial detainees. Because the CCJ School program offers school-age detainees instruction in little more than reading and math, students are deprived of instruction in subjects such as vocational education, art, social studies, and science, which subjects are made available by defendants to students of equivalent ages and grade levels who are not pre-trial detainees. Further, CCJ School students are deprived of the basic materials of education, including textbooks, workbooks, writing paper and pencils which are necessary for effective learning and are made available to students of equivalent ages and grade levels who are not pre-trial detainees.
48. State and local government has a critical interest in making education available to all eligible school age youths and has no interest in denying educational services to otherwise eligible school-age youth on the ground that such youth are pretrial detainees. To the contrary, state and local government has a heightened interest in providing education to such youth because of education's critical importance in enabling such youth to obtain future employment and to avoid future involvement in criminal activity. This interest is of even greater significance in the
context of the CCJ detainee population in which substantial numbers
40

context of the CCJ detainee population in which substantial numbers of pretrial detainees under the age of 21 do not possess the basic minimal skills necessary for the enjoyment of the rights of speech, for full participation in the political process and for minimal economic self-sufficiency.
49. Defendants' failure to provide, or assure the provision of, regular educational services to otherwise eligible pretrial detainees on an equal basis with the educational services that are provided to persons who are similarly situated to plaintiffs except for the fact they are not pretrial detainees is not substantially or even rationally related to any valid governmental interest. There is, in addition, no substantial or rational basis for defendants' failure to provide regular educational services to otherwise eligible CCJ pretrial detainees when the State of Illinois makes available through School District # 428 such services to convicted persons who are incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
50. Because the plaintiff class is incarcerated and continually changing in membership, plaintiffs cannot compete for their fair share of educational resources on an equal basis with groups whose members are not incarcerated. Because the plaintiff class in primarily Afro-American and Hispanic, it is associated with racial groups that historically have been discriminated against and the recepients of inadequate, unequal educational
41

resources. The plaintiff class is further disavantaged in seeking a fair share of educational resources because of the public stigma associated with its members' status as accused criminals.
51. Defendants have failed to implement any system for i) notifying school-age CCJ detainees of the availability of, and their potential eligibility for, regular education services; ii) notifying CCJ detainees of any procedures by which they can exercise their right to such services and contest their deprivation of such right, and; iii) determining after the aforesaid notice and hearing the educational eligibility and needs of each CCJ detainee who requests regular educational services. As a result of defendants' failure to implement such a system, the majority of plaintiff class members have been deprived of their right to regular education services without having knowledge of such right and without having had an opportunity to contest their deprivation of such right.
52. Plaintiffs are suffering immediate and irreparable harm from the defendants' actions, omissions, policies and practices complained of herein and will continue to suffer such harm unless defendants are enjoined. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
LEGAL VIOLATIONS 53. By failing to protect the plaintiff class from the arbitrary and invidious actions of the Chicago defendants alleged in 55 46, 47 and 51 above, defendants Illinois Board members and Leininger have violated their legal duties regarding the education
42

of students with and without disabilities pursuant to 111. Rev. Stat. Ch.122 § 2-3.3 (w(t)o supervise all the public schools in the State"), 111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 122 § 2-3.6, ("(t)o make rules necessary to carry into efficient and uniform effect all laws for establishing and maintaining free schools in the State,11) and, 111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 122 § 2-3.25, ("(t)o determine for all types of schools conducted under this Act (conferring powers and duties on the State Board) efficient and adequate standards for the . .instruction and teaching, curriculum, library operation, maintenance, administration and supervision, and to issue, refuse to issue or revoke certificates of recognition for schools or school districts pursuant to standards established . . . . (under the Act). . . . " ) .
54. By intentionally failing to develop and implement policies sufficient to provide regular educational services to all eligible school-age detainees in the CCJ on an equal basis with the services provided non-pretrial detainees, defendants Leininger, members of the Illinois Board of Education, Kimbrough and the Chicago Board of Education have violated and continue to violate plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants' denial of all education services to many plaintiffs who do not possess the basic minimal skills necessary for the enjoyment of the rights of speech, for full participation in the political process and for minimal economic self-sufficiency, in addition,
43

denies such detainees their constitutional right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.
55. The failure of defendants Leininger, members of the Illinois Board of Education, Kimbrough and the Chicago Board to implement any system for i) notifying school-age CCJ detainees of the availability of, and their potential eligibility for, regular education services; ii) notifying CCJ detainees of any procedures by which they can exercise their right to such services and contest their deprivation of such right, and; iii) determining after the aforesaid notice and hearing the educational eligibility and needs of each CCJ detainee who requests regular educational services violates plaintiffs' right to procedural due process of law.
COUMT III; STATE LAW COUMT AGAINST THE CHICAGO BOARD 56. As paragraph 56 of Count III, plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 38 and 44 through 52 above. 57. By failing to provide any regular education services to many school-age detainees under the age of 21 who have not graduated from high school and who desire to continue with their education by receiving regular educational instruction while incarcerated at the CCJ, the Chicago Board has violated its statutory duties under 111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 122 § 10-20.12 (1991). 58. By denying to those school-age detainees who are enrolled in the limited regular education program provided by the Chicago Board sufficient teachers, materials and instruction necessary to provide such detainees with educational services equal to those the Chicago Board provides to students who are not pretrial detainees,
44

the Chicago Board has violated its statutory duty under 111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 122 § 10-20.12 (1991).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request on behalf of themselves and the plaintiff class the following relief: 1. Issue a declaratory judgment that the defendants' actions, omissions, policies and practices complained of herein violate rights guaranteed to members of the plaintiff class by i) the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq. ii) § 504 and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104 et seq. and iii) the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining all of the defendants their agents, employees, successors in office and assigns from engaging in the omissions, policies and practices complained about above regarding their duties under the IDEA and Section 504. 3. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction compelling defendants Illinois Board members, Leininger, the Chicago Board and Kimbrough, their agents, employees, successors in office and assigns from engaging in the omissions, policies and practices complained about above regarding their duties under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 4. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction compelling defendants to develop in consultation with the attorneys for
45

plaintiffs and to submit a plan to the Court that will insure the effective and expeditious implementation of their duties as specified above.
5. Issue a declaratory judgment that the defendants Chicago Board and Ted. D. Kimbrough by their actions, omissions, policies and practices alleged in paragraphs 57 and 58 above have violated rights guaranteed to plaintiffs by 111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 122 § 1020.12 (1991) and issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants Chicago Board and Ted. D. Kimbrough their agents, employees, successors in office and assigns from engaging in the omissions, policies and practices complained about in paragraphs 57 and 58 above.
6. Award costs and attorney's fees on behalf of plaintiffs. 7. Grant such other or additional relief as this court may deem just and proper.
Jpffii S. Elsdl ie of the Attorneys for plaintiffs
John S. Elson Northwestern University Legal Clinic 357 E. Chicago Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 312-503-8573
Ruthanne DeWolfe Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago 343 South Dearborn Chicago, Illinois 60604 312-341-1070
46

 
 Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. of Ed.

^w

H v

H M

HH H HitH

^"

• "«

H

HV

H

H

HH

»™

»™

JI-IL-002-002

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DONNELL C., et al., Plaintiffs,
v. THE ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) No. 92 C 8230 ) ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiffs are twenty-three individual school-aged pretrial

detainees in the Cook County Jail. Plaintiffs allege they have

either been denied complete access to regular and special

educational services during their period of pretrial detention, or

have received services vastly inferior to those provided non-

detainees.

Plaintiffs claim their condition violates the

substantive and procedural components of the Fourteenth Amendment

Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et

seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as well

as Illinois law.

Plaintiffs' complaint groups their claims against defendants1 into three categories. Count I states a claim in favor

1 Plaintiffs have named as defendants the Illinois State Board of Education and its individual members, the City of Chicago Board of Education, the superintendents of both boards, the Cook County Board and its president, and the Sheriff and Director of the

2 of those plaintiffs deprived of special educational services, alleging violations of federal constitutional and statutory law. Count II states a similar claim on behalf of plaintiffs deprived of regular educational services, alleging violations of the United States Constitution and Illinois law. Count III invokes the court's supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, stating a violation of 105 ILCS 5/10-20.12 (West 1992). Plaintiffs have requested declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.
Before the court is State of Illinois defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants challenge plaintiffs' assertion of cognizable constitutional right to educational services, and the right of plaintiffs in need of special educational services to sue under IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act.
ANALYSIS I. Constitutional Claims
It is uncontested that there is no explicit protection of a right to education under the federal constitution. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1982). Nor is education a fundamental right requiring a state to demonstrate a compelling necessity for every variation in the manner in which education is provided to its population. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 223 (1982).
However, the Supreme Court has never definitively stated whether a minimally adequate education is a fundamental right, or
Department of Corrections of Cook County.

