Case: M.D. v. Abbott

2:11-cv-00084 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Filed Date: March 29, 2011

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This class action (previously, M.D. v. Perry) involving long-term foster care in Texas was filed on March 29, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The plaintiff class of children in long-term foster care was represented by private counsel and Children's Rights, Inc.; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the state failed to protect foster children from systemic harm. The complaint alleged that defendants' frequent moves of the foster care c…

This class action (previously, M.D. v. Perry) involving long-term foster care in Texas was filed on March 29, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The plaintiff class of children in long-term foster care was represented by private counsel and Children's Rights, Inc.; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the state failed to protect foster children from systemic harm.

The complaint alleged that defendants' frequent moves of the foster care children between placements was harmful; that the state placed kids in inappropriate congregate settings, failed to protect them from abuse and neglect in state custody, denied them necessary services, separated them unnecessarily from their siblings and deprived them of family visitation, and generally failed to find them permanent families or to raise them appropriately so that they were equipped to live independently once they aged out of foster care. All this, the plaintiffs said, was due to understaffing and mismanagement, and violated Substantive Due Process, Procedural Due Process, and the First Amendment associational rights of the plaintiff class.

The requested relief included regulation of caseloads, imposition of professional licensing standards, and the like. The plaintiffs also sought appointment of a monitor.

The plaintiffs filed their class certification motion a week after the complaint. On June 5, 2011, the District Court (Judge Janis Graham Jack) granted the motion for class certification. The state appealed.

On March 23, 2012, citing the intervening Supreme Court precedent of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Garza, J.) held that the district court had erred by failing to conduct the "rigorous analysis" required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2), and that the district court abused its discretion by certifying a class that lacked cohesiveness under Rule 23(b)(2). The case was remanded for reconsideration of the class application under the appropriate standard. 675 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 2012).

The plaintiffs filed a second motion for class certification in October 2012. After a three-day hearing in January 2013, the court found that the requirements of Rule 23(a), as explained in Dukes, were satisfied. On August 27, 2013, the court certified a general class (all children in the "permanent managing conservatorship" in Texas) and three subclasses (children in a licensed foster care placement; children in foster group homes; and children receiving basic childcare services). 294 F.R.D. 7 (S.D. Tex. 2013). Defendants appealed, but the Fifth Circuit dismissed their appeal as untimely on November 19, 2013, because defendants filed a day too late. 547 F. App'x 543 (5th Cir. 2013).

The case proceeded to trial in December 2014. For two weeks, the parties presented evidence to the district court. Following the trial, on December 17, 2015, the district court ruled for the plaintiffs, declaring that Texas must make targeted changes to its foster care system. The court found that the state put kids at risk because of high caseloads, dangerous foster group homes, inadequate investigations into abuse and neglect reports and a lack of placement options. The court mandated an immediate end to the "unsafe placement" of children, including ceasing assigning children to foster group homes that lacked 24-hour awake-night supervision. The court retained jurisdiction to issue orders as necessary to remedy the constitutional violations described in the order and opinion. 2015 WL 9244873 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2015).

The state asked the court to stay the order, but the court denied this request. The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which also denied the state's request on March 21, 2016.

Also on March 21, 2016, the district court appointed two experts as special masters, charged with overseeing the reform of Texas' foster care system. After receiving the special masters' recommendations and subsequent objections to those recommendations, the court entered an interim order on January 9, 2017. The court found that further research was needed before it could issue a final order. The interim order required the special masters to work with the state so as to implement plans relating to monthly visits between caseworkers and children, a centralized database with key information about the children, a 24-hour hotline for calls reporting child abuse or neglect, recommendations for children who age out of the system, appointment of attorneys for the children, the availability of children's healthcare records, a reduction in caseloads for caseworkers and in caseworker turnover, identifying single-child homes, reporting and monitoring child abuse and neglect, and placement.

On January 19, 2018, the court adopted in part the special masters' implementation plan, finding that the state had done little to assist the special masters in devising recommendations or to reform the foster care system. The recommendations focused on the aforementioned categories, providing specific policies and practices for the state to implement. The state immediately appealed, and the Fifth Circuit granted an administrative stay while the appeal was pending.

A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Higginbotham, Smith, and Clement heard the case for the Fifth Circuit. They issued an opinion on October 18, 2018 affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding. 907 F.3d 237. The central issue on remand stemmed from the district court's permanent injunction being overly broad, and they were instructed to modify it to be consistent with their opinion.

On November 20, 2018, after parties had been given the opportunity to submit briefs addressing the issues on remand, the court issued its amended injunctive order. The state appealed the modified injunction to the Fifth Circuit on November 28, 2018.

On appeal, the same three judge panel was assigned to the case. On July 8, 2019, after reviewing the modified injunction, they affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated the order. 929 F.3d 272. They provided their own modifications to the injunction, and remanded to the district court for implementation without further changes. Monitoring and reporting resumed in compliance with the amended injunction.