3 whether a statute that discriminates in that area is accorded heightened equal protection review. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 285 (1986). in Rodriguez, the court opined that it was possible, though doubtful, that a minimal level of education is a constitutionally protected prerequisite to the meaningful exercise of First Amendment rights. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 35-37. In Plyler, the court indicated that the deprivation of basic educational services must be rationally related to a substantial goal of the state, Plyler, 457 U.S. at 224, a somewhat higher standard of review than that normally imposed in the absence of a suspect classification or fundamental right. See Lawline v. American Bar Association, 956 F.2d 1378, 1385 (7th Cir. 1992) (must be rationally related to legitimate state interest).
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges only approximately 39% of those school age pretrial detainees in need of special educational services were receiving them. Further, they were not being taught courses other than reading and math, did not have textbooks, workbooks or other instructional materials, and were not given learning disability assessment and instruction. The complaint also alleges that as of October, 1991, some 1,470 school age pretrial detainees in the Cook County Jail were not receiving any kind of educational services, and what instructional services there were were limited to the areas of reading and math. These are not legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, Papasan, 478 U.S. at 286, but serious factual allegations of a lack of instruction on even the educational basics, or worse, a total lack of instruction

4 altogether. Taking these allegations to be true, which the court must, Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Bush, 918 F.2d 1323, 1326 (7th Cir. 1990), the court cannot say that no relief could be granted plaintiffs. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). Plaintiffs' complaint states a claim under the substantive component of the Due Process clause.
Plaintiffs' complaint states a valid claim under the Equal Protection clause as well. The court does not doubt that maintaining prison security, the justification provided by defendants for their failure to provide pretrial detainees the educational services given to children in free society, is a legitimate, or even substantial, state interest. Cf. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546-47 (1979). However there must still be a rational relationship between defendants' alleged actions and this interest to justify- the disparity in treatment. Such a relationship is not difficult to establish, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869, 881 (1985). Nevertheless if defendant's action are sufficiently unrelated to any combination of legitimate purposes, or the relationship between them is sufficiently attenuated as to render the disparity arbitrary, no rational relationship has been shown. Nordlinger v. Hahn, 112 S. Ct. 2326, 2332 (1992); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 111 S. Ct. 2395, 2406 (1991).
In this case, defendants have done little to establish such a rational relationship. Their basic argument is that "if inmates could sue in federal court that a particular service they receive

5 (or are denied) does not "equal" what they could get in the free community, this too would result in chaos." In the first place, this argument does not relate to the state's interest in maintaining prison security, but the state's desire to be free of prisoner litigation. In the second, the Fourteenth Amendment does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages. Ross v. Moffitt', 417 U.S. 600, 612 (1974) (quoting Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 2 4 ) . Apocryphal claims of burdensome litigation do not justify disparate treatment under the Equal Protection Clause.
In French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994 (7th Cir. 1976), the Seventh Circuit was faced with an equal protection challenge by Indiana prison inmates to an Indiana Department of Corrections decision to limit vocational training to inmates with short indeterminate sentences. The court noted that defendants had failed to explain or articulate the bases for the distinctions drawn in the prison vocational training program and, although it envisioned what some purposes for the distinctions might be, declared:
[W]e cannot indulge in supplying an imaginary purpose or basis for the classification, McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 277 (1973), and thereby preclude plaintiffs from showing that such an "apparent" basis does not actually exist. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 426, 427 (1961) French, 547 F.2d at 999. At least on defendants' motion to dismiss, the court must do likewise. Plaintiffs' claim of a procedural due process violation depends upon the creation of a constitutionally protected property interest in 105 ILCS 5/10-20.12, which obligates each school board in Illinois to keep in operation a sufficient number of free

6 schools for the accommodation of all persons between the ages of 5 and 21, "and to secure for all such persons the right and opportunity to an equal education in such schools." A similar law in Ohio was held to create such a protectible interest. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 573-74 (1975).
Defendants point out however, that Illinois has established a separate school district to provide for the educational needs of Department of Corrections inmates at all educational levels, 105 ILCS 5/13-40, and has invested the school board of this district with discretion to assign and reassign students, suspend or expel them for disciplinary purposes, and transfer students to other programs more suited to his needs, or the needs of the district. 105 ILCS 5/13-43.II.2 Noticeably absent however, is the grant of power to the school board to remove an inmate from an educational program without cause. The school boards' interest in discipline for its own administrative needs and the educational needs of its charges certainly would figure into a determination of what process is due plaintiffs, Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 3335 (1976), but they are not indicative: of the absence of a protectible interest which may deprived without due process.3
Defendants have one other objection to plaintiffs' claim of a
2 It is unclear from the briefing by the parties whether the Cook County Jail school maintained for the benefit of pretrial detainees is authorized by § 5/13-40, which creates a school district for the benefit of inmates and wards within the Department of Corrections.
3 Resolution of this issue in plaintiff's favor is also dispositive of the validity of plaintiffs' state law claims under Count III.

7 procedural due. process violation. They argue that by virtue of the probable cause hearing or indictment process undertaken before the confinement of any pretrial detainee, plaintiffs have already received whatever process they are due. This argument is a nonsequitur. Probable cause to detain an accused does not equate to a determination as to the accused conditions of confinement. Bell, 441 U.S. at 533-34.

II. Statutory Claims

The IDEA 's purpose is to assure that "all children with

disabilities" have a free appropriate public education which

emphasizes special education.. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c). "Special

education" has been defined to include instruction conducted in the

classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other

settings. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(16). The IDEA confers upon disabled

students an enforceable right to public education in participating

states. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 310 (1988). The only question

here, raised by defendants, are whether the language referring to

"all children" and to instruction "in hospitals and institutions,

and in other settings" was meant to apply to pretrial detainees.

The Department of Education certainly thinks so. Its Office

of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has found the Act

to apply to state correctional facilities.

34 C.F.R.

§ 300.2(b)(4). Where Congress has delegated authority to an

administrative agency to interpret the provisions of a statute in

its rules and regulations, that interpretation is given controlling

weight unless arbitrary or capricious. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984). Defendants have not given the court any genuine reason to believe that § 300.2(b)(4) is arbitrary or capricious, and the rulemaking history belies any such assertion. 42 FR 42,474 (1977). Accordingly, plaintiffs may maintain a cause of action under IDEA.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794(a) provides that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability shall, solely because of that disability, be excluded from participation in or subject to discrimination "under any program or activity" receiving federal financial assistance. "Program or activity" includes all of the operations of a department agency, special purpose district or other instrumentality of a state or local government. 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(1)(A). Contrary to defendants' assertion, the Act is applicable to inmates at correctional facilities. Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 562 (7th Cir. 1988) . There is no apparent basis for singling out plaintiffs from this interpretation of the Act because they are pretrial detainees rather than convicted prisoners. Plaintiffs allege that the average stay in pretrial detention for school age individuals is 180 days. Defendants have seen fit - wisely - to provide educational services for those detainees and have elected to receive federal funds to facilitate that task. This places them within the scope of the Rehabilitation Act.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, State defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.
ENTER:

DATED:

rr. fin

DBERG States Distric

 
 829 F.Supp. 1016 (1993)
DONNELL C., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
The ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
No. 92 C 8230.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.
August 20, 1993.
1017 *1017 Ruthanne DeWolfe, Legal Assistance Foundation, John S. Elson, Northwestern University Legal Clinic, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs.
Thomas A. Ioppolo, Illinois Atty. Gen.'s Office, Chicago, IL, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
NORDBERG, District Judge.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs are twenty-three individual school-aged pretrial detainees in the Cook County Jail. Plaintiffs allege they have either been denied complete access to regular and special educational services during their period of pretrial detention, or have received services vastly inferior to those provided non-detainees. Plaintiffs claim their condition violates the substantive and procedural components of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as well as Illinois law. 1018 *1018 Plaintiffs' complaint groups their claims against defendants[1] into three categories. Count I states a claim in favor of those plaintiffs deprived of special educational services, alleging violations of federal constitutional and statutory law. Count II states a similar claim on behalf of plaintiffs deprived of regular educational services, alleging violations of the United States Constitution and Illinois law. Count III invokes the court's supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, stating a violation of 105 ILCS 5/10-20.12 (West 1992). Plaintiffs have requested declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.
Before the court is State of Illinois defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants challenge plaintiffs' assertion of cognizable constitutional right to educational services, and the right of plaintiffs in need of special educational services to sue under IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act.
ANALYSIS
I. Constitutional Claims
It is uncontested that there is no explicit protection of a right to education under the federal constitution. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1297, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). Nor is education a fundamental right requiring a state to demonstrate a compelling necessity for every variation in the manner in which education is provided to its population. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 223, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2397, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982).

However, the Supreme Court has never definitively stated whether a minimally adequate education is a fundamental right, or whether a statute that discriminates in that area is accorded heightened equal protection review. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 285, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 2944, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986). In Rodriguez, the court opined that it was possible, though doubtful, that a minimal level of education is a constitutionally protected prerequisite to the meaningful exercise of First Amendment rights. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 35-37, 93 S.Ct. at 1297-99. In Plyler, the court indicated that the deprivation of basic educational services must be rationally related to a substantial goal of the state, Plyler, 457 U.S. at 224, 102 S.Ct. at 2398, a somewhat higher standard of review than that normally imposed in the absence of a suspect classification or fundamental right. See Lawline v. American Bar Association, 956 F.2d 1378, 1385 (7th Cir.1992) (must be rationally related to legitimate state interest).
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges only approximately 39% of those school age pretrial detainees in need of special educational services were receiving them. Further, they were not being taught courses other than reading and math, did not have textbooks, workbooks or other instructional materials, and were not given learning disability assessment and instruction. The complaint also alleges that as of October, 1991, some 1,470 school age pretrial detainees in the Cook County Jail were not receiving any kind of educational services, and what instructional services there were were limited to the areas of reading and math. These are not legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, Papasan, 478 U.S. at 286, 106 S.Ct. at 2944, but serious factual allegations of a lack of instruction on even the educational basics, or worse, a total lack of instruction altogether. Taking these allegations to be true, which the court must, Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Bush, 918 F.2d 1323, 1326 (7th Cir.1990), the court cannot say that no relief could be granted plaintiffs. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). Plaintiffs' complaint states a claim under the substantive component of the Due Process clause.
Plaintiffs' complaint states a valid claim under the Equal Protection clause as well. The court does not doubt that maintaining prison security, the justification provided by defendants for their failure to provide pretrial detainees 1019 the educational services *1019 given to children in free society, is a legitimate, or even substantial, state interest. Cf. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546-47, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). However there must still be a rational relationship between defendants' alleged actions and this interest to justify the disparity in treatment. Such a relationship is not difficult to establish, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869, 881, 105 S.Ct. 1676, 1683, 84 L.Ed.2d 751 (1985). Nevertheless if defendant's actions are sufficiently unrelated to any combination of legitimate purposes, or the relationship between them is sufficiently attenuated as to render the disparity arbitrary, no rational relationship has been shown. Nordlinger v. Hahn, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2326, 2332, 120 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992); Gregory v. Ashcroft, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 2406, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991).
In this case, defendants have done little to establish such a rational relationship. Their basic argument is that "if inmates could sue in federal court that a particular service they receive (or are denied) does not "equal" what they could get in the free community, this too would result in chaos." In the first place, this argument does not relate to the state's interest in maintaining prison security, but the state's desire to be free of prisoner litigation. In the second, the Fourteenth Amendment does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages. Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 612, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 2444, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974) (quoting Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 24, 93 S.Ct. at 1292). Apocryphal claims of burdensome litigation do not justify disparate treatment under the Equal Protection Clause.
In French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994 (7th Cir.1976), the Seventh Circuit was faced with an equal protection challenge by Indiana prison inmates to an Indiana Department of Corrections decision to limit vocational training to inmates with short indeterminate sentences. The court noted that defendants had failed to explain or articulate the bases for the distinctions drawn in the prison vocational training program and, although it envisioned what some purposes for the distinctions might be, declared:
[W]e cannot indulge in supplying an imaginary purpose or basis for the classification, McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 277 [93 S.Ct. 1055, 1063, 35 L.Ed.2d 282] (1973), and thereby preclude plaintiffs from showing that such an "apparent" basis does not actually exist. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 426 [420], 427 [81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393] (1961)

French, 547 F.2d at 999. At least on defendants' motion to dismiss, the court must do likewise.
Plaintiffs' claim of a procedural due process violation depends upon the creation of a constitutionally protected property interest in 105 ILCS 5/10-20.12, which obligates each school board in Illinois to keep in operation a sufficient number of free schools for the accommodation of all persons between the ages of 5 and 21, "and to secure for all such persons the right and opportunity to an equal education in such schools." A similar law in Ohio was held to create such a protectible interest. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 573-74, 95 S.Ct. 729, 736, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975).
Defendants point out however, that Illinois has established a separate school district to provide for the educational needs of Department of Corrections inmates at all educational levels, 105 ILCS 5/13-40, and has invested the school board of this district with discretion to assign and reassign students, suspend or expel them for disciplinary purposes, and transfer students to other programs more suited to his needs, or the needs of the district. 105 ILCS 5/13-43.11.[2] Noticeably absent however, is the grant of power to the school board to remove an inmate from an educational program without cause. The school boards' interest in discipline for its own administrative needs and the educational needs of its charges certainly would figure into a determination of what 1020 process is due plaintiffs, Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333-35, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 *1020 (1976), but they are not indicative of the absence of a protectible interest which may deprived without due process.[3]
Defendants have one other objection to plaintiffs' claim of a procedural due process violation. They argue that by virtue of the probable cause hearing or indictment process undertaken before the confinement of any pretrial detainee, plaintiffs have already received whatever process they are due. This argument is a non-sequitur. Probable cause to detain an accused does not equate to a determination as to the accused conditions of confinement. Bell, 441 U.S. at 533-34, 99 S.Ct. at 1871.
II. Statutory Claims
The IDEA's purpose is to assure that "all children with disabilities" have a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c). "Special education" has been defined to include instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (16). The IDEA confers upon disabled students an enforceable right to public education in participating states. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 310, 108 S.Ct. 592, 597, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988). The only question here, raised by defendants, are whether the language referring to "all children" and to instruction "in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings" was meant to apply to pretrial detainees.
The Department of Education certainly thinks so. Its Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has found the Act to apply to state correctional facilities. 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(4). Where Congress has delegated authority to an administrative agency to interpret the provisions of a statute in its rules and regulations, that interpretation is given controlling weight unless arbitrary or capricious. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Defendants have not given the court any genuine reason to believe that § 300.2(b)(4) is arbitrary or capricious, and the rulemaking history belies any such assertion. 42 FR 42,474 (1977). Accordingly, plaintiffs may maintain a cause of action under IDEA.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) provides that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability shall, solely because of that disability, be excluded from participation in or subject to discrimination "under any program or activity" receiving federal financial assistance. "Program or activity" includes all of the operations of a department agency, special purpose district or other instrumentality of a state or local government. 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(1)(A). Contrary to defendants' assertion, the Act is applicable to inmates at correctional facilities. Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 562 (9th Cir.1988). There is no apparent basis for singling out plaintiffs from this interpretation of the Act because they are pretrial detainees rather than convicted prisoners. Plaintiffs allege that the average stay in pretrial detention for school age individuals is 180 days.

Defendants have seen fit 0907 wisely 0907 to provide educational services for those detainees and have elected to receive federal funds to facilitate that task. This places them within the scope of the Rehabilitation Act.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, State defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.
[1] Plaintiffs have named as defendants the Illinois State Board of Education and its individual members, the City of Chicago Board of Education, the superintendents of both boards, the Cook County Board and its president, and the Sheriff and Director of the Department of Corrections of Cook County. [2] It is unclear from the briefing by the parties whether the Cook County Jail school maintained for the benefit of pretrial detainees is authorized by § 5/13-40, which creates a school district for the benefit of inmates and wards within the Department of Corrections. [3] Resolution of this issue in plaintiff's favor is also dispositive of the validity of plaintiffs' state law claims under Count III.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1995)

1995 WL 248111 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern
Division.
DONNELL C., et al., Plaintiffs, and
United States of America v.
The ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
No. 92 C 8230. | April 25, 1995.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
NORDBERG, District Judge.
*1 Before the Court is the County Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of attorney’s fees and costs.
UNDISPUTED FACTS The Plaintiffs in this action are a certified class of all pretrial detainees who are or will be confined within the divisions of the Cook County Jail and who are or will be entitled under state or federal law to free regular or special education services. (Stipulation of the Parties as to the Certification of the Class.) Plaintiffs originally filed this action on December 17, 1992 against the Illinois State Board of Education and its members (State Defendants), and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago and the Superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools (Chicago Defendants). Plaintiffs made amendments to their Complaint on April 8, 1993 and November 1, 1993. In their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs seek to enforce their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 - 1485, and its implementing regulations, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulations and under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Second Amended Complaint at ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs also assert the City Defendants have violated their duties under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.12.
Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1412(6), the State Defendants are responsible for assuring that all children with disabilities within Illinois are identified,

located, evaluated and provided with a free appropriate public education. (Second Amended Complaint at ¶ 6.) Regarding the education of all students, disabled and non-disabled, the State Defendants have the following additional duties: (1) supervising all public schools in the state, 105 ILCS 5/2-3.3; (2) making rules necessary to carry into efficient and uniform effect all laws for establishing and maintaining free schools in the state, 105 ILCS 5/2-3.6; and (3) determining for all schools efficient and adequate standards for instruction and teaching, curriculum, library operation, maintenance, administration and supervision, 105 ILCS 5/2-3.5. (Second Amended Complaint at ¶ 6.)
As to the City Defendants, Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1414, the City Defendants are responsible for the administration of special education for all persons within School District # 299, which includes Cook County Jail detainees, from age 6 to 21. (Second Amended Complaint at ¶ 9.) The City Defendants are also required to secure for all school age persons, within School District # 299, the right and opportunity to an equal education by establishing and operating a sufficient number of free schools for the education of such persons. (Second Amended Complaint at ¶ 9 citing 105 ILCS 5/10-20.12.) According to Plaintiffs, the State and City Defendants have not fulfilled their duties under the IDEA and Section 504, and thus have violated Plaintiffs’ rights to educational services secured by these statutes and by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Second Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 43-47.)
*2 The President and members of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, Sheriff Michael Sheahan, and executive Director J.W. Fairman (County Defendants) were later joined by Plaintiffs as necessary parties to this litigation pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In their Motion to Join the County Defendants, the Plaintiffs asserted that, without the County Defendants, the Court would be able to afford Plaintiffs only partial or conditional relief. (Motion to Join County Defendants at 2.) Plaintiffs explained that, while the State and City Defendants are required by state and federal law to provide educational services in the form of teachers and materials, the County Defendants are responsible for providing the necessary space and security staff at the Cook County Jail for the educational services provided by the State and City Defendants. Id. In their Motion, Plaintiffs stated further that they did not name the County Defendants in the original Complaint because, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the County Defendants had committed no acts subjecting them to liability in the present action. Id.
On March 18, 1993, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion
1

Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1995)

to Join the County Defendants pursuant to Rule 19. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint alleging that, as the County Defendants are responsible for the cost and expense of keeping, maintaining, and furnishing the Cook County Jail and of keeping and maintaining its detainees, 730 ILCS 125/20, they are joined so that they can provide “the additional facilities and personnel necessary to provide a complete remedy for the violations of Plaintiffs’ rights by the Illinois and Chicago defendants named above.” (Second Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 11-14.)
In May 1994, the United States of America filed a Complaint in Intervention seeking to enforce a settlement agreement entered into in August 1992 by the City Defendants and the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the City Defendants committed themselves to make available free appropriate education to all detainees under age 21 who do not have a high school diploma, are in need of special education services, have expressed an interest in obtaining educational services and have been given permission to participate by prison officials. (Complaint in Intervention at ¶ 9.) The City Defendants also committed themselves to implementing procedures to identify detainees for screening and evaluation. Id. According to the United States, the City Defendants have failed to provide a free, appropriate education to all eligible students and to timely screen and evaluate school-age detainees with or suspected of having disabilities. Id. at ¶ 10. Thus, the United States brought its Complaint in Intervention to enforce the terms of the August 1992 settlement agreement. In addition to enforcing the settlement agreement, the United States’ Complaint in Intervention seeks to enforce Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134.
*3 The Plaintiffs and the United States have reached a tentative settlement agreement regarding liability with the State, City and County Defendants. Defendants believe that the settlement agreement will also provide for the payment of Plaintiffs’ fees and costs including fees and expenses relating to the court appointed expert. Although Plaintiffs have not petitioned the Court for fees and costs, the State and Chicago Defendants have apparently acknowledged liability for fees and costs. However, the County Defendants, in opposition to the State and Chicago Defendants contentions, assert that they are not liable for Plaintiffs’ fees and costs.
Consequently, the County Defendants have brought the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of liability relating to fees and costs. The County Defendants assert that, because the pleadings filed by the Plaintiffs and the United States do not implicate the County Defendants as wrongdoers, this Court should hold