The implementation of the injunction resulted in continuous litigation between the parties regarding monitoring requirements, attorneys' fees, and contempt of court. On November 5, 2019, the district court issued an order reaffirming 24-hour awake-night supervision for placements with more than six children, and prohibited the state from moving any child from their current placement unless an application was made to the court prior to the proposed discharge. After a clarification hearing on November 6, 2019, the court issued another order holding defendants in civil contempt of court for violating this court's order to provide 24-hour awake-night supervision. 418 F.Supp.3d 169. The court ordered a sanction of $50,000 per day starting November 8, 2019 for seven business days, then $100,000 per day until defendants reach compliance.

A month later, on December 5, 2019, defendants appealed once more to the Fifth Circuit for review of the order prohibiting a change in placement, as well as the sanctions stemming from that order. (USCA No. 19-41015). Litigation progressed as the parties prepared for the appeal to be heard.

In July of 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the district court for an order to show cause as to why defendants should not be held in contempt. The defendants filed a motion in opposition with supporting supplements, but their filings were struck from the record for being untimely. On July 29, the plaintiffs’ motion for the Order to Show Cause was granted, and a hearing was scheduled for September 3, where the court ordered that the State and Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) were to be held in contempt.

Circuit Judges Barksdale, Elrod and Ho heard the December 2019 appeal for the Fifth Circuit, and in an order issued on November 9, 2020, reversed the district court’s orders and remanded for proceedings consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s opinion issued in July 2019. 977 F.3d 479. They found that the district court’s prohibition on placement alterations constituted a modification of the amended injunction, in violation of the July 2019 appellate order. The opinion did not address the November 2019 order holding defendants in contempt, nor did it address the sanctions levied against them as a consequence.

On December 18, 2020, the district court issued an opinion detailing the September order holding defendants in contempt. 509 F.Supp.3d 683. Defendants were held in contempt on Remedial Orders 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 37, and B5. Defendants were ordered to file sworn certification of compliance with Order 22 within fifteen days and the remaining orders within thirty days. If defendants failed to certify compliance with Order 22 within the allotted time frame, they were to pay a fine of $75,000.00 per day beginning the sixteenth day, until such time they certified compliance.

The process of implementing reforms remained contentious and proceedings continued. On January 11, 2022, after a hearing, the district court ordered DFPS and the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to form an interagency committee. HHSC and DFPS were ordered to develop a plan within 90 days to expand mental health care services to children and bring back children placed out-of-state. The agencies were also ordered to provide a cost analysis of placement in Texas for high needs children.

As litigation continued, the district court held another hearing on March 30, 2022 to address incidents at a state-licensed shelter for sex trafficking victims. A former employee was accused of selling nude pictures of two girls residing at the shelter. Judge Jack announced that she would ask the court-appointed monitors to make a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney of the Western District of Texas for an investigation into the possible production and distribution of child pornography and sex trafficking at the shelter in question.

Monitors continued to provide reports as part of the agreed upon reforms. A hearing was held on January 27, 2023, following the monitors’ fifth report. The monitors found that children in the state's care were still being exposed to harm, and that the department still wasn’t adequately responding to abuse allegations. There was an increase in dropped calls for calls coming in to report suspected neglect or abuse, and not a high enough percentage of cases involving kids in high-priority situations being opened within 24 hours of the report, standards set by the November 2018 amended injunctive order. Another area of discussion included Children Without Placements (severe cases that create a barrier to providing placement). The court said if the department did not drop to zero cases of children without placements by June, the court would entertain a contempt of court motion from the plaintiff. Additional problems the court highlighted were a low percentage of children in custody with access to phones, and a lower percentage of children who were both familiar with the Foster Care Bill of Rights and had a known point of contact if they needed to report an incident. These issues had been left pending far too long, the court stated, as they were supposed to have been addressed within 30 days of an order issued almost five years ago. The court also demanded a list, within 30 days, of all children in permanent custody who were pregnant, their ages and whether they became pregnant while in foster care. 

Another status conference was held on April 12, 2023. The hearing centered around the monitors' reports on site inspections that they made at 14 residential facilities between December 2021 and December 2022. The inspections revealed a pattern of staff mismanagement of how medications and psychotropic drugs were administered. According to the monitors' reports, children were given prescriptions that violated the state’s guidelines for using drugs for foster children. In several instances, medication was prescribed that wasn’t recommended for children. And when children were prescribed four or more psychotropic drugs at the same time, what should have been mandatory review of the children’s clinical status wasn’t completed in 28% of cases. The monitors also identified errors in medication logs, failures to refill medications in a timely manner, missed doses, miscounted medications and unfollowed psychiatric orders. The court demanded a specific remedy for the administration of these drugs.

Per the monitors' reports, there were also several instances in which children who suffered sexual abuse were placed in bedrooms with youth that had a history of sexual aggression. The monitors also raised concerns about the intake of and investigations into reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation. The monitors reported a discrepancy in the information staff, witnesses and victims shared with DFPS investigators, and the summaries of the interviews in state records. The agency opened investigations into several of the facilities following the monitors’ reports, but neither the DFPS commissioner nor her staff cited any disciplinary action that had been taken thus far. 