that the County Defendants are not liable for any of the Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs including the fees and expenses related to the court appointed expert. The State and City Defendants contend that this Court should order the County Defendants to pay one third of the Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs and one third of the expenses relating to the court appointed expert who will monitor the parties’ compliance with the settlement agreement
ANALYSIS Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The initial burden rests on the moving party to show that the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any” fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact, and entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the nonmoving party must produce evidence that creates a genuine issue; the nonmoving party may not rest upon its pleadings. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-326 (1986). Although the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the record are drawn in the non-movant’s favor, see Griffin v. Thomas, 929 F.2d 1210, 1212 (7th Cir. 1991), the non-movant must cast more than “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). As the material facts relevant to this motion are undisputed, the issue of attorney’s fees and costs is ripe for summary judgment.
The fee shifting provisions of § 1988 must be applied against a pre-existing background of substantive liability rules. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 171 (198??). In Kentucky v. Graham, the plaintiffs brought suit against various police officers, in their individual capacities, alleging that the officers had violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. After the plaintiffs settled with the individual officers, they sought attorney’s fees from the officers’ employer, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Supreme Court rejected the petition for attorneys fees noting that, even though the language of § 1988 does not define the parties who must pay the fees and costs, the “logical place to look for the recovery of fees is to the losing party - the party legally responsible for relief on the merits.” 473 U.S. at 164.
*4 In Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754 (1989), the Supreme Court further emphasized the crucial connection between liability for a violation of federal law and liability for attorney’s fees under federal fee shifting statutes. The Supreme Court determined that § 706(k) does not permit a court to assess liability for attorney’s fees against intervenors who have
2

Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1995)

not been found to have violated the Civil Rights Act or any other federal law unless the intervenors’ action is frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.1 Id. at 761. The Zipes Court explained that the purpose of § 706(k) is to promote the national policy against wrongful discrimination by encouraging victims to make the wrongdoers pay their attorney’s fees and costs and by insuring that the incentive to bring a civil rights suit is not undermined by the prospect of attorney’s fees and costs consuming any possible recovery. Id. The Court concluded that assessing fees against blameless intervenors was not essential to vindicating the purpose of § 706(k), because the intervenors had not violated anyone’s civil rights. Id.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s opinions in Graham and Zipes, the County Defendants assert that, as they did not violate anyone’s civil rights and have no responsibility for the practices, which according to Plaintiffs, caused the deprivation, they should not be liable for Plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs. See Zipes, 491 U.S. at 762 (noting that courts should not award fees against intervenors who did not violate anyone’s civil rights and who bore no responsibility for the practice alleged to have violated Title VII.) The Court agrees with the County Defendants that, like the intervenors in Zipes, they bear no responsibility for the practices alleged to have violated Plaintiffs rights.
In their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the State and City Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the IDEA, Section 504, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Second Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 43-47.) Plaintiffs detail five distinct ways in which the State and City Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights: (1) by denying completely the special education and related services needed by educationally disabled Plaintiffs whose need for such services Defendants failed to identify; (2) by denying completely the special education and related services needed by Plaintiffs, who have been identified as needing such services, by failing to provide sufficient teachers, programs, and related services; (3) by denying appropriate special education and related services to educationally disabled Plaintiffs, who are enrolled in the Cook County Jail school, by failing to provide sufficient teachers, programs, related services and procedural protections to meet federal standards for the provision of appropriate, individualized special education services; (4) by denying completely regular education services to the great majority of Plaintiffs who are eligible for such services; and (5) by denying Plaintiffs, who are eligible for and receive regular education services, such services that are equal to the services made available to eligible children who are not pretrial detainees. Id. at ¶ 3.
*5 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint explicitly

acknowledges that the County Defendants are joined in the action, pursuant to Rule 19, only because “they are responsible for providing the additional [Cook County Jail] facilities and personnel necessary to provide a complete remedy for the violations of Plaintiffs’ rights by the Illinois and Chicago Defendants named above.” Id. at ¶¶ 11-14. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join the County Defendants noted that Plaintiffs did not originally join the County Defendants because, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the County Defendants had committed no acts subjecting them to liability in this action. (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join the County Defendants at ¶ 4.)
Both the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and the statements in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join the County Defendants indicate that the County Defendants have not violated the Plaintiffs’ civil rights or any other rights provided under federal law. The crux of Plaintiffs’ complaint is the inadequacy or absence of educational services provided to school age Cook County Jail detainees and Plaintiffs’ complaint makes clear that it is the State and City Defendants who are obligated to provide such services under federal and state law. Heeding the Supreme Court’s teachings in Graham and Zipes, this Court holds that assessing liability for fees against the County Defendants would not vindicate the purposes of the IDEA or Section 504 - to deter discriminatory practices against and violations of the civil rights of disabled individuals - because the County Defendants have not violated Plaintiffs’ civil rights and bear no responsibility for the practices alleged to have violated Plaintiffs’ rights.
The City Defendants charge that, although the County Defendants are not responsible for actually educating school age pretrial detainees, they control the City and State Defendants’ ability to provide such education. Specifically, the City Defendants note that the County Defendants control access to the pre-trial detainees and allotment of classroom space at the Cook County Corrections Alternative School which is located at 2700 South California at the Department of Corrections. The City Defendants cite the County Defendants’ inability to provide additional classroom space and additional access to the pre-trial detainees as the cause which promoted the filing of the instant lawsuit and prolonged the resolution of the suit.
However, the City Defendants provide no support for their allegation that the County Defendants’ inability to provide additional classroom space and access to pre-trial detainees resulted in the filing of the instant lawsuit. As noted previously, the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint indicate that it was the State and City Defendants’ failure to provide required educational services to school age pre-trial detainees which caused Plaintiffs’ to bring the instant suit. The County Defendants are not obligated, pursuant to the IDEA,
3

Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1995)

Section 504 or the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, to provide educational services to Plaintiffs and none of the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint suggest that the County Defendants have violated any of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional or statutory rights.
*6 Additionally, Plaintiffs do not indicate that the County Defendants caused the State or City Defendants to violate their duties to provide educational services by refusing or failing to provide additional facilities or access to the pre-trial detainees upon Plaintiffs’ or the City and State Defendants’ request. In fact, Plaintiffs joined the County Defendants so that they could provide the facilities and personnel necessary to provide a complete remedy for the State and City Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ civil rights. Contrary to the City Defendants’ assertion, the Court does not find that the County Defendants’ prior inability to provide increased classroom space and extended access to school-age pre-trial detainees caused Plaintiffs to file the instant lawsuit.
The City Defendants also charge that the Court should assess liability for fees against the County Defendants because the County Defendants’ inability to immediately provide additional classroom space and access to school age pre-trial detainees (once the parties determined that additional space and access was necessary to remedy the violations of civil rights) prolonged the resolution of the suit. The City Defendants charge that, on February 8, 1995, the parties appeared before the Court to report on settlement negotiations. At that time, the parties notified the Court that the only three unresolved issues remained: (1) the County Defendants’ inability to provide additional classroom space, (2) the County Defendants’ inability to provide longer access to pre-trial detainees, and (3) issues regarding Illinois State Board of Education funding. A month later on March 10, 1995, the parties again appeared before the Court and informed the Court that the City Defendants could implement a double shift at the Cook County Corrections Alternative School to compensate for the lack of available classroom space. The parties also informed the Court that the County Defendants agreed to find whatever additional classroom space they could and to provide access to school age pre-trial detainees from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Initially, this Court notes that, on February 8, 1995, the City Defendants cited not only the County Defendants’ inability to provide adequate classroom space and adequate access to school age pre-trial detainees, but also Illinois State Board of Education funding issues, as the reasons for the delay in the settlement of the suit. Moreover, this Court finds that the one month delay before the City Defendants, the County Defendants and the Plaintiffs came to an agreement on a plan for implementation of required educational services does not warrant holding the County Defendants liable for

attorney’s fees and costs given that they have not violated the Plaintiffs’ civil rights and have no responsibility for the practices alleged to have violated the IDEA, Section 504 or the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the Court will not assess liability for fees and costs against the County Defendants on the basis that they prolonged the resolution of the suit.
*7 Additionally, the City Defendants assert that, even if the Court determines that the County Defendants are not liable for a percentage of Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs, the Court should require the County Defendants to pay one third of the cost of the expert appointed by the Court to monitor the settlement agreement. The City Defendants note that the County Defendants are the only ones who can provide access to the facilities at the Cook County Department of Corrections. The City Defendants hypothesize that, if the County Defendants deny the court-appointed expert access to the facilities at the Cook County Department of Corrections, the expert will not be able to effectively monitor the settlement agreement and the City Defendants will have no power to compel the County Defendants to grant the expert access. Similarly, the City Defendants assert that the County Defendants control the allotment of space at the Cook County Department of Corrections and if the monitor determines that school age pre-trial detainees are being denied educational services because of lack of space, the City Defendants will be unable to remedy the situation. Finally, the City Defendants note that the settlement agreement requires the County Defendants to notify all pre-trial detainees of their right to educational services, to notify the City Defendants of all detainees eligible to attend school, and to provide the City Defendants with access to school age pre-trial detainees from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The City Defendants posit that, if the monitor determines that school age pretrial detainees are being denied their right to educational services because the County Defendants have failed to notify the pre-trial detainees of their right to educational services, to notify the City Defendants of an eligible pre-trial detainee’s existence, or to provide the required access, the City Defendants will be unable to force the County Defendants to amend their actions to ensure compliance with the settlement agreement.
The numerous hypotheticals posited by the City Defendants regarding the ways in which the County Defendants might violate their obligations under the settlement agreement does not persuade the Court that the County Defendants should now pay one third of the cost of the court appointed monitor. This Court appointed an expert to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement represents the concerted efforts of all parties to resolve their differences and to ensure that school age pre-trial detainees are provided educational services to which they are allegedly
4

Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1995)

entitled pursuant to the IDEA, Section 504 and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, as the County Defendants are not responsible for any of the activities, which allegedly violated Plaintiffs’ civil right and which prompted the instigation of the present action, they should not have to foot the bill for the cost of monitoring the settlement which ultimately resolved the parties’ dispute.
*8 Undeniably, the settlement agreement imposes several responsibilities on the County Defendants which directly effect the provision of educational services to pre-trial school age detainees. Yet, the Court does not find that the most appropriate means of enforcing the settlement agreement is to require the County Defendants to pay part of the cost of the court appointed expert. The settlement agreement provides a remedy for noncompliance by allowing any party, unable to resolve informally a dispute regarding noncompliance, to submit such dispute to this Court for further orders as may be appropriate. Thus, if any of the hypotheticals, posed by the City Defendants, become a reality, this Court is available, if necessary, to resolve any noncompliance issues which the parties cannot resolve on their own. As the County Defendants are not responsible for any of the activities alleged to have violated Plaintiffs’ right to educational services and as the settlement agreement provides a mechanism for addressing any party’s failure to comply, this Court finds

that ordering the County Defendants to pay now one third of the cost of the court appointed monitor would be inappropriate and improper.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the County Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The County Defendants are not liable for Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs or for the cost of the court expert appointed to monitor the settlement.

1

Section 706(k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), provides in relevant part that a

“court in its discretion may allow the prevailing party,

other than the [Equal Employment Opportunity]

Commission or the United States, a reasonable

attorney’s fee as part of the costs.”

Parallel Citations
10 A.D.D. 263
	  

5

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 1 of 27

BOBRICK, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:92-cv-08230

C, et al v. IL St Bd of Ed, et al Assigned to: Hon. John A. Nordberg Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Donnell C individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Edward C individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/04/1993 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by John S. Elson Northwestern University School Of Law Legal Clinic 357 East Chicago Ave Chicago, IL 60611 (312)503-8576 Email: j-elson@law.northwestern.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago 343 South Dearborn Street Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 341-3070 TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson Northwestern University School Of Law Legal Clinic 357 East Chicago Ave Chicago, IL 60611 (312)503-8576 TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 2 of 27

Robert Ma individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Marvin S individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Talmas E individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
Plaintiff Robert Mu individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff William D individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 3 of 27

Plaintiff Clifford C individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Eric B individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Christopher P individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Tommy H individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
Plaintiff Saleem L individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/01/1993

represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 4 of 27

Plaintiff Andre B individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Shaun M individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Rachel T individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
Plaintiff Katrina B individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
Plaintiff Maryann M individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 5 of 27

Plaintiff Franklin J individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Michael B individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
Plaintiff Steven F individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Eugene B individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff LaShawn H individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1993
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 6 of 27

Plaintiff Ricky B individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
V. Defendant Illinois State Board of Education
Defendant Robert Leininger Superintendent of the Illinois State Board of Education Defendant Board of Education of Rockford School District No. 205 TERMINATED: 11/01/1993

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by John S. Elson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruthanne DeWolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/1996
represented by Thomas A. Ioppolo Illinois Attorney General's Office 100 West Randolph Street 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312)814-3313 Email: tioppolo@atg.state.il.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas A. Ioppolo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Iris Ellen Sholder Cook County Assessor's Office 320 County Building Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 443-7512 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Joseph Hernandez Franczek Sullivan P.C. 300 South Wacker Drive Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606-6785

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 7 of 27

Defendant Ted D Kimbrough Superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools
Defendant Coni Batlle member of the Illinois State Board of Education Defendant Jackie B Breckenridge member of the Illinois State Board of Education Defendant Marcene M Broadwater member of the Illinois State Board of Education

(312) 986-0300 Email: mjh@franczek.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miguel Angel Rodriguez Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees 125 South Clark Street Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60603 (773) 553-1700
Pamela Elana Cash Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees 125 South Clark Street Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60603 (773) 553-1700
represented by Iris Ellen Sholder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Joseph Hernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miguel Angel Rodriguez (See above for address)
Pamela Elana Cash (See above for address)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report
Defendant Hugh R Brown member of the Illinois State Board of Education
Defendant Rick L Catt member of the Illinois State Board of Education
Defendant Doreen Crewe member of the Illinois State Board of Education
Defendant Mary Ann S Maclean member of the Illinois State Board of Education
Defendant Deborah Miller member of the Illinois State Board of Education
Defendant Lyle Neumann member of the Illinois State Board of Education
Defendant Dorothy O'Neill member of the Illinois State Board of Education
Defendant Jesse M Rios member of the Illinois State Board of Education
Defendant Herb R Roach member of the Illinois State Board of Education
Defendant Michael W Skarr member of the Illinois State Board of

Page 8 of 27

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 9 of 27

Education Defendant G Howard Thompson member of the Illinois State Board of Education Defendant cook Co IL
Defendant cook Co Bd of Comm

represented by Connie R. Sprovieri Cook County State's Attorney 500 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 603-6461 TERMINATED: 05/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick Malone Blanchard State's Attorney of Cook County 500 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 603-5440 Email: pblanch@cookcountygov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry L. McDonald Cook County State's Attorney 500 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 603-6461 TERMINATED: 05/21/1998
William P. Pistorius Clausen Miller P.C. 10 South LaSalle Street Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 855-1010 TERMINATED: 05/21/1998
represented by Connie R. Sprovieri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry L. McDonald (See above for address)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 10 of 27

Defendant Richard J Phelan President of the Cook County Board of Commissioners
Defendant Michael F Sheahan Sheriff of Cook County
Defendant J W Fairman Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections

William P. Pistorius Clausen Miller P.C. 10 South LaSalle Street Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 855-1010 Email: wpistorius@clausen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Connie R. Sprovieri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry L. McDonald (See above for address)
William P. Pistorius (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Connie R. Sprovieri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick Malone Blanchard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry L. McDonald (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/21/1998
William P. Pistorius (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/21/1998
represented by Connie R. Sprovieri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/21/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick Malone Blanchard

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 11 of 27

Defendant Board of Education of the City of Chicago
Intervenor Plaintiff United States of America

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry L. McDonald (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/21/1998
William P. Pistorius (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/21/1998
represented by Jeremiah Glassman U.S. Dept of Justice Civil Rights Division 601 D. Street 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202)514-4092 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary A. Haugen United States Department of Justice EDS Tenth and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202)514-4206
Michele Marion Fox United States Attorney's Office, NDIL 219 South Dearborn Street Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-5300 Email: michele.fox@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992

#

Docket Text

1 RECEIVED COMPLAINT with 18 copies. (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)

2 CIVIL cover sheet. (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)

3 APPLICATION by plaintiff Donnell C to proceed in forma pauperis (fce)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 12 of 27

12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992

(Entered: 12/18/1992)
4 APPLICATION by plaintiff Edward C to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
5 APPLICATION by plaintiff Robert Ma to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
6 APPLICATION by plaintiff Marvin S to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
7 APPLICATION by plaintiff Talmas E to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
8 APPLICATION by plaintiff Robert Mu to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
9 APPLICATION by plaintiff William D to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
10 APPLICATION by plaintiff Clifford C to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
11 APPLICATION by plaintiff Eric B to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
12 APPLICATION by plaintiff Christopher P to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
13 APPLICATION by plaintiff Tommy H to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
14 APPLICATION by plaintiff Saleem L to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
15 APPLICATION by plaintiff Andre B to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
16 APPLICATION by plaintiff Shaun M to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
17 APPLICATION by plaintiff Rachel T to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
18 APPLICATION by plaintiff Katrina B to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
19 APPLICATION by plaintiff Maryann M to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
20 APPLICATION by plaintiff Franklin J to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
21 APPLICATION by plaintiff Michael B to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 13 of 27

12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/18/1992 12/18/1992
01/04/1993
01/04/1993 01/05/1993
01/13/1993
01/15/1993
01/15/1993
01/15/1993

22 APPLICATION by plaintiff Steven F to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
23 APPLICATION by plaintiff Eugene B to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
24 APPLICATION by plaintiff LaShawn H to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
25 APPLICATION by plaintiff Ricky B to proceed in forma pauperis (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
26 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by John S. Elson and Ruthanne DeWolfe. (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
27 RULE 39 Affidavit of John S. Elson (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
28 RULE 39 Affidavit of Ruthanne DeWolfe (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
29 MOTION by plaintiffs for class certification . (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
FORWARDED entire case file to Judge Nordberg. (fce) (Entered: 12/18/1992)
30 MINUTE ORDER of 12/18/92 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing set for 01/13/93 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 12/22/1992)
31 MINUTE ORDER of 1/4/93 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Petitioners' application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted [25-1], [24-1], [23-1], [22-1], [21-1], [20-1], [19-1], [18-1], [17-1], [16-1], [15-1], [14-1], [131], [12-1], [11-1], [10-1], [9-1], [8-1], [7-1], [6-1], [5-1], [4-1], [3-1]. (See reverse of minute order). Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 01/05/1993)
COMPLAINT. (rmm) (Entered: 01/05/1993)
SUMMONS (Original and 18 copies) issued with 18 copies of the complaint and a certified copy of the minute order dated 01/04/93 to the U.S. Marshal to be served as to defendants. (rmm) (Entered: 01/05/1993)
32 MINUTE ORDER of 1/13/93 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 2/24/93 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 01/14/1993)
33 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant IL St Bd of Ed on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
34 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Robert Leininger on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
35 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Michael W Skarr on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 14 of 27

01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/15/1993 01/21/1993

01/19/1993)
36 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U. S. Marshal executed upon defendant Herb R Roach on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
37 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U. S. Marshal executed upon defendant Jesse M Rios on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
38 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Dorothy O'Neill on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
39 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Lyle Neumann on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
40 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant G Howard Thompson on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
41 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Deborah Miller on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
42 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Mary Ann S Maclean on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
43 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Doreen Crewe on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
44 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Rick L Catt on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
45 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Hugh R Brown on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
46 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Marcene M Broadwater on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
47 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Jackie B Breckenridge on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
48 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Coni Batlle on 1/12/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
49 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 15 of 27