On May 1, 2023, the court held a virtual status conference after DFPS requested more details regarding the monitors’ invoice and what they had billed for. An attorney for DFPS said the department was concerned about the number of hours the monitors were billing, and whether they were using the hours to do work outside of investigating the specific remedial orders they were assigned to investigate. The court highlighted a number of points in the monitors' reports where the team reopened investigations the department had closed, uncovered new information the department had not previously disclosed and even shut down multiple facilities for issues that had persisted under the state's watch. During the second portion of the hearing, the court addressed the state's separate filing objecting to the medication mistreatment findings in the monitor's report. After going through multiple examples and reviewing the language of specific remedial orders, the court found that discrepancies and mishandling of medication for children in the state's care fell in the "abuse and neglect" category of the remedial orders, and any attempt from the state to avoid providing that information to the monitors would be rejected.

On June 20, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order to show cause as to why defendants should not be held in contempt. This was followed up by an amended motion for contempt on August 18, 2023, alleging noncompliance with remedial orders 3, 20, A6 and 4, as well as others. The plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to follow the remedial orders by overburdening caseworkers, failing to facilitate reports of abuse/neglect, not adhering to caseload guidelines of 14-17 children per caseworker and failing to inform caregivers of children's sexual abuse history. The defense filed a response in opposition on September 8, 2023, alleging that the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of contempt with regard to the remedial orders.

The case is ongoing as of November 10, 2023.

Summary Authors

Alice Liu (9/27/2012)

Jessica Kincaid (4/19/2016)

Virginia Weeks (3/16/2018)

Alex Moody (4/17/2020)

Simran Takhar (3/20/2023)

Carlos Hurtado-Esteve (12/1/2023)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4398545/parties/md-v-abbott/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Almonrode, Patrick S. (New York)

Annino, Paolo G. (Texas)

Barber, Philip (New York)

Bartosz, Michael [Sara Michelle] K. (New York)

Attorney for Defendant

Albright, Thomas A. (Texas)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other
Attorney for Plaintiff

Almonrode, Patrick S. (New York)

Annino, Paolo G. (Texas)

Barber, Philip (New York)

Bartosz, Michael [Sara Michelle] K. (New York)

Bartosz, Michael Kenneth (Texas)

Behrens, Richard Thaddeus (Texas)

Behrens, R. Thaddeus (Texas)

Bell, Patricia C. (Texas)

Bellina, Nicole Marie (Texas)

Boundas, John T (Texas)

Brahmbhatt, Sejal K. (Texas)

Canales, Hector (Texas)

Canales, J. A. (Texas)

Cardenas, Amelia J. (Texas)

Carter, Vinson F. (Texas)

Cash, William Franklin (Texas)

Circelli, Vincent Paul (Texas)

Clune, John (Texas)

Cochran, Darrell L (Texas)

Cohen, Melissa A. (New York)

Crofford, Stephen C. (Texas)

Cueto, Christopher F. (Texas)

Dembrow, Adam C. (New York)

DiCello, Nicholas A. (Texas)

Dietz, Matthew Wilson (Texas)

Dixon, Stephen (New York)

Dodds, David Allen (Texas)

Engel, David A. (Texas)

Farris, April L. (Texas)

Fibich, Kenneth T. (Texas)

Finch, Aaron Hirsh (New York)

Friedman, Joshua R. (Texas)

Gilbert, Justin S. (Texas)

Goffstein, Adam M. (Texas)

Goldman, Dori K. (Texas)

Groth, Lauren (Texas)

Grunewald, Edward J. (Texas)

Hastings, Kevin M. (Texas)

Ito, Jamie Marie (Texas)

Jr, Phillip L (Texas)

Kapell, William (New York)

Loocke, Blair R. (Texas)

Lowry, Marcia Robinson (New York)

Luciano, Adriana Teresa (New York)

Lumer, Michael B. (Texas)

Lustbader, Ira P. (New York)

Massimi, Jessica S. (Texas)

McBride, Ralph D. (Texas)

McEvily, Nancy R (Texas)

McNeil, Barry F. (Texas)

Meloy, Peter M. (Texas)

Meyer, Jeffrey D (Texas)

Mindicino, Nicholas Henry (Texas)

Nili, Rachel Brodin (New York)

Novosad, Heath A (Texas)

Orlowsky, Daniel John (Texas)

Parker, Mary Ann (Texas)

Perlin, Asher (Texas)

Pitman, Elizabeth (New York)

Polansky, Jessica E. (New York)

Porter, Christopher D. (Texas)

Rafferty, Troy Alan (Texas)

Rosenthal, Joshua M. (New York)

Russo, Sarah (New York)

Salim, Robert L. (Texas)

Salim, Jennifer (Texas)

Salonus, Jessica F. (Texas)

Sohmer, Olivia (New York)

Stern, Corey M. (Texas)

Tor, Jeremy (Texas)

Vertetis, Thomas Brian (Texas)

Watson, Aaron L. (Texas)

Wilson, Christina (New York)

Yetter, R. Paul (Texas)

Zaborske, Jill B. (Texas)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:11-cv-00084

Docket [PACER]

May 5, 2020

May 5, 2020

Docket
1

11-40789

Plaintiffs' Original Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Request for Class Action Relief and Request for Class Action

M.D. v. Perry

March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

Complaint
15

2:11-cv-00084

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

M.D. v. Perry

April 5, 2011

April 5, 2011

Pleading / Motion / Brief
49

2:11-cv-00084

Order

M.D. v. Perry

June 2, 2011

June 2, 2011

Order/Opinion

2011 WL 2011

58

2:11-cv-00084

ORDER

M.D. v. Perry

July 1, 2011

July 1, 2011

Order/Opinion

799 F.Supp.2d 799

11-00084

Order

M.D. v. Perry

July 21, 2011

July 21, 2011

Order/Opinion

2011 WL 2011

00511798331

11-40789

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

M.D. v. Perry

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

March 23, 2012

March 23, 2012

Order/Opinion

675 F.3d 675

130

2:11-cv-00084

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AND REQUEST FOR CLASS ACTION

M.D. v. Perry

June 1, 2012

June 1, 2012

Complaint
133

2:11-cv-00084

Judgment

M.D. v. Perry

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

June 14, 2012

June 14, 2012

Order/Opinion
134

2:11-cv-00084

Bill of Costs

M.D. v. Perry

June 14, 2012

June 14, 2012

Other

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4398545/md-v-abbott/

Last updated April 21, 2024, 3:08 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0541-7866347) filed by J.S., D.I., S.A., A.M., T.C., D.P., M.D., K. E., Z.H..(Canales, J) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

RECAP
2

ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 5/26/2011 at 01:15 PM before Judge Janis Graham Jack. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) Parties notified.(vrios, ) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

1 Standing Order

View on PACER

March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

PACER
3

Summons Issued as to Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed.(brngarcia, ) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

PACER
4

MOTION for Olivia Sohmer to Appear Pro Hac Vice by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 4/19/2011. (Canales, J) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

PACER
5

MOTION for Jessica Polansky to Appear Pro Hac Vice by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 4/19/2011. (Canales, J) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

PACER
6

MOTION for Marcia Robinson Lowry to Appear Pro Hac Vice by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 4/19/2011. (Canales, J) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

PACER
7

MOTION for Patrick Almonrode to Appear Pro Hac Vice by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 4/19/2011. (Canales, J) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

PACER
8

MOTION for Stephen Dixon to Appear Pro Hac Vice by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 4/19/2011. (Canales, J) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

PACER
9

MOTION for Amelia Cardenas to Appear Pro Hac Vice by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 4/21/2011. (Canales, J) (Entered: 03/31/2011)

March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

PACER
10

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(bcortez, ) (Entered: 04/04/2011)

March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

PACER
11

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(bcortez, ) (Entered: 04/04/2011)

March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

PACER
12

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(bcortez, ) (Entered: 04/04/2011)

March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

PACER
13

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(bcortez, ) (Entered: 04/04/2011)

March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

PACER
14

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(bcortez, ) (Entered: 04/04/2011)

March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

PACER
15

MOTION to Certify Class by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 4/26/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Proposed Order)(Canales, J) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F

View on PACER

7 Proposed Order

View on PACER

April 5, 2011

April 5, 2011

Clearinghouse
16

ORDER. Next Friends shall appear before the Court at the Initial Pretrial Conference on May 26, 2011. (Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(amireles, ) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

April 6, 2011

April 6, 2011

PACER
17

MOTION for April L. Farris to Appear Pro Hac Vice by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 4/27/2011. (Canales, J) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

April 6, 2011

April 6, 2011

PACER
18

ORDER granting 9 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(amireles, ) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

April 6, 2011

April 6, 2011

PACER
19

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed.(Todd, James) (Entered: 04/07/2011)

April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

PACER
20

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by A.M., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed.(Canales, J) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

April 11, 2011

April 11, 2011

PACER
21

MOTION for Extension of Time to file Answer and Respond to Class Certification Motion by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/5/2011. (Todd, James) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

April 14, 2011

April 14, 2011

PACER
22

RESPONSE in Opposition to 21 MOTION for Extension of Time to file Answer and Respond to Class Certification Motion, filed by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H.. (Canales, J) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

April 15, 2011

April 15, 2011

PACER
23

ORDER granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time. Answer due by 5/14/2011 Responses due by 5/14/2011.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(lcayce, ) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

April 19, 2011

April 19, 2011

PACER
24

Unopposed MOTION of Sara Stukenberg, As Next of Friend to Plaintiff M.D., to Appear at the Initial Pretrial Conference Via Telephone Conference by M.D., filed. Motion Docket Date 5/31/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bell, Patricia) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

PACER
25

ORDER granting 24 Unopposed MOTION of Sara Stukenberg to Appear at the Initial Pretrial Conference Via Telephone Conference.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(sscotch, ) (Entered: 05/10/2011)

May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011

PACER
26

NOTICE of Appearance by James Beau Eccles on behalf of Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed. (Eccles, James) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER
27