01/21/1993 01/28/1993 02/03/1993 02/09/1993 02/09/1993 02/24/1993 02/24/1993 03/18/1993
03/18/1993
03/19/1993

executed upon defendant IL St Bd of Ed on 1/15/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/22/1993)
50 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Ted D Kimbrough on 1/15/93. (rmm) (Entered: 01/22/1993)
51 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Bd of Ed Cty of Chgo, defendant Ted D Kimbrough by Iris Ellen Sholder, Miguel Angel Rodriguez, Michael Joseph Hernandez, Pamela Elana Cash; notice of filing. (rmm) (Entered: 01/29/1993)
52 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant IL St Bd of Ed, defendant Robert Leininger by Thomas A. Ioppolo (fce) (Entered: 02/03/1993)
53 MOTION by defendant IL St Bd of Ed, defendant Robert Leininger to extend time to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint ; Notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 02/10/1993)
54 MINUTE ORDER of 2/9/93 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Granting motion to extend time to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint [531] to 03/19/93. No notice (fce) (Entered: 02/10/1993)
55 MOTION by defendant Bd of Ed Cty of Chgo, defendant Ted D Kimbrough for enlarge of time to answer or otherwise plead ; notice of motion. (rmm) (Entered: 02/26/1993)
56 MINUTE ORDER of 2/24/93 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 4/21/93 at 9:30 a.m. Defendants, Board of Education of the Cityof Chicago and Ted D. Kimbrough, motion for enlargement of time to answer or otherwise plead is granted to 3/19/93 [55-1]. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 02/26/1993)
57 MOTION by plaintiffs to join Cook County, Illinois, Michael F. Sheahan, Sheriff of Cook County, J.W. Fairman, Director, Cook County Department of Corrections, Richard J. Phelan, President, Cook County Board of Commissioners, and the Cook County Board of Commissioners as defendants (Attachments); Notice of motion. (rmm) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
58 MINUTE ORDER of 3/18/93 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Plaintiffs' motion to join by 4/8/93 Cook County, Illinois, Michael F. Sheahan, Sheriff of Cook County, J.W. Fairman, Director, Cook County Department of Corrections, Richard J. Phelan, President, Cook County Board of Commissioners, and the Cook County Board of Commissioners as defendants [57-1] is granted. Illinois State Board of Education to file motion to dismiss and brief in excess of 15 pages by 3/22/93 ; plaintiff to respond 4/12/93; defendant to reply by 4/26/93. Chicago Board of Education granted extension to answer by 3/26/93. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
59 MOTION by defendant IL St Bd, defendant Robert Leininger to dismiss the complaint ; notice of filing. (rmm) (Entered: 03/22/1993)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 16 of 27

03/19/1993 03/29/1993 04/08/1993 04/08/1993 04/12/1993 04/13/1993 04/21/1993 04/21/1993 04/21/1993 04/21/1993 04/21/1993 04/23/1993 05/27/1993 06/03/1993
06/23/1993

60 MEMORANDUM of law by defendant IL St Bd, defendant Robert Leininger in support of State defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint [59-1]. (rmm) (Entered: 03/22/1993)
61 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT by defendant Bd of Ed Cty of Chgo, defendant Ted D Kimbrough; notice of filing. (rmm) (Entered: 03/30/1993)
62 MINUTE ORDER of 4/8/93 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : The minute order of 3/18/93 is amended to reflect: Plaintiff is granted leave to file amended complaint. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 04/09/1993)
63 AMENDED COMPLAINT [0-1] by plaintiff; adding Cook Co IL, Cook Co Bd of Comm, Richard J Phelan, Michael F Sheahan, J Fairman. (rmm) (Entered: 04/09/1993)
64 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in response to state defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint [59-1] (Exhibits). (rmm) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
65 MINUTE ORDER of 4/13/93 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Time for status on 04/21/93 is changed from 9:30 to 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
66 MINUTE ORDER of 4/21/93 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 6/23/93 at 9:00 a.m. Leave granted to file briefs in excess of fifteen. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 04/22/1993)
67 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Richard J Phelan on 4/16/93 (rmm) (Entered: 04/23/1993)
68 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Cook Co Bd of Comm on 4/16/93 (rmm) (Entered: 04/23/1993)
69 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Cook Co IL on 4/16/93 (rmm) (Entered: 04/23/1993)
70 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant Michael F Sheahan on 4/16/93 (rmm) (Entered: 04/23/1993)
71 REPLY memorandum by defendant IL St Bd of Ed in support of motion to dismiss the complaint [59-1]; notice of filing. (rmm) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
72 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons by U.S. Marshal executed upon defendant J W Fairman on 5/21/93 (rmm) (Entered: 05/27/1993)
73 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants Cook Co IL, Cook Co Bd of Comm, Richard J Phelan, Michael F Sheahan, J W Fairman by Connie R. Barba, William P. Pistorius, Terry L. McDonald (rmm) (Entered: 06/04/1993)
74 MOTION by defendants Cook Co IL, Cook Co Bd of Comm, Richard J Phelan, Michael F Sheahan, J W Fairman to extend time to answer or otherwise plead to plaintiffs' complaint ; Notice of motion (rmm)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 17 of 27

06/23/1993 07/26/1993 08/18/1993 08/18/1993 10/27/1993 10/27/1993
11/01/1993
01/10/1994 03/01/1994

(Entered: 06/24/1993)
75 MINUTE ORDER of 6/23/93 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 8/18/93 at 9:00 a.m. Granting county defendants' motion to extend time to answer or otherwise plead to plaintiffs' complaint to 7/26/93 [74-1]. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 06/24/1993)
76 ANSWER to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint by defendants Cook Co IL, Cook Co Bd of Comm, Richard J Phelan, Michael F Sheahan, J W Fairman; Notice of filing. (rmm) (Entered: 07/27/1993)
77 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER (rmm) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
78 MINUTE ORDER of 8/18/93 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 10/27/93 at 9:00 a.m. State defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint [59-1] is denied. Court orders defendants to respond to plaintiff's interrogatories by 9/20/93. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
79 MOTION by plaintiffs for determination of plaintiff's motion for class certification and for leave to amend the complaint to delete certain named plaintiffs who were not confined in the jail when the complaint was filed. (Exhibits); Notice of motion for class certification. (rmm) Modified on 10/29/1993 (Entered: 10/29/1993)
80 MINUTE ORDER of 10/27/93 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 1/10/94 at 9:00 a.m. Granting plaintiff's motion for determination of plaintiff's motion for class certification [791]. Defendants' response to plaintiff's motion for class certification [29-1] due 12/1/93. Plaintiffs' reply due 12/15/93. Ruling set for 1/10/94 at 9:00 a.m. on plaintiffs' motion for class certification [29-1]. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to delete certain named plaintiffs who were not confined in the jail when the complaint was filed [79-2] is granted. Plaintiff's amended complaint due 1/10/93. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 10/29/1993)
81 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [0-1] by plaintiffs Ricky B, LaShawn H, Eugene B, Steven F, Maryann M, Shaun M, Andre B, Christopher P, Eric B, Clifford C, Robert Mu, Marvin S, Robert MA, Donnell C, William D, terminating plaintiff Edward C, plaintiff Talmas E, plaintiff Tommy H, plaintiff Saleem L, plaintiff Rachel T, plaintiff Katrina B, Michael B, Board of Education; Notice of filing. (rmm) Modified on 11/04/1993 (Entered: 11/04/1993)
82 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/94 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 3/1/94 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff counsel to prepare draft order granting motion for class certification. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
83 STIPULATION, by plaintiffs and defendants Chicago Board of Education and its Superintendent, of the parties as to the certification of the class [29-1] (ar) (Entered: 03/02/1994)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 18 of 27

03/01/1994 03/01/1994
05/03/1994
05/05/1994 05/06/1994 05/06/1994 05/06/1994 07/12/1994 09/19/1994 10/31/1994 12/12/1994 02/08/1995 02/23/1995

84 STIPULATION, by defendants Illinois State Board of Education, its Superintendent and individual members, of the parties as to the certification of the class [29-1] (ar) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
85 MINUTE ORDER of 3/1/94 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 05/03/94 at 05/03/94 at 9:00 am. By stipulation of the parties [83-1] [84-1], the District court certifies the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): All pretrial detainees who are or will be confined within the divisions of the Cook County Jail and who are or will be entitled under state and federal law to free regular or special education services. No notice (ar) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
86 MINUTE ORDER of 5/3/94 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 07/12/94 at 9:30 a.m. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is granted leave to file motion to intervene by 05/13/94. The Court defers briefing generally until further order of Court. No notice (lal) (Entered: 05/04/1994)
87 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for proposed intervenor-plaintiff USA by Jeremiah Glassman and Gary A. Haugen (ar) (Entered: 05/06/1994)
88 MINUTE ORDER of 5/6/94 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : The United States of America is granted leave to file complaint in intervention. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 05/09/1994)
89 COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION by intervenor plaintiff USA (ar) (Entered: 05/09/1994)
FIVE ORIGINAL SUMMONSES and five copies issued as to NW Univ. Legal Clinic, Ruthanne Wolf, Miguel Rodgriguez, Thomas Ioppolo and Jack O'Malley (ar) (Entered: 05/09/1994)
90 MINUTE ORDER of 7/12/94 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 09/20/94 at a.m. State of Illinois and Board of Education's time to answer or otherwise plead is extended to 09/20/94. No notice (lal) (Entered: 07/14/1994)
91 MINUTE ORDER of 9/19/94 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing re-set for 10/31/94 at 9:00 a.m. Status set for 09/20/94 is stricken by agreement of the parties. Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
92 MINUTE ORDER of 10/31/94 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 12/12/94 at 9:00 a.m. No notice (lal) (Entered: 11/08/1994)
93 MINUTE ORDER of 12/12/94 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 01/30/95 at 2:00 p.m. No notice (lal) (Entered: 12/13/1994)
94 MINUTE ORDER of 2/8/95 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held; continued to 03/01/95 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (fce) (Entered: 02/13/1995)
SCHEDULE set on 2/23/95 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 19 of 27