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/6/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Eccles, James) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER
28

DESIGNATION of James Beau Eccles as attorney in charge of Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed.(Eccles, James) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER
29

ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed.(Eccles, James) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER
30

Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER
31

JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by A.M., D.I., D.P., Anne Heiligenstein, J.S., K. E., M.D., Rick Perry, S.A., Thomas Suehs, T.C., Z.H., filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Proposed Scheduling Order, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Proposed Scheduling Order)(Lowry, Marcia) (Stricken DE #38 per JGJ) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Proposed Scheduling Order

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Defendants' Proposed Scheduling Order

View on PACER

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

RECAP
32

Corrected JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by A.M., D.I., D.P., Anne Heiligenstein, J.S., K. E., M.D., Rick Perry, S.A., Thomas Suehs, T.C., Z.H., filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Proposed Scheduling Order, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Proposed Scheduling Order)(Lowry, Marcia) (Stricken per DE #38 JGJ) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Proposed Scheduling Order

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Defendants' Proposed Scheduling Order

View on PACER

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER
33

Amended JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by A.M., D.I., D.P., Anne Heiligenstein, J.S., K. E., M.D., Rick Perry, S.A., Thomas Suehs, T.C., Z.H., filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Proposed Scheduling Order, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Proposed Scheduling Order)(Lowry, Marcia) (Stricken per DE#38 JGJ) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Proposed Scheduling Order

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Defendants' Proposed Scheduling Order

View on PACER

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER
34

Amended JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by A.M., D.I., D.P., Anne Heiligenstein, J.S., K. E., M.D., Rick Perry, S.A., Thomas Suehs, T.C., Z.H., filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Bell, Patricia) (Stricken per DE #38 JGJ) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER
35

Amended JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by A.M., D.I., D.P., Anne Heiligenstein, J.S., K. E., M.D., Rick Perry, S.A., Thomas Suehs, T.C., Z.H., filed.(Bell, Patricia)(Stricken per DE #38 JGJ) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER
36

Amended JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by A.M., D.I., D.P., Anne Heiligenstein, J.S., K. E., M.D., Rick Perry, S.A., Thomas Suehs, T.C., Z.H., filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Bell, Patricia) (Stricken per DE #38 JGJ) (Entered: 05/16/2011)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER
37

Amended JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by A.M., D.I., D.P., Anne Heiligenstein, J.S., K. E., M.D., Rick Perry, S.A., Thomas Suehs, T.C., Z.H., filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Bell, Patricia) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011

PACER
38

ORDER Striking Document re: 33 JointDiscovery/Case Management Plan, 34 JointDiscovery/Case Management Plan, 31 JointDiscovery/Case Management Plan, 36 JointDiscovery/Case Management Plan, 35 JointDiscovery/Case Management Plan, 32 JointDiscovery/Case Management Plan,. Documents are duplicative.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(lsmith, ) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011

PACER
39

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(amireles, ) (Entered: 05/18/2011)

May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011

PACER
40

MEMORANDUM of Law and Supporting Affidavits in Relation to Plaintiffs' Next Friends by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Stukenberg Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit Pofahl Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit Morrison Affidavit, # 4 Affidavit Solis Affidavit, # 5 Affidavit Ricker Affidavit, # 6 Affidavit Langsley Affidavit, # 7 Affidavit Swacina Affidavit, # 8 Affidavit Cliff Affidavit, # 9 Affidavit Talley Affidavit, # 10 Exhibit Olivia Y. v. Barbour)(Lowry, Marcia) (Entered: 05/18/2011)

1 Affidavit Stukenberg Affidavit

View on PACER

2 Affidavit Pofahl Affidavit

View on PACER

3 Affidavit Morrison Affidavit

View on PACER

4 Affidavit Solis Affidavit

View on PACER

5 Affidavit Ricker Affidavit

View on PACER

6 Affidavit Langsley Affidavit

View on PACER

7 Affidavit Swacina Affidavit

View on PACER

8 Affidavit Cliff Affidavit

View on PACER

9 Affidavit Talley Affidavit

View on PACER

10 Exhibit Olivia Y. v. Barbour

View on PACER

May 18, 2011

May 18, 2011

RECAP
41

Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 05/23/2011)

May 23, 2011

May 23, 2011

PACER
42

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/14/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Eccles, James) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

May 24, 2011

May 24, 2011

PACER
43

Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

May 24, 2011

May 24, 2011

PACER
44

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 6/14/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order For Leave To File Reply, # 2 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A - Olivia Y. v. Barbour, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B - Charlie and Nadine H. v. Whitman, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit C - Dwayne B. v. Granholm)(Lowry, Marcia) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

1 Proposed Order For Leave To File Reply

View on PACER

2 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Appoint

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Exhibit A - Olivia Y. v. Barbour

View on PACER

4 Exhibit Exhibit B - Charlie and Nadine H. v. Whitman

View on PACER

5 Exhibit Exhibit C - Dwayne B. v. Granholm

View on PACER

May 24, 2011

May 24, 2011

PACER
45

Sealed Event, filed. (With attachments) (Entered: 05/25/2011)

May 25, 2011

May 25, 2011

PACER
46

Sealed Event, filed. (Entered: 05/25/2011)

May 25, 2011

May 25, 2011

PACER
47

AO 435 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Mishell Kneeland. This is to order a transcript of Pre-Trial Proceeding held on May 26, 2011 before Judge Janis Graham Jack (original), filed. (grogan, ) (Entered: 05/27/2011)

May 26, 2011

May 26, 2011

PACER

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janis Graham Jack. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 5/26/2011 granting 42 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Discussion re: case. Parties to submit proposed scheduling order. Appearances:Angela Colmenero, Mishell Kneeland, David Halpern, Shelly Dahlberg, Sara Stuckenberg (by phone), Barry F McNeil, Stephen Dixon, Marcia Robinson Lowry, R Paul Yetter, J A Tony Canales, Patricia Canales Bell, James B Eccles.(Digital # 1:28-2:32)(ERO:v. gano), filed.(lcayce, )

May 26, 2011

May 26, 2011

PACER
48

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Certify Class.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(sscotch, ) (Entered: 05/31/2011)

May 31, 2011

May 31, 2011

RECAP
49

ORDER regarding 15 MOTION to Certify Class by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H.; granting 44 Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Reply.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(sscotch, ) (Entered: 06/02/2011)

June 2, 2011

June 2, 2011

Clearinghouse
51

REPLY in Support of 15 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(sscotch, ) (Entered: 06/06/2011)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

June 2, 2011

June 2, 2011

PACER
50

TRANSCRIPT re: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 5/26/11 before Judge Janis Graham Jack. Court Reporter/Transcriber Garcia Services. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/6/2011., filed. (judgarcia, ) (Entered: 06/06/2011)

June 6, 2011

June 6, 2011

PACER
52

Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 50 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (vrios, ) (Entered: 06/07/2011)

June 7, 2011

June 7, 2011

PACER
53

NOTICE Correction-page 37-Doc.No.43 by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed. (Eccles, James) (Entered: 06/08/2011)

June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

PACER
54

MOTION for Protective Order by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Proposed Order order)(Eccles, James) (Entered: 06/14/2011)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

3 Proposed Order order

View on PACER

June 14, 2011

June 14, 2011

PACER
55

RESPONSE in Opposition to 43 Sealed Event, filed by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Lowry, Marcia) (Entered: 06/14/2011)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

June 14, 2011

June 14, 2011

PACER
56

PROPOSED ORDER re: 54 MOTION for Protective Order, filed.(Eccles, James) (Entered: 06/15/2011)

June 15, 2011

June 15, 2011

PACER

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janis Graham Jack. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE re: [D.E. 54] Motion for Protective Order held on 6/16/2011. Appearances:David Dodds, Shelly Dahlberg. Dori Kornfeld Goldman, Marcia Robinson Lowry, Patrick Almonrode, James B Eccles.(Digital # 10:33-10:42)(ERO:v. gano), filed.(lcayce, )

June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

PACER
57

PROTECTIVE ORDER granting 54 MOTION for Protective Order.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(lcayce, ) (Entered: 06/17/2011)

June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

PACER
58

ORDER denying 43 Sealed Motion. Defendants Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(bcortez, ) (Entered: 07/01/2011)

July 1, 2011

July 1, 2011

Clearinghouse
59

MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/26/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Affidavit of Rosa Rohr, # 2 Proposed Order)(Eccles, James) (Entered: 07/05/2011)

1 Exhibit A - Affidavit of Rosa Rohr

View on PACER

2 Proposed Order

View on PACER

July 5, 2011

July 5, 2011

PACER
60

RESPONSE in Opposition to 59 MOTION to Stay Proceedings, filed by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Dwayne B. v. Granholm, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B - Olivia Y. v. Barbour, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C - Charlie H. v. Whitman, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D - Defendants' Petition for Appeal, # 5 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Lowry, Marcia) (Entered: 07/07/2011)

1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Dwayne B. v. Granholm

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Exhibit B - Olivia Y. v. Barbour

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Exhibit C - Charlie H. v. Whitman

View on PACER

4 Exhibit Exhibit D - Defendants' Petition for Appeal

View on PACER

5 Proposed Order Proposed Order

View on PACER

July 7, 2011

July 7, 2011

PACER
61

ORDER denying 59 Motion to Stay Proceedings.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(vrios, ) (Entered: 07/21/2011)

July 21, 2011

July 21, 2011

PACER
62

Order of USCA; USCA No. Misc. No. 11-90028, Docket No. 11-40789. The petition for leave to appeal is granted. The motion of respondents to place appendix number 5 under seal is granted., filed.(bcortez, ) (Entered: 07/22/2011)

July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

PACER
63

NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 49 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 48 Order on Motion to Certify Class by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs (Filing fee $ 455-NOT PAID), filed. Filed at 5th Circuit under Misc. No. 11-90028, Case No. 11-40789 as a Petition for Permission to Appeal Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) and was GRANTED.(bcortez, ) (Entered: 07/22/2011)