03/10/1995 03/24/1995 03/31/1995 03/31/1995 03/31/1995 03/31/1995 04/10/1995 04/11/1995 04/17/1995 04/20/1995 04/20/1995
06/01/1995

reset to 10 Mar 95 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (tlp) (Entered: 02/23/1995)
95 MINUTE ORDER of 3/10/95: by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held. Motions regarding attorneys fees and costs to be filed 3/31/95; responses to be filed 4/7/95; ruling 4/17/95 at 2:30pm. No notice (emd) Modified on 05/05/1995 (Entered: 03/15/1995)
96 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/8/95 Before Honorable John A. Nordberg. (emd) (Entered: 03/29/1995)
97 MOTION by cook Co Bd of Comm, Michael F Sheahan, J W Fairman for partial summary judgment ; Notice of filing. (emd) (Entered: 04/06/1995)
98 STATEMENT of material facts pursuant to local Rule 12 (M) by cook Co Bd of Comm, Michael F Sheahan, J W Fairman (emd) (Entered: 04/06/1995)
99 MEMORANDUM by cook Co Bd of Comm, Michael F Sheahan, J W Fairman in support of their motion for partial summary judgment [97-1] (emd) (Entered: 04/06/1995)
100 MEMORANDUM by Bd of Ed Cty of Chgo in opposition to to the county defendants' position regarding monitor expenses and attorneys fees; Notice of filing. (emd) (Entered: 04/06/1995)
101 COUNTY DEFENDANTS REPLY to the Board of Education of the City of Chicago's memorandum opposing the County defendants' motion for partial summary judgment [97-1]; Notice of filing. (emd) (Entered: 04/11/1995)
102 RESPONSE by Bd of Ed Cty of Chgo to the county defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [97-1]; Notice of filing. (emd) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
103 MINUTE ORDER of 4/17/95 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Ruling on motion regarding attorneys fees and costs reset to 4/20/95 at 4:00pm. Telephoned notice (emd) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
104 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER (emd) (Entered: 04/25/1995)
105 MINUTE ORDER of 4/20/95 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the County defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. The County defendants are not liable for plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs or the cost of the court expert appointed to monitor the settlement. Preliminary fairness hearing for class settlement set for 6/1/95 at 3:30pm. Final fairness hearing for class settlement on conset decress set for 8/10/95 at 3:30pm. [97-1] No notice (emd) Modified on 04/25/1995 (Entered: 04/25/1995)
106 MINUTE ORDER of 6/1/95 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Preliminary fairness hearing and continued to 2:00pm on 6/12/95 . No notice (emd) (Entered: 06/12/1995)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 20 of 27

06/12/1995 06/22/1995 06/28/1995 06/28/1995 06/28/1995 08/10/1995 08/10/1995 08/10/1995 09/27/1995 06/19/1996
07/10/1996 07/17/1996
07/19/1996

SCHEDULE set on 6/12/95 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held and continued to 3:30 6/22/95 . No Notices Mailed. (tlp) (Entered: 06/12/1995)
SCHEDULE set on 6/22/95 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held and continued to 3:00 6/28/95 . No notice (tlp) (Entered: 06/22/1995)
107 JOINT MOTION by defendants, plaintiffs and intervenor plaintiff for entry of agreed order providing notice to class of proposed settlement agreement and a comment period and for a fairness hearing (Exhibits) (fce) (Entered: 06/29/1995)
108 AGREED ORDER regarding motion for entry of agreed order providing notice to class of proposed settlement agreement and a comment period [107-1] (Exhibit). (fce) (Entered: 06/29/1995)
109 MINUTE ORDER of 6/28/95 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Granting joint motion for entry of agreed order providing notice to class of proposed settlement agreement and a comment period and for a fairness hearing [107-1] Status hearing held. No notice (fce) (Entered: 06/29/1995)
110 AFFIDAVIT of J.W. Fairman; Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1995)
111 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1995)
112 MINUTE ORDER of 8/10/95 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Fairness hearing held. Joint motion for attorneys fees is granted. Enter settlement agreement. terminating case Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/15/1995)
113 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS for Donnell C. settlement agreement (kmt) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
117 MINUTE ORDER of 6/19/96 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Plaintiffs motion to appoint Professor C. Michael Nelson as to replacement expert to fulfill the duties required under part XII, paragraph 59, p. 22 of the parties' settlement agreement in this cause is granted [116-1]. Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 07/25/1996)
114 MOTION by plaintiffs' for withdrawal of counsel ; Notice of motion (lal) (Entered: 07/19/1996)
115 MINUTE ORDER of 7/17/96 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Granting plaintiff's motion for withdrawal of counsel [114-1] The Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago is given leave to withdraw as counsel for the class of plaintiffs. attorney Ruthanne DeWolfe for Ricky B, LaShawn H, Eugene B, Steven F, Maryann M, Shaun M, Andre B, Christopher P, Eric B, Clifford C, Robert Mu, Marvin S, Robert Ma, Donnell C, William D, Franklin J No notice (lal) (Entered: 07/24/1996)
116 MOTION by plaintiffs Franklin J, Donnell C, Robert Ma, Marvin S, Robert Mu, Clifford C, Eric B, Christopher P, Andre B, Shaun M, Maryann M, Steven F, Eugene B, LaShawn H, Ricky B to appoint a

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 21 of 27

02/18/1997 02/18/1997 02/25/1997 02/25/1997 02/25/1997
03/19/1997 10/31/1997 12/03/1997
12/09/1997
12/31/1997 01/06/1998

replacement expert to fulfill the duties required under part XII, paragraph 59, p. 22 of the parties' settlement agreement in this cause (Exhibit); Notice of motion (smm) (Entered: 07/25/1996)
118 MOTION by USA to substitute counsel (cdh) (Entered: 02/21/1997)
119 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE by USA to the January 1997 expert monitoring report (cdh) (Entered: 02/21/1997)
120 MOTION by intervenor plaintiff USA to require payment of courtappointed expert ; Notice of motion (lal) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
121 MEMORANDUM of law by intervenor plaintiff USA in support of motion to require payment of court-appointed expert [120-1] (Exhibits). (lal) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
123 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/97 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Granting plaintiff-intervenors, United States motion to require payment of courtappointed expert [120-1] Parties entered into an agreed order. The Illinois State Board of Education shall pay the amount of $3,977,36 to C. Michael Nelson on or before 04/10/97. Mailed notice (lal) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
122 AGREED ORDER regarding motion to require payment of courtappointed expert [120-1] (lal) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
124 MOTION by plaintiffs and intervenor plaintiff to compel the Chicago Board of Education to comply with the court-appointed expert's reporting requirements and to employ a data collection assistant (Exhibits) (rmm) (Entered: 11/04/1997)
126 MOTION by plaintiffs for entry of briefing schedule and setting a hearing date on plaintiffs' motion to compel the Chicago Board of Education to comply with the court-appointed expert's reporting requirements and to employ a data collection assistant (Exhibits); Notice of motion (yap) (Entered: 12/11/1997)
125 MINUTE ORDER of 12/9/97 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Motion for entry of briefing schedule and setting a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to compel the Chicago Board of Education to comply with the courtappointed expert's reporting requiements and to employ a data collection assistant is granted. Response to motion to compel [124-1] due 12/15/97; reply due 1/7/98; ruling 1/21/98 at 3:00 p.m. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
127 RESPONSE by Bd of Ed Cty of Chgo to the City of Chicago's motion to compel regarding reporting requirements and data collection assistant [124-1] (Attachments); Notice of filing (rmm) (Entered: 01/02/1998)
128 MINUTE ORDER of 1/6/98 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Reply to motion to compel the Chicago Board of Education to comply with the court-appointed expert's reporting requirements and to employ a data collection assistant [124-1] is extended to 1/16/98; ruling of 1/21/98 is stricen and reset to 2/5/98 at 2:30 p.m. on motion to compel [124-1].

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 22 of 27

01/16/1998 03/27/1998 05/20/1998
05/21/1998 05/21/1998 06/03/1998 06/10/1998 11/24/1998 12/09/1998

Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 01/09/1998)
129 REPLY by plaintiffs to defendant Chicago Board of Education's response to plaintiffs' mntiff-intervenor's motion to compel with the courtappointed expert's reporting requirements and to employ a data collection assistant [124-1] (Attachments); Notice of filing (rmm) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
130 MINUTE ORDER of 3/27/98 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing set for 9:30 a.m. 5/19/98. Hearing on motion to compel the Chicago Board of Education to comply with the court-appointed expert's reporting requirements and to employ a data collection assistant [124-1] set for 9:30 a.m. 5/19/98. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 03/30/1998)
131 MINUTE ORDER of 5/20/98 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held and continued to 3:30 p.m. 6/10/98. Plaintiff's motion to compel the Chicago Board of Education to comply with the court-appointed expert's reporting requirements and to employ a data collection assistant [124-1] is continued to 3:30 p.m. The Court requests that court-appointed expert Dr. Michael Nelson attend the 6/10/98 hearing. The court instructs the parties to continue good faith negotiations concerning the natters rsised in the motion to compel, including a possible extension of the settlement monitoring period. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
132 MINUTE ORDER of 5/21/98 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Leave is granted to substitute the appearance of Patrick M. Blanchard instead of Terry McDonald, William Pistoric, and Connie Sprovieric on behalf of County of Cook, Office of the Cook County sheriff, and Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
133 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants J W Fairman, Michael F Sheahan, cook Co IL by Patrick Malone Blanchard (rmm) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
134 MOTION by certain plaintiffs to compel the Chicago Board of Education to pay the court-appointed monitors' $950 bill preparing an affidavit in support of motion to compel the Board's compliance with monitor's reporting requirements (Exhibits); Notice of motion (rmm) Modified on 06/12/1998 (Entered: 06/12/1998)
135 MINUTE ORDER of 6/10/98 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Hearing held on plaintiff's motion to compel Chicago Board of Education to pay courtappointed Monitor's bill for preparing an affidavit per oral ruling. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 06/15/1998)
SCHEDULE set on 11/24/98 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing set to 2:30 12/9/98 . Mailed notice (tlp) (Entered: 11/24/1998)
SCHEDULE set on 12/9/98 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held and continued to 3:30 1/19/99 . No notice (tlp) (Entered: 12/09/1998)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 23 of 27

01/19/1999 11/24/1999
12/02/1999
01/12/2000 03/28/2000 06/07/2000 09/07/2000 09/28/2000
10/05/2000 11/08/2000
05/21/2001 06/18/2001 10/15/2001 10/15/2001 10/24/2001

SCHEDULE set on 1/19/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held. No notice (tlp) (Entered: 01/19/1999)
136 MOTION by plaintiffs to appoint a replacement monitor in order to assure implementation of the current monitor's recommendations as to steps needed to comply with the settlement agreement (Attachment); Notice (fce) (Entered: 12/10/1999)
137 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing set to 3:15 p.m. on 1/12/00 . Motion to appoint a replacement monitor in order to assure implementation of the current monitor's recommendations as to steps needed to comply with the settlement agreement [136-1] is entered and continued to 1/12/00. No notice (fce) (Entered: 12/10/1999)
SCHEDULE set on 1/12/00 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held and continued to 3:15 3/28/00 . No notice (tlp) (Entered: 01/12/2000)
SCHEDULE set on 3/28/00 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held and continued to 3:15 6/7/00 . No notice (tlp) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
SCHEDULE set on 6/7/00 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held and continued to 3:15 9/7/00 . No notice (tlp) (Entered: 06/08/2000)
SCHEDULE set on 9/7/00 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held and continued to 2:30 9/28/00 . no notice (tlp) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
138 MINUTE ORDER of 9/28/00 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held and continued to 3:45 p.m. on 10/12/00. Motion to appoint a replacement monitor is dismissed without prejudice [136-1]. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/29/2000)
SCHEDULE set on 10/5/00 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing reset to 3:15 11/8/00 . Status set for 10/12/00 is stricken. Telephoned notice (tlp) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
139 MINUTE ORDER of 11/8/00 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held. This case is dismissed with leave to reinstate within thirteen months of the date of this order. (Entered Order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/09/2000)
140 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 9/28/00 by the Honorable John A. Nordberg (rmm) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
141 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/08/00 Before Honorable John A. Nordberg. (tlm) (Entered: 06/20/2001)
SCHEDULE set on 10/15/01 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing set to 3:00 10/18/01 . Mailed notice (tlp) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
SCHEDULE set on 10/15/01 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing reset to 3:00 10/24/01 . Telephoned notice (tlp) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
SCHEDULE set on 10/24/01 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held. No notice (tlp) (Entered: 10/24/2001)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 24 of 27

11/15/2001
02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/04/2002 02/13/2002
02/13/2002 03/11/2002 03/12/2002 03/12/2002 03/13/2002 03/21/2002 03/27/2002

142 MINUTE ORDER of 11/15/01 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : The plaintiffs may file a motion seeking to reinstate within 30 days of the submission of Dr. Leone's report to the parties of the court. (Entered Order.)Mailed notice. (las) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
143 MOTION by plaintiff to reinstate case ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
144 MOTION by United States to reopen the case (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
145 NOTICE of substitution of counsel by United States. (vmj) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 2/4/02 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing set to 2:30 2/13/02 . Mailed notice (tlp) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
146 MINUTE ORDER of 2/13/02 by Hon. John A. Nordberg: Answer brief to motions to reopen the case [144-1] and [143-1] due 3/6/02. Reply to answer brief due 3/27/02. Michael S. Maurer, Iris Goldschmidt and Sunil H. Mansukhani are granted leave to substitute their appearances on behalf of Isabelle Katz Pinzler and Kathleen S. Devine. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 2/13/02 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held. No notice (tlp) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
147 RESPONSE by defendant IL St Bd of Ed in opposition of plaintiff's motion to reinstate [144-1], [143-1]; Notice. (yp) Modified on 03/13/2002 (Entered: 03/13/2002)
148 MEMORANDUM by defendants J W Fairman, Michael F Sheahan, Cook Co IL in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to reinstate [144-1], [143-1]; Notice. (yp) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
149 MOTION by defendant Chicago Board's in opposition to plaintiffs' and plaintiff-intervenor's motion to reinstate (Attachments); Notice. (yp) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
150 AGREED MOTION by defendants Michael F Sheahan, Cook Co IL, and Ernesto Velasco to extend the time within which to respond to the motions of the plaintiffs to reinstate ; Notice. (ntf) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
151 AGREED MOTION by plaintiffs,intervenor plaintiff to each file a reply brief in excess of 15 pages ; Notice. (ntf) Modified on 03/28/2002 (Entered: 03/28/2002)
152 MINUTE ORDER of 3/27/02 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Agreed motion to extend the time within which to respond to the motions of the plaintiffs to reinstate is granted [150-1]. Defendants are allowed to 03/11/02 and the County defendants to 03/12/02 to file their response briefs. The parties also agree to extend the time for the filing of the reply briefs of both the plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor to 04/02/02. Agreed motion for plaintiffs to each file a reply brief in excess of 15 pages is

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 25 of 27

04/01/2002 04/02/2002 06/17/2002 06/26/2002 07/09/2002 09/05/2002 09/18/2002 09/18/2002
10/04/2002 10/22/2002 10/25/2002 10/28/2002
11/04/2002 12/12/2002

granted [151-1] (Entered Order). Mailed notice (jmp) Modified on 03/29/2002 (Entered: 03/28/2002)
154 REPLY by intervenor plaintiff USA to defendants' separate opposition memoranda to the United States motion to reinstate [149-1] (Attachments); Notice. (ntf) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
153 REPLY by plaintiffs to defendants' responses to motion to reinstate [1491](Attachment); Notice. (ntf) (Entered: 04/03/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 6/17/02 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing set to 10:30 8/2/02 . Mailed notice (tlp) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
155 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 02/13/02 Before Honorable John A. Nordberg (ntf) (Entered: 06/27/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 7/9/02 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing reset to 2:30 9/18/02 . Status set for 8/2/02 is stricken. Mailed notice (tlp) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 9/5/02 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing reset to 3:00 9/18/02 . Telephoned notice (tlp) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
156 EXPEDITED REFERRAL ORDER: Case referred to Hon. Edward A. Bobrick for settlement conference Mailed notice. (tlp) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 9/18/02 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held. This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Bobrick to confidentially seek and mediate settlement. The Court recommends that the parties make themselves available for settlement conference. No notice (tlp) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 10/4/02 by Hon. Edward A. Bobrick: Status hearing set on 10/22/02 at 11:00 a.m. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 10/22/02 by Hon. Edward A. Bobrick: Status hearing held and continued to 10/28/02 at 3:00 p.m. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
157 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 09/18/02 Before Honorable John A. Nordberg (ntf) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
158 MINUTE ORDER of 10/28/02 by Hon. Edward A. Bobrick: Status hearing held. Parties are directed to submit letter statement of position by 11/08/02. The government shall respond by 11/27/02. Settlement conference set on 12/12/02 at 1:00 p.m. Mailed notice (cdy) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
159 LETTER from USA to Michael Dobbins dated 10/28/02. (ntf) (Entered: 11/06/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 12/12/02 by Hon. Edward A. Bobrick: Settlement conference held. Status hearing set on 2/5/03 at 1:00 p.m. for report on

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 26 of 27

01/08/2003 02/03/2003 02/05/2003 03/10/2003 04/03/2003 06/04/2003
07/17/2003 07/30/2003
10/30/2003 10/21/2004

settlement. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
160 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/22/02 Before Honorable Edward A. Bobrick (ntf) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
161 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/28/02 Before Honorable Edward A. Bobrick (ntf) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 2/5/03 by Hon. Edward A. Bobrick: Status hearing held and continued to 3/10/03 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 3/10/03 by Hon. Edward A. Bobrick: Status hearing held and continued to 4/3/03 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 4/3/03 by Hon. Edward A. Bobrick: Status hearing held and continued to 6/4/03 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
162 MINUTE ORDER of 6/4/03 by Hon. Edward A. Bobrick : Status hearing held. Parties have reached agreement as to the reinstatement of this case. Status hearing set on 07/30/03 at 2:30 p.m. before Judge Nordberg for the purpose of filing settlement documents and a proposed order. All matters relating to the referral of this action being resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge Terminating the case referral to Hon. Edward A. Bobrick . Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
163 JOINT MOTION by parties to withdraw all pending motions, oppositions, and replies related to plaintiffs' and United States' motion to reinstate ; Notice (ntf) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
164 MINUTE ORDER of 7/30/03 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Joint motion to withdraw all pending motions, oppositions, and replies related to plaintiffs' and United States' motion to reinstate (docket entries, 143,144,147,148,149,153 and 154), it is hereby ordered that the motion is granted [163-1]. (Entered Order). Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
165 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 07/30/03 Before Honorable John A. Nordberg (ntf) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
166 MINUTE ORDER of 10/21/04 by Hon. John A. Nordberg: Pursuant to the order dated 7/30/03, parties had reached a settlement agreement. This court allowed fourteen months after the date of this agreement for plaintiffs and/or plaintiff-intervenor to reinstate based on allegations of substantial non-compliance with this agreement. As of this date the court has not received any communication to the contrary. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Mailed notice (air) (Entered: 10/25/2004)

PACER Service Center

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 27 of 27

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

10/14/2005 16:47:12

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report Search Criteria:

15

Cost:

1:92-cv-08230 1.20

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?801797305465423-L_923_0-1

10/14/2005