July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

PACER

Filing Filing fee re: 63 Notice of Appeal, : $455.00, receipt number CC002089, filed. (brngarcia, )

July 25, 2011

July 25, 2011

PACER
64

NOTICE of Appearance by David Dodds on behalf of A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. (Dodds, David) (Entered: 07/26/2011)

July 26, 2011

July 26, 2011

PACER
65

DKT-13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Office of the Attorney General. No hearings. Hearing on June 16, 2011 before Janis Graham Jack. This order form relates to the following: 63 Notice of Appeal,, filed.(lsmith, ) (Entered: 08/05/2011)

Aug. 5, 2011

Aug. 5, 2011

PACER
66

MOTION for Philip Barber to Appear Pro Hac Vice by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 8/26/2011. (Bell, Patricia) (Entered: 08/05/2011)

Aug. 5, 2011

Aug. 5, 2011

PACER
67

DKT-13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Shelley Dahlberg. Transcript is necessary for appeal purposes. Held on 6/16/11 before Judge Janis Graham Jack. This order form relates to the following: 63 Notice of Appeal,, filed.(lrivera, ) (Entered: 08/08/2011)

Aug. 5, 2011

Aug. 5, 2011

PACER
68

ORDER granting 66 Motion flor Hilip Barber to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(lsmith, ) (Entered: 08/09/2011)

Aug. 8, 2011

Aug. 8, 2011

PACER
69

APPEAL TRANSCRIPT re TELEPHONE CONFERENCE - PROTECTIVE ORDER held on 06/16/11 before Judge Janis Graham Jack. Court Reporter/Transcriber Molly Carter. This transcript relates to the following: 63 Notice of Appeal, 67 Transcript Order Form - DKT-13, 65 Transcript Order Form - DKT-13. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/21/2011., filed. (mocarter) (Entered: 08/22/2011)

Aug. 22, 2011

Aug. 22, 2011

PACER
70

Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 69 Transcript - Appeal,. Party notified, filed. (vrios, ) (Entered: 08/22/2011)

Aug. 22, 2011

Aug. 22, 2011

PACER

Electronic record on appeal certified to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals re: 63 Notice of Appeal, USCA No. 11-40789, filed.(vrios, )

Aug. 24, 2011

Aug. 24, 2011

PACER
71

Transmittal Letter on Appeal Certified re: 63 Notice of Appeal,. A paper copy of the electronic record is being transmitted to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 7 volumes. CDs containing the electronic record are being sent to counsel. (USCA No. 11-40789), filed.(vrios, ) (Entered: 08/24/2011)

Aug. 24, 2011

Aug. 24, 2011

PACER
72

Transmittal Letter to counsel regarding CD containing electronic record on appeal, filed.(vrios, ) (Entered: 08/24/2011)

Aug. 24, 2011

Aug. 24, 2011

PACER
73

MOTION for Olivia Sohmer to Withdraw as Attorney by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 9/15/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bell, Patricia) (Entered: 08/25/2011)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Aug. 25, 2011

Aug. 25, 2011

PACER
74

NOTICE of Receipt of Record on Appeal from US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 63 Notice of Appeal, (USCA No. 11-40789). Record received by USCA on 8/26/2011, filed.(lsmith, ) (Entered: 09/19/2011)

Sept. 19, 2011

Sept. 19, 2011

PACER
75

MOTION for Christina Wilson to Appear Pro Hac Vice by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 1/25/2012. (Bell, Patricia) (Entered: 01/04/2012)

Jan. 4, 2012

Jan. 4, 2012

PACER
76

MOTION for Adam Dembrow to Appear Pro Hac Vice by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. Motion Docket Date 1/25/2012. (Bell, Patricia) (Entered: 01/04/2012)

Jan. 4, 2012

Jan. 4, 2012

PACER
77

NOTICE In Response to Plaintiffs' Expert's Methodology for Case Review Study by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(Gibson, Darren) (Entered: 01/04/2012)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 5

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 6

View on PACER

7 Exhibit 7

View on PACER

8 Exhibit 8

View on PACER

9 Exhibit 9

View on PACER

10 Exhibit 10

View on PACER

11 Exhibit 11

View on PACER

Jan. 4, 2012

Jan. 4, 2012

PACER
78

ORDER granting 76 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(amireles, ) (Entered: 01/10/2012)

Jan. 9, 2012

Jan. 9, 2012

RECAP
79

ORDER granting 75 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Christina Wilson (Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(vrios, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

Jan. 9, 2012

Jan. 9, 2012

PACER
80

NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 1/25/2012 at 01:30 PM before Judge Janis Graham Jack, filed. (lcayce, ) (Entered: 01/17/2012)

Jan. 17, 2012

Jan. 17, 2012

PACER
81

NOTICE of Issues To Be Presented at the January 25, 2012 Status Conference by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Proposed Scheduling Order)(Lowry, Marcia) (Entered: 01/24/2012)

1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Proposed Scheduling Order

View on PACER

Jan. 24, 2012

Jan. 24, 2012

PACER

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janis Graham Jack. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 1/25/2012. Discussion of deadlines, general status of case. Parties to submit an amended proposed scheduling order. Status conference set for 3/15/12 at 9:00 a.m. Appearances:Shelly Dahlberg, Andrew Stephens. Patricia Canales Bell, Philip Barber, Barry F McNeil, Marcia Robinson Lowry, David Allen Dodds, Darren Glenn Gibson, James B Eccles.(Digital # 1:38-2:55)(ERO:v. gano), filed.(lcayce, )

Jan. 25, 2012

Jan. 25, 2012

PACER
82

NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 3/15/2012 at 09:00 AM before Judge Janis Graham Jack, filed. (lcayce, ) (Entered: 01/26/2012)

Jan. 26, 2012

Jan. 26, 2012

PACER
83

NOTICE of Proposed Language Requested from Plaintiffs by the Court by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H., filed. (Barber, Philip) (Entered: 01/26/2012)

Jan. 26, 2012

Jan. 26, 2012

PACER
84

NOTICE OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE REQUESTED BY THE COURT by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed. (Gibson, Darren) (Entered: 01/26/2012)

Jan. 26, 2012

Jan. 26, 2012

PACER
85

RESPONSE to 84 Notice (Other) of Proposed Language Requested by the Court, filed by A.M., D.I., D.P., J.S., K. E., M.D., S.A., T.C., Z.H.. (Barber, Philip) (Entered: 01/27/2012)

Jan. 27, 2012

Jan. 27, 2012

PACER
86

ORDER Miscellaneous Hearing set for 3/15/2012 at 09:00 AM before Judge Janis Graham Jack.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(lrivera, ) (Entered: 01/27/2012)

Jan. 27, 2012

Jan. 27, 2012

PACER
87

AO 435 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Patricia C. Bell. This is to order a transcript of Status Conference held on 1/25/12 before Judge Janis Graham Jack (original), filed. (amireles, ) (Entered: 02/01/2012)

Feb. 1, 2012

Feb. 1, 2012

PACER
88

ORDER granting 73 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Olivia Sohmer terminated. (Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(vrios, ) (Entered: 02/02/2012)

Feb. 2, 2012

Feb. 2, 2012

PACER
89

Joint PROPOSED ORDER Scheduling Order re: 86 Order, filed.(Barber, Philip) (Entered: 02/03/2012)

Feb. 3, 2012

Feb. 3, 2012

PACER
90

SCHEDULING ORDER. Amended Pleadings due by 3/15/2012. Joinder of Parties due by 3/15/2012 Discovery due by 3/12/2012. Dispositive Motion Filing due by 10/26/2012. Joint Pretrial Order due by 1/25/2013 by 3:00 p.m. Trial set for 2/11/2013 at 8:30 AM before Judge Janis Graham Jack.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(sscotch, ) (Entered: 02/06/2012)

Feb. 6, 2012

Feb. 6, 2012

PACER
91

ORDER.(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(sscotch, ) (Entered: 02/07/2012)

Feb. 7, 2012

Feb. 7, 2012

PACER

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janis Graham Jack. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 2/7/2012. Court sets guidelines re: mental examination of class members. Appearances:Shelley Dahlberg, Elizabeth Aromrei (on behalf of Dept of Family Protective Services). Philip Barber, James B Eccles.(Digital # 2:25-2:35)(ERO:v. gano), filed.(lcayce, )

Feb. 7, 2012

Feb. 7, 2012

PACER
92

NOTICE REGARDING RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS DISCOVERY REQUESTS by Anne Heiligenstein, Rick Perry, Thomas Suehs, filed. (Eccles, James) (Entered: 02/08/2012)

Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

PACER
93

ORDER striking 92 Notice (Other).(Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack) Parties notified.(mserpa, ) (Entered: 02/08/2012)

Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

PACER
94

TRANSCRIPT re: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 01/25/12 before Judge Janis Graham Jack. Court Reporter/Transcriber Molly Carter. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/9/2012., filed. (mocarter) (Entered: 02/09/2012)

Feb. 9, 2012

Feb. 9, 2012

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Texas

Case Type(s):

Child Welfare

Special Collection(s):

Post-WalMart decisions on class certification

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 29, 2011

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are the class of Texas children in long-term foster care. Subclasses involve kids in licensed foster care, foster group homes, larger-scale institutions, and in kinship foster care.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Children's Rights, Inc.

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Governor of Texas (Austin ), State

Department of Family and Protective Services of the State of Texas (Austin ), State

Health and Human Services Commission of the State of Texas (Austin ), State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Content of Injunction:

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Reporting

Monitor/Master

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Order Duration: 2015 - None

Issues

General/Misc.:

Adoption

Classification / placement

Failure to discipline

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Family abuse and neglect

Foster care (benefits, training)

Juveniles

Neglect by staff

Payment for care

Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)

Relative caretakers

Siblings (visitation, placement)

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Totality of conditions

Wait lists

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

Male

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)

Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)

Crowding / caseload

Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff

Visiting

Policing:

Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures