Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: Al-Jundi v. Mancusi

1:75-cv-00132 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York

Filed Date: Sept. 13, 1974

Closed Date: Aug. 28, 2000

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Background This case is part of the Clearinghouse's special collection on the Attica Uprising. In September of 1971, incarcerated people in New York's Attica Correctional Facility took control of the prison and took several staff members hostage. The uprising ended when state police violently stormed the prison, killing over 40 incarcerated people and staff members. Attica was one of the most significant events in the American prisoners' rights movement and drew public attention to poor conditi…

Background

This case is part of the Clearinghouse's special collection on the Attica Uprising. In September of 1971, incarcerated people in New York's Attica Correctional Facility took control of the prison and took several staff members hostage. The uprising ended when state police violently stormed the prison, killing over 40 incarcerated people and staff members. Attica was one of the most significant events in the American prisoners' rights movement and drew public attention to poor conditions in prisons across the country. The uprising, retaking, and their aftermaths spawned numerous lawsuits, many of which are included in this special collection.

This case concerns damages for the incarcerated people injured or killed during the retaking and reprisals.

The Complaint

This is a class action concerning liability and damages for the violence committed against incarcerated people at Attica during the retaking and reprisals. The class included all incarcerated people who were in D-Yard during the retaking. The complaint was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 13, 1974, but then was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, where Attica is located. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 11, 1975. The case was assigned to District Judge John Elfvin.

The plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3), alleging violations of the Due Process and Equal Protections Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs also alleged a conspiracy to violate these amendments. 

The amended complaint included eleven causes of action, which the court broke down into three main categories. The first category was allegations concerning the plan to retake the prison, including the failure to plan for medical care (“plan claims”). The second was the reprisals after the retaking (“reprisals claims”), which included the failure to provide medical care to those injured. The third was the prosecution of people involved in the uprising (“prosecution claims”). The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages of more than $4 billion. 

The defendants included Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the Commissioner of Corrections Russell Oswald, the Superintendent of Attica Vincent Mancusi, the Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Attica Karl Pfeil, and state police Major John Monahan, as well as other state prison and law enforcement officials. The defendants were sued in their individual capacity. The court denied the defendants’ early motion to dismiss.

Liability Phase: Class Certification

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for class certification on October 30, 1979. The class included “all persons who were on September 13, 1971 inmates of the Attica Correctional Facility, Wyoming County, N.Y., and who were present in D-yard of Attica on such date.” Approximately 1,281 people were part of the class. 

On October 30, 1979, the court narrowed the prosecution claim. In the same order, the court dismissed Mancusi and Pfeil from the plan claims and Pfeil from the prosecution claim.

Leading up to April 1980, the plaintiffs’ counsel, Bob Cantor, a Manhattan criminal defense attorney, sought to withdraw from the case because he felt he was unable to adequately represent the class. According to Heather Ann Thompson, this was because of the magnitude of the case and the fact that he was working from Manhattan. Blood in the Water, 462. On April 21, 1980, the court ordered the parties to begin discovery, but the plaintiffs failed to do so. 88 F.R.D. 244. 

By October 1980, the plaintiffs had still not started discovery. So, on October 27, 1980, the court said the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute unless the plaintiffs began discovery within 120 days. In the same order, the court concluded Cantor was unable to adequately represent the class because he failed to begin discovery, so he was allowed to withdraw. 88 F.R.D. 244. Since the plaintiffs no longer had counsel, the court revoked the class certification order without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to recertify the class once they had adequate representation. 

Soon after, the plaintiffs obtained new counsel, Elizabeth Fink, who was part of the Attica Brothers Legal Defense efforts. The Attica Brothers Legal Defense were the attorneys who represented incarcerated people at Attica charged with crimes committed during the uprising. Later, attorneys Michael Deutsch, Joe Heath, Danny Meyers, and Dennis Cunningham, who also had prior experience with Attica litigation, joined the plaintiffs’ team. With new counsel, the plaintiffs began discovery. 

The plaintiffs waited to recertify the class until they had the evidence they wanted from discovery, which took several years. After various subpoenas and attempts by defendants to get protective orders to avoid having to answer requests to admit, 91 F.R.D. 590, the plaintiffs completed their discovery. Fink was even able to read the Meyer Report (referenced in Matter of Carey) because the records clerk in the office accidentally allowed her to view it. 

Once the plaintiffs had their complete discovery materials, they moved to recertify the class. The court granted the motion for recertification on June 24, 1985. The class remained the same: those in D-yard during the retaking. In response, the defendants moved to decertify the class, which the court denied on April 3, 1987. 1987 WL 8948. In the same opinion, the court denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the reprisals and prosecution claims, finding that the previous litigation concerning an injunction to stop reprisals and to require officials to prosecute state police (Inmates of Attica v. Rockefeller), did not collaterally estop the claims. 1987 WL 8948.

Liability Phase: Pretrial Motions

After April 3, 1987, all defendants filed motions for summary judgment. On September 28, 1988, the court granted the governor’s estate’s motion for summary judgment. 1988 WL 103346. The court found that because the governor was not present at the retaking, he did not inflict cruel and unusual punishment or violate due process, and there was insufficient evidence he engaged in a conspiracy to do so. The court found the governor was also entitled to qualified immunity because ordering the retaking did not violate clearly established law.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision. On December 15, 1989, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 885 F.2d 1060. The panel included Circuit Judges Jon Newman and Roger Miner and District Judge Robert Ward. Circuit Judge Miner wrote the opinion. The court agreed the governor’s involvement in the retaking was insufficient to establish liability under § 1983, that there was no basis for supervisor liability, and that the governor was entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the governor’s estate was dismissed from the case.

On June 26, 1990, the court denied Oswald, Mancusi, and Pfeil’s motion for summary judgment, finding they were not entitled to qualified immunity. However, the court did dismiss Mancusi and Oswald from the prosecution claim because of insufficient evidence. 1990 WL 97729. 

Oswald, Mancusi, and Pfeil appealed. On February 17, 1991, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. 926 F.2d 235. The panel included Circuit Judges Jon Newman, Irving Kaufman, and Joseph McLaughlin. Circuit Judge Newman wrote the opinion. The court held the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity except for the plan claims pertaining to medical care and the reprisals claim. The court found there was sufficient evidence to show the defendants knew about the reprisals even though they did not participate in them. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ petition for certiorari on October 7, 1991. 

Defendant Monahan’s estate also moved for dismissal based on qualified immunity. The court dismissed Monahan from the prosecution claim, but otherwise denied the motion. 1990 WL 130555. 

Liability Trial & Aftermath

Prior to trial, the court decided to bifurcate the case into two phases: one for liability and one for damages. After the court resolved the defendants’ pretrial motions, the remaining claims for the liability trial were: 1) the plan claim against Commissioner of Corrections Oswald for failure to plan for medical treatment after the retaking, 2) the plan claim against Major Monahan for supervising the state police during the retaking and failing to provide medical care, and 3) the reprisals claims against Oswald, Superintendent Mancusi, and Assistant Deputy Superintendent Pfeil for failing to stop the reprisals. 

The parties took those claims to trial in 1991. The trial ran from late 1991 until January 9, 1992. The jury was instructed to determine 1) whether reprisals had occurred and 2) which defendants caused the reprisals. The jury issued its verdict February 4, 1992, finding there had been reprisals and an unconstitutional failure to provide medical care after the retaking. The jury could not reach unanimous verdicts for the reprisals claim against Oswald or Mancusi or the plan claims against Monahan and Oswald, meaning a retrial would be needed to establish liability.

However, the jury did return a verdict against Pfeil, finding he was liable for the reprisals because he condoned them. The verdict sheet asked the jury, if they found there were reprisals, did the plaintiffs prove that Pfeil was “liable to the plaintiffs or any of them for any injury…resulting from such reprisals.” Prior to trial, Oswald and Pfeil’s counsel had objected to this language in the verdict sheet, arguing the language “plaintiffs or any of them” was insufficient to establish class-wide liability. They would later raise the same challenge on appeal. 

After the jury returned its verdict, all defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court denied Pfeil’s motion on January 16, 1993, finding there was no error in jury instructions, the verdicts were not based on evidence outside the record, and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Pfeil liable. 1993 WL 22829. The court similarly denied Mancusi and Oswald’s motions on January 19, 1993, and Monahan’s motion on February 22, 1993. 1993 WL 22818. 

Damages Phase: Pre-Trial Negotiations

After post-trial litigation was complete, the parties moved on to resolving damages against Pfeil, as he was the only defendant found liable. According to Thompson, Fink wanted to pursue settlement negotiations, so she contacted Judge Elfvin’s boss, Chief Judge Michael Telesca, to broker the settlement. Telesca suggested Magistrate Judge Edmund Maxwell, who oversaw the liability trial, handle the negotiations. Blood in the Water, 483. On April 8, 1992, the court transferred the case to Maxwell to handle settlement negotiations. However, negotiations broke down and ended in November 1992. 

So, the parties had to proceed with the damages phase of trial against Pfeil. The plaintiffs only pursued damages against Pfeil because he was the only defendant found liable, which was sufficient for the plaintiffs to obtain damages. Also, the state would be paying the damages regardless. In January 1993, the court encouraged the plaintiffs to “focus on their claims against Pfeil in order to facilitate the fashioning of an appealable final judgment.” 186 F.3d 252. For the next year and a half, the parties considered various subclasses and selected “typical” plaintiffs to try to expedite determining damage amounts. 

In August 1994, the court scheduled the liability trials. However, the defendants refused to stipulate that Pfeil was liable for the entire class given the language in the verdict sheet saying “plaintiffs or any of them.” So, the damage trials were postponed. On November 17, 1994, the court advised Pfeil that an interlocutory appeal was the appropriate method to resolve the question of class-wide liability, but Pfeil wanted to wait until the damage trials to appeal so he could argue he was not liable at the damage trial. So, the plaintiffs tried to secure a ruling on class-wide liability they could appeal. However, the court refused to grant that ruling on May 2, 1995. The same day, the court proposed to decertify the class and hold individual trials for each plaintiff. According to Thompson, this was because Elfvin was tired of the plaintiffs pressuring him to quickly resolve damages, so he instead threatened to make them hold separate trials. Blood in the Water, 480.

In response to the court’s effort to decertify the class, the plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus from the Second Circuit. The writ was denied without prejudice on June 30, 1995 as long as the court immediately scheduled the damage trials. In response, Elfvin rescheduled the trials. However, Elfvin said he would allow Pfeil to challenge his liability for individual plaintiffs at the damage trials. 

Back in the district court, on June 6, 1995, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to secure liability against Mancusi and Monahan based on what they argued was proved at trial. The court reasoned that neither claim was specifically tried and that amendment would prejudice Mancusi and Monahan. 1995 WL 353159. So, the damages trial continued only against Pfeil. 

Based on Elfvin’s statement that Pfeil would be allowed to challenge his liability at the damages trial, the plaintiffs moved the Second Circuit to reconsider the writ of mandamus. The plaintiffs were concerned that Pfeil would have another chance to argue he was not liable, which would violate the Seventh Amendment by letting the damage jury reconsider the liability jury's finding. Before the Second Circuit could rule on that, Elfvin changed his position. Elfvin stated that prima facie, the trial verdict “must be construed as imposing an all-encompassing responsibility upon Pfeil but allowing him to tender, but not necessarily to adduce, evidence that some particular hurt or deprivation from reprisals was so ‘out-of-the-mainstream’ ... as to be beyond Pfeil's responsibility.” On November 16, 1995, the Second Circuit denied the motion for reconsideration of the mandamus petition. Pfeil later challenged the liability finding in his appeal after the damage trials. 

The court then moved forward with the damages trials. The parties selected two plaintiffs who would be representative of the high-end and low-end of damages. The high-end damages trial included the plaintiff Smith, who was one of the leaders of the uprising and one of the most severely injured. The second plaintiff was selected because his injuries were typical of most class-members. In both trials, the jury was instructed to accept as true that reprisals had occurred and that Pfeil was liable for the injuries caused by the reprisals. However, the jury was told they must determine what specific acts counted as reprisals in assessing damages for the plaintiffs.

Smith’s trial was held from May 29 to June 4, 1997. The jury awarded $4 million in monetary damages. The second trial was held from June 23 to June 26, 1997. The jury awarded $75,000 in monetary damages. The court denied Pfeil’s motion to set aside both verdicts. 

Liability Phase: Post-Trial Motions and Appeals

After both verdicts, Pfeil moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, which the court denied on October 2, 1997. 1997 WL 613232. The court found the jury instructions were proper, that Pfeil was liable for his “knowing and wanton failure to protect inmates” from reprisals, that any erroneously admitted evidence was harmless error, and that the awards were not too large. The court then granted the plaintiffs’ motions for entry of partial final judgments on November 4, 1997. 1997 WL 736690.   

Pfeil then appealed the judgments against him, both the damage determinations and the liability finding. On August 3, 1999, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. 186 F.3d 252. The panel included Chief Judge Ralph Winter, Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler, and District Judge Peter Dorcey. Chief Judge Winter wrote the opinion. 

The court held the jury instructions in the liability trial were permissible because they correctly stated that Pfeil could be held liable for being deliberately indifferent to the reprisals. However, the court found the liability verdict did not establish class-wide liability based on the quoted language above. On its face, the verdict sheet did not require findings sufficient to establish class-wide liability. Accordingly, the court reversed the damage awards. 

Next, the court found the bifurcated trial violated the Seventh Amendment because it enabled the damage juries to reexamine issues decided by the liability jury, namely what specific acts counted as reprisals. Finally, the court ordered the district court to reconsider if the case should be a class action since retrial seemed inevitable. The court said common issues of law and fact did not appear to predominate over individual ones.

Final Settlement Discussions and Distribution of Funds

After the Second Circuit’s reversal, the parties entered into settlement discussions with the help of Judge Telesca. The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement on January 4, 2000 in which the state agreed to put $8 million in a damages fund to be apportioned by the court. However, the state did not admit liability. The state also agreed to put $4 million in a fund for attorneys’ fees. 

Judge Telesca then took over the case. On February 14, 2000, the court held a fairness hearing for class members to share their opinions on the settlement offer. The court issued a preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on February 15, 2000. Class members were ordered to submit claim forms to participate in the settlement. The court received 581 claims. 200 class members testified about their claims from May to August 2000. Ultimately, the court found there were 502 valid claims. 

The court issued a final approval and plan for distribution of the settlement on August 28, 2000. 113 F.Supp.2d 441. The court held that the settlement was fair and equitable. In dividing up the settlement, the court created five categories of class members, ranging from those who were moderately injured, to those who were killed. The court established a sliding scale for damages from $6,500 to $125,000. The appendix of the opinion included a summary of all the claims and the violence endured.

The court then dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered the clerk to direct the distribution of the funds once the time for appeal of the decision expired. Some class members attempted to appeal, but such appeals were withdrawn with prejudice on December 19, 2000. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Sarah Marble (3/15/2022)

Related Cases

Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller, Western District of New York (1971)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/2474418/parties/al-jundi-v-oswald/


Judge(s)

Feldman, Jonathan W. (New York)

Telesca, Michael Anthony (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abbate, Salvatore P. (New York)

Barone, Nathaniel L. II (New York)

Brown, Harry W. (Virgin Islands)

Cunningham, Dennis (California)

Deutsch, Michael (Illinois)

Elmore, John V. (New York)

Fink, Elizabeth (New York)

Heath, Joseph J. (New York)

Judge(s)

Feldman, Jonathan W. (New York)

Telesca, Michael Anthony (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abbate, Salvatore P. (New York)

Barone, Nathaniel L. II (New York)

Brown, Harry W. (Virgin Islands)

Cunningham, Dennis (California)

Deutsch, Michael (Illinois)

Elmore, John V. (New York)

Fink, Elizabeth (New York)

Heath, Joseph J. (New York)

Meyers, Daniel (New York)

Rosenberg, Jerome (New York)

Yacknin, Ellen M. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Banas, Mitchell J. Jr. (New York)

Berens, Donald P. Jr. (New York)

Black, Big (New York)

Effron, Joshua J. (New York)

Maghran, Irving C. Jr. (New York)

Moot, Richard E. (New York)

Rifkin, Richard (New York)

Stenger, John H. (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:75-cv-00132

Docket [PACER]

Al-Jundi v. Oswald

May 14, 2015

May 14, 2015

Docket

1:75-cv-00132

Memorandum and Order

Al-Jundi v. Rockefeller

Oct. 27, 1980

Oct. 27, 1980

Order/Opinion

1:75-cv-00132

Memorandum and Order

Al-Jundi v. Estate of Rockefeller

April 3, 1987

April 3, 1987

Order/Opinion

1:75-cv-00132

Memorandum and Order

Al-Jundi v. Estate of Rockefeller

Sept. 28, 1988

Sept. 28, 1988

Order/Opinion

88-02527

Opinion

Al-Jundi v. Estate of Rockefeller

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Sept. 15, 1989

Sept. 15, 1989

Order/Opinion

1:75-cv-00132

Memorandum and Order

Al-Jundi v. Estate of Rockefeller

June 26, 1990

June 26, 1990

Order/Opinion

1:75-cv-00132

Memorandum and Order

Al-Jundi v. Estate of Rockefeller

Sept. 30, 1990

Sept. 30, 1990

Order/Opinion

90-02287

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Feb. 27, 1991

Feb. 27, 1991

Order/Opinion

91-00107

[Opinion of the Court]

Mancusi v. Al-Jundi

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 7, 1991

Oct. 7, 1991

Order/Opinion

1:75-cv-00132

Memorandum and Order

Al-Jundi v. Oswald

Jan. 16, 1993

Jan. 16, 1993

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/2474418/al-jundi-v-oswald/

Last updated Nov. 21, 2022, 3:05 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

Minute entry: jury trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Mtn. by atty Stenger to strike testimony of witness Tepper; oral argumt re: same; mtn. denied; Colloquy w/ parties re: scheduling, etc. Adj. to 12/9/91 @ 9 a.m. (note: minutes received out of order) (former empl) Modified on 04/24/1992

Dec. 6, 1991

Dec. 6, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: jury trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Mtn. by atty Stenger to strike testimony of witness Tepper; oral argumt re: same; mtn. denied; Colloquy w/ parties re: scheduling, etc. Adj. to 12/9/91 @ 9 a.m. (note: minutes received out of order) (former empl) Modified on 04/24/1992

Dec. 6, 1991

Dec. 6, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: jury trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Mtn. by atty Stenger to strike testimony of witness Tepper; oral argumt re: same; mtn. denied; Colloquy w/ parties re: scheduling, etc. Adj. to 12/9/91 @ 9 a.m. (note: minutes received out of order) (former empl) Modified on 04/24/1992

Dec. 6, 1991

Dec. 6, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: jury trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Mtn. by atty Stenger to strike testimony of witness Tepper; oral argumt re: same; mtn. denied; Colloquy w/ parties re: scheduling, etc. Adj. to 12/9/91 @ 9 a.m. (note: minutes received out of order) (former empl) Modified on 04/24/1992 (Entered: 12/23/1991)

Dec. 6, 1991

Dec. 6, 1991

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; adj. to 12/16/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl) (Entered: 12/23/1991)

Dec. 13, 1991

Dec. 13, 1991

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; adj. to 12/16/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl)

Dec. 13, 1991

Dec. 13, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; adj. to 12/16/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl)

Dec. 13, 1991

Dec. 13, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; adj. to 12/16/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl)

Dec. 13, 1991

Dec. 13, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; colloquy w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters; Adj. to 12/17/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl) Modified on 12/23/1991

Dec. 16, 1991

Dec. 16, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; colloquy w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters; Adj. to 12/17/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl) Modified on 12/23/1991

Dec. 16, 1991

Dec. 16, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; colloquy w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters; Adj. to 12/17/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl) Modified on 12/23/1991

Dec. 16, 1991

Dec. 16, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; colloquy w/ parties re: dft. Mancusi's testimony; Adj. to 12/18/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl)

Dec. 17, 1991

Dec. 17, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; colloquy w/ parties re: dft. Mancusi's testimony; Adj. to 12/18/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl)

Dec. 17, 1991

Dec. 17, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; colloquy w/ parties re: dft. Mancusi's testimony; Adj. to 12/18/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl) (Entered: 12/23/1991)

Dec. 17, 1991

Dec. 17, 1991

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; colloquy w/ parties re: dft. Mancusi's testimony; Adj. to 12/18/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl)

Dec. 17, 1991

Dec. 17, 1991

PACER
432

ORDER, changing the case caption from AKIL AL-JUNDI, a/k/a Herbert Scott Deane; BIG BLACK, a/k/a Frank Smith; ELIZABETH DURHAM, Mother and Legal Representative of Allen Durham, deceased; LITHO LUNDY, Mother and Legal Representative of Charles Lundy, deceased; THERESA HICKS, Widow and Legal Representative of Thomas Hicks, deceased; ALICE McNEIL, Mother and Legal Representative of Lorenzo McNeil, deceased; MARIA SANTOS, Mother and Legal Representative of Santiago Santos, deceased; LAVERNE BARKLEY, Mother and Legal Representative of L.D. Barkley, deceased; JOMO JOKA OMOWALE, a/k/a Eric Thompson; VERNON LAFRANQUE; ALFRED PLUMMER; HERBERT X. BLYDEN; JOSEPH LITTLE; ROBIN PALMER; GEORGE "CHE" NIEVES; JAMES B. "RED" MURPHY; THOMAS LOUK;PETER BUTLER; CHARLES "FLIP" CROWLEY; WILLIAM MAYNARD, JR.; CALVIN HUDSON; KIMANTHI MPINGO, a/k/a Edward Dingle; KENDU HAIKU, a/k/a Willie Stokes; OOJI KWESI SEKOU, a/k/a Chris Reed; PHILLIP "WALD" SHEILDS; JEROME ROSENBERG; ALPHONSO ROSS; FRANK LOTT; GARY RICHARD HAYNES; RAYMOND SUMPTER; OMAR SEKOU TOURE, a/k/a Otis McGaughey; DACAJEWEIAH, a/k/a John Hill; and JOHNNIE BARNES, as the Administrator of the goods, chattels and credits which were of John Barnes, deceased, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs THE ESTATE OF NELSON A ROCKEFELLER; KURT G. OSWALD, as Administrator of the Estate of Russell G. Oswald; T. NORMAN HURD; WALTER DUNBAR; JOHN S. KELLER, Commissioner of Finance of Orange County, as the Administrator of the Estate of John Monahan; JOHN C. BAKER; A.C. O'HARA; VINCENT MANCUSI; LEON VINCENT; KARL PFEIL; ROBERT F. FISCHER; DALTON CARNEY; HENRY WILLIAMS; J.C. MOOCHLER; A.T. MALOVICH; ROBERT P. QUICK; W.L. SHURTER; K.E. GELLERT; G.K. ELBET; T.N. KRUK; W.K. DILLON; M.K. HALLORAN; K.S. CROUSE; R.J. DWYER; P.P. ZELINSKI; G.R. TORAY; J.B. CONNELL; B. MUTHIG; D.O. PARR; J.J. PATTERSON; J.W. McCARTHY; D.O. ELLIS; E.M. BYRE; and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-100, Defendants to AKIL AL-JUNDI, a/k/a Herbert Scott Deane; BIG BLACK, a/k/a Frank Smith; ELIZABETH DURHAM, Mother and Legal Representative of Allen Durham, deceased; LITHO LUNDY, Mother and Legal Representative of Charles Lundy, deceased; THERESA HICKS, Widow and Legal Representative of Thomas Hicks, deceased; ALICE McNEIL, Mother and Legal Representative of Lorenzo McNeil, deceased; MARIA SANTOS, Mother and Legal Representative of Santiago Santos, deceased; LAVERNE BARKLEY, Mother and Legal Representative of L.D. Barkley, deceased; JOMO JOKA OMOWALE, a/k/a Eric Thompson; VERNON LAFRANQUE; ALFRED PLUMMER; HERBERT X. BLYDEN; JOSEPH LITTLE; ROBIN PALMER; GEORGE "CHE" NIEVES; JAMES B. "RED" MURPHY; THOMAS LOUK; PETER BUTLER; CHARLES "FLIP" CROWLEY; WILLIAM MAYNARD, JR.; CALVIN HUDSON; KIMANTHI MPINGO, a/k/a Edward Dingle; KENDU HAIKU, a/k/a Willie Stokes; OOJI KWESI SEKOU, a/k/a Chris Reed; PHILLIP "WALD" SHIELDS; JEROME ROSENBERG; ALPHONSO ROSS; FRANK LOTT; GARY RICHARD HAYNES; RAYMOND SUMPTER; OMAR SEKOU TOURE, a/k/a Otis McGaughey; DACAJEWEIAH, a/k/a John Hill; and JOHNNIE BARNES, as the Administrator of the goods, chattels and credits which were of John Barnes, deceased, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs KURT G. OSWALD, as Administrator of the Estate of Russell G. Oswald; JOHN S. KELLER, as the Administrator of the Estate of John Monahan; VINCENT MANCUSI and KARL PFEIL, Defendants. ( signed by Judge John T. Elfvin ) Notice and copy of order sent to Elizabeth Fink, Esq., Michael Deutsch, Esq., Joseph Heath, Esq., Dennis Cunningham, Esq., Big Black, John V. Elmore, Richard E. Moot, Esq., Donald Berens, Esq., Joshua J. Effron, Esq., Irving C. Maghran, Jr., Esq., Jerome Rosenberg, John H. Stenger, Esq. (former empl) Modified on 04/24/1992 (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 18, 1991

Dec. 18, 1991

PACER
432

ORDER, changing the case caption from AKIL AL-JUNDI, a/k/a Herbert Scott Deane; BIG BLACK, a/k/a Frank Smith; ELIZABETH DURHAM, Mother and Legal Representative of Allen Durham, deceased; LITHO LUNDY, Mother and Legal Representative of Charles Lundy, deceased; THERESA HICKS, Widow and Legal Representative of Thomas Hicks, deceased; ALICE McNEIL, Mother and Legal Representative of Lorenzo McNeil, deceased; MARIA SANTOS, Mother and Legal Representative of Santiago Santos, deceased; LAVERNE BARKLEY, Mother and Legal Representative of L.D. Barkley, deceased; JOMO JOKA OMOWALE, a/k/a Eric Thompson; VERNON LAFRANQUE; ALFRED PLUMMER; HERBERT X. BLYDEN; JOSEPH LITTLE; ROBIN PALMER; GEORGE "CHE" NIEVES; JAMES B. "RED" MURPHY; THOMAS LOUK;PETER BUTLER; CHARLES "FLIP" CROWLEY; WILLIAM MAYNARD, JR.; CALVIN HUDSON; KIMANTHI MPINGO, a/k/a Edward Dingle; KENDU HAIKU, a/k/a Willie Stokes; OOJI KWESI SEKOU, a/k/a Chris Reed; PHILLIP "WALD" SHEILDS; JEROME ROSENBERG; ALPHONSO ROSS; FRANK LOTT; GARY RICHARD HAYNES; RAYMOND SUMPTER; OMAR SEKOU TOURE, a/k/a Otis McGaughey; DACAJEWEIAH, a/k/a John Hill; and JOHNNIE BARNES, as the Administrator of the goods, chattels and credits which were of John Barnes, deceased, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs THE ESTATE OF NELSON A ROCKEFELLER; KURT G. OSWALD, as Administrator of the Estate of Russell G. Oswald; T. NORMAN HURD; WALTER DUNBAR; JOHN S. KELLER, Commissioner of Finance of Orange County, as the Administrator of the Estate of John Monahan; JOHN C. BAKER; A.C. O'HARA; VINCENT MANCUSI; LEON VINCENT; KARL PFEIL; ROBERT F. FISCHER; DALTON CARNEY; HENRY WILLIAMS; J.C. MOOCHLER; A.T. MALOVICH; ROBERT P. QUICK; W.L. SHURTER; K.E. GELLERT; G.K. ELBET; T.N. KRUK; W.K. DILLON; M.K. HALLORAN; K.S. CROUSE; R.J. DWYER; P.P. ZELINSKI; G.R. TORAY; J.B. CONNELL; B. MUTHIG; D.O. PARR; J.J. PATTERSON; J.W. McCARTHY; D.O. ELLIS; E.M. BYRE; and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-100, Defendants to AKIL AL-JUNDI, a/k/a Herbert Scott Deane; BIG BLACK, a/k/a Frank Smith; ELIZABETH DURHAM, Mother and Legal Representative of Allen Durham, deceased; LITHO LUNDY, Mother and Legal Representative of Charles Lundy, deceased; THERESA HICKS, Widow and Legal Representative of Thomas Hicks, deceased; ALICE McNEIL, Mother and Legal Representative of Lorenzo McNeil, deceased; MARIA SANTOS, Mother and Legal Representative of Santiago Santos, deceased; LAVERNE BARKLEY, Mother and Legal Representative of L.D. Barkley, deceased; JOMO JOKA OMOWALE, a/k/a Eric Thompson; VERNON LAFRANQUE; ALFRED PLUMMER; HERBERT X. BLYDEN; JOSEPH LITTLE; ROBIN PALMER; GEORGE "CHE" NIEVES; JAMES B. "RED" MURPHY; THOMAS LOUK; PETER BUTLER; CHARLES "FLIP" CROWLEY; WILLIAM MAYNARD, JR.; CALVIN HUDSON; KIMANTHI MPINGO, a/k/a Edward Dingle; KENDU HAIKU, a/k/a Willie Stokes; OOJI KWESI SEKOU, a/k/a Chris Reed; PHILLIP "WALD" SHIELDS; JEROME ROSENBERG; ALPHONSO ROSS; FRANK LOTT; GARY RICHARD HAYNES; RAYMOND SUMPTER; OMAR SEKOU TOURE, a/k/a Otis McGaughey; DACAJEWEIAH, a/k/a John Hill; and JOHNNIE BARNES, as the Administrator of the goods, chattels and credits which were of John Barnes, deceased, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs KURT G. OSWALD, as Administrator of the Estate of Russell G. Oswald; JOHN S. KELLER, as the Administrator of the Estate of John Monahan; VINCENT MANCUSI and KARL PFEIL, Defendants. ( signed by Judge John T. Elfvin ) Notice and copy of order sent to Elizabeth Fink, Esq., Michael Deutsch, Esq., Joseph Heath, Esq., Dennis Cunningham, Esq., Big Black, John V. Elmore, Richard E. Moot, Esq., Donald Berens, Esq., Joshua J. Effron, Esq., Irving C. Maghran, Jr., Esq., Jerome Rosenberg, John H. Stenger, Esq. (former empl) Modified on 04/24/1992 (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 18, 1991

Dec. 18, 1991

PACER
432

ORDER, changing the case caption from AKIL AL-JUNDI, a/k/a Herbert Scott Deane; BIG BLACK, a/k/a Frank Smith; ELIZABETH DURHAM, Mother and Legal Representative of Allen Durham, deceased; LITHO LUNDY, Mother and Legal Representative of Charles Lundy, deceased; THERESA HICKS, Widow and Legal Representative of Thomas Hicks, deceased; ALICE McNEIL, Mother and Legal Representative of Lorenzo McNeil, deceased; MARIA SANTOS, Mother and Legal Representative of Santiago Santos, deceased; LAVERNE BARKLEY, Mother and Legal Representative of L.D. Barkley, deceased; JOMO JOKA OMOWALE, a/k/a Eric Thompson; VERNON LAFRANQUE; ALFRED PLUMMER; HERBERT X. BLYDEN; JOSEPH LITTLE; ROBIN PALMER; GEORGE "CHE" NIEVES; JAMES B. "RED" MURPHY; THOMAS LOUK;PETER BUTLER; CHARLES "FLIP" CROWLEY; WILLIAM MAYNARD, JR.; CALVIN HUDSON; KIMANTHI MPINGO, a/k/a Edward Dingle; KENDU HAIKU, a/k/a Willie Stokes; OOJI KWESI SEKOU, a/k/a Chris Reed; PHILLIP "WALD" SHEILDS; JEROME ROSENBERG; ALPHONSO ROSS; FRANK LOTT; GARY RICHARD HAYNES; RAYMOND SUMPTER; OMAR SEKOU TOURE, a/k/a Otis McGaughey; DACAJEWEIAH, a/k/a John Hill; and JOHNNIE BARNES, as the Administrator of the goods, chattels and credits which were of John Barnes, deceased, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs THE ESTATE OF NELSON A ROCKEFELLER; KURT G. OSWALD, as Administrator of the Estate of Russell G. Oswald; T. NORMAN HURD; WALTER DUNBAR; JOHN S. KELLER, Commissioner of Finance of Orange County, as the Administrator of the Estate of John Monahan; JOHN C. BAKER; A.C. O'HARA; VINCENT MANCUSI; LEON VINCENT; KARL PFEIL; ROBERT F. FISCHER; DALTON CARNEY; HENRY WILLIAMS; J.C. MOOCHLER; A.T. MALOVICH; ROBERT P. QUICK; W.L. SHURTER; K.E. GELLERT; G.K. ELBET; T.N. KRUK; W.K. DILLON; M.K. HALLORAN; K.S. CROUSE; R.J. DWYER; P.P. ZELINSKI; G.R. TORAY; J.B. CONNELL; B. MUTHIG; D.O. PARR; J.J. PATTERSON; J.W. McCARTHY; D.O. ELLIS; E.M. BYRE; and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-100, Defendants to AKIL AL-JUNDI, a/k/a Herbert Scott Deane; BIG BLACK, a/k/a Frank Smith; ELIZABETH DURHAM, Mother and Legal Representative of Allen Durham, deceased; LITHO LUNDY, Mother and Legal Representative of Charles Lundy, deceased; THERESA HICKS, Widow and Legal Representative of Thomas Hicks, deceased; ALICE McNEIL, Mother and Legal Representative of Lorenzo McNeil, deceased; MARIA SANTOS, Mother and Legal Representative of Santiago Santos, deceased; LAVERNE BARKLEY, Mother and Legal Representative of L.D. Barkley, deceased; JOMO JOKA OMOWALE, a/k/a Eric Thompson; VERNON LAFRANQUE; ALFRED PLUMMER; HERBERT X. BLYDEN; JOSEPH LITTLE; ROBIN PALMER; GEORGE "CHE" NIEVES; JAMES B. "RED" MURPHY; THOMAS LOUK; PETER BUTLER; CHARLES "FLIP" CROWLEY; WILLIAM MAYNARD, JR.; CALVIN HUDSON; KIMANTHI MPINGO, a/k/a Edward Dingle; KENDU HAIKU, a/k/a Willie Stokes; OOJI KWESI SEKOU, a/k/a Chris Reed; PHILLIP "WALD" SHIELDS; JEROME ROSENBERG; ALPHONSO ROSS; FRANK LOTT; GARY RICHARD HAYNES; RAYMOND SUMPTER; OMAR SEKOU TOURE, a/k/a Otis McGaughey; DACAJEWEIAH, a/k/a John Hill; and JOHNNIE BARNES, as the Administrator of the goods, chattels and credits which were of John Barnes, deceased, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs KURT G. OSWALD, as Administrator of the Estate of Russell G. Oswald; JOHN S. KELLER, as the Administrator of the Estate of John Monahan; VINCENT MANCUSI and KARL PFEIL, Defendants. ( signed by Judge John T. Elfvin ) Notice and copy of order sent to Elizabeth Fink, Esq., Michael Deutsch, Esq., Joseph Heath, Esq., Dennis Cunningham, Esq., Big Black, John V. Elmore, Richard E. Moot, Esq., Donald Berens, Esq., Joshua J. Effron, Esq., Irving C. Maghran, Jr., Esq., Jerome Rosenberg, John H. Stenger, Esq. (former empl) Modified on 04/24/1992 (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 18, 1991

Dec. 18, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ further examination of witnesses; Adj. to 12/19/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl)

Dec. 18, 1991

Dec. 18, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ further examination of witnesses; Adj. to 12/19/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl)

Dec. 18, 1991

Dec. 18, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ further examination of witnesses; Adj. to 12/19/91 @ 9 a.m. (former empl)

Dec. 18, 1991

Dec. 18, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/20/91 (former empl)

Dec. 19, 1991

Dec. 19, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/20/91 (former empl)

Dec. 19, 1991

Dec. 19, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/20/91 (former empl)

Dec. 19, 1991

Dec. 19, 1991

PACER
433

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 12/13/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
433

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 12/13/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
433

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 12/13/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
434

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 12/12/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
434

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 12/12/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
434

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 12/12/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
435

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11-26-91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
435

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11-26-91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
435

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11-26-91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
436

NOTICE re: Dft. The Estate of Russell G. Oswald's Objections to prior testimony offered by pltfs. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
436

NOTICE re: Dft. The Estate of Russell G. Oswald's Objections to prior testimony offered by pltfs. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
436

NOTICE re: Dft. The Estate of Russell G. Oswald's Objections to prior testimony offered by pltfs. (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1991)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. Continues outside jury presence re: witness Machina's testimony and various other matters; Ct. remarks to jury re: witness Machina's testimony & further examination of same; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/31/91 (former empl)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: proposed testimony of Catholic Chaplin reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/23/91 (former empl)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: proposed testimony of Catholic Chaplin reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/23/91 (former empl)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. Continues outside jury presence re: witness Machina's testimony and various other matters; Ct. remarks to jury re: witness Machina's testimony & further examination of same; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/31/91 (former empl)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: proposed testimony of Catholic Chaplin reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/23/91 (former empl)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. Continues outside jury presence re: witness Machina's testimony and various other matters; Ct. remarks to jury re: witness Machina's testimony & further examination of same; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/31/91 (former empl)

Dec. 20, 1991

Dec. 20, 1991

PACER
437

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11/12/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
437

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11/12/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
437

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11/12/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
438

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11/13/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
438

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11/13/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
438

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11/13/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
439

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11/27/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
439

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11/27/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
439

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 11/27/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
440

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 12/16/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
440

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 12/16/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
440

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from jury trial, testimony of 12/16/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
441

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/17/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
441

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/17/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER
441

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/17/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/24/1991)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters, etc.; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/24/91 (former empl)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters, etc.; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/24/91 (former empl)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters, etc.; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/24/91 (former empl)

Dec. 23, 1991

Dec. 23, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: dft's lack of witnesses, etc.; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/30/91 (former empl)

Dec. 24, 1991

Dec. 24, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: dft's lack of witnesses, etc.; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/30/91 (former empl)

Dec. 24, 1991

Dec. 24, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: trial continues w/ examination of witnesses; Ct. continues w/ parties outside jury presence re: dft's lack of witnesses, etc.; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 12/30/91 (former empl)

Dec. 24, 1991

Dec. 24, 1991

PACER
442

Filed DFT. THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL G. OSWALD'S OFFER OF PRIOR SWORN TESTIMONY (former empl) (Entered: 12/30/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
442

Filed DFT. THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL G. OSWALD'S OFFER OF PRIOR SWORN TESTIMONY (former empl) (Entered: 12/30/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
442

Filed DFT. THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL G. OSWALD'S OFFER OF PRIOR SWORN TESTIMONY (former empl) (Entered: 12/30/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
443

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/3/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/30/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
443

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/3/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/30/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
443

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/3/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/30/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
444

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why jurors seated to take part in deliberations provided for under amendmts to FRCP Rule 47 & 48, etc. Show Cause Hearing set for 4:30 1/2/92 signed by Judge John T. Elfvin ) Notice and copy sent to Donald Berens, John H. Stenger, Dennis Cunningham, Joseph Heath, Michael Deutsch, Elizabeth Fink, Jerome Rosenberg, Irving C. Maghran Jr., Joshua J. Effron, Richard E. Moot, John V. Elmore, Big Black . (NOTE: Judge Elfvin hand delivered copies of this order to attys. in Court on 12/30/91) (former empl) Modified on 12/31/1991 (Entered: 12/31/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
444

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why jurors seated to take part in deliberations provided for under amendmts to FRCP Rule 47 & 48, etc. Show Cause Hearing set for 4:30 1/2/92 signed by Judge John T. Elfvin ) Notice and copy sent to Donald Berens, John H. Stenger, Dennis Cunningham, Joseph Heath, Michael Deutsch, Elizabeth Fink, Jerome Rosenberg, Irving C. Maghran Jr., Joshua J. Effron, Richard E. Moot, John V. Elmore, Big Black . (NOTE: Judge Elfvin hand delivered copies of this order to attys. in Court on 12/30/91) (former empl) Modified on 12/31/1991 (Entered: 12/31/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
444

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why jurors seated to take part in deliberations provided for under amendmts to FRCP Rule 47 & 48, etc. Show Cause Hearing set for 4:30 1/2/92 signed by Judge John T. Elfvin ) Notice and copy sent to Donald Berens, John H. Stenger, Dennis Cunningham, Joseph Heath, Michael Deutsch, Elizabeth Fink, Jerome Rosenberg, Irving C. Maghran Jr., Joshua J. Effron, Richard E. Moot, John V. Elmore, Big Black . (NOTE: Judge Elfvin hand delivered copies of this order to attys. in Court on 12/30/91) (former empl) Modified on 12/31/1991 (Entered: 12/31/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
445

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why present certification of class should not be modified pur. to FRCP Rule 23 into various sub-classes, etc. Show Cause Hearing set for 1/2/92 @ 4:30 p.m. ( signed by Judge John T. Elfvin ) Notice and copy sent to Donald Berens, John H. Stenger, Dennis Cunningham, Joseph Heath, Michael Deutsch, Elizabeth Fink, Jerome Rosenberg, Irving C. Maghran Jr., Joshua J. Effron, Richard E. Moot, John V. Elmore, Big Black . (NOTE: Judge Elfvin hand delivered copies of order to attys in Court on 12/30/91) (former empl) Modified on 04/24/1992 (Entered: 12/31/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
445

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why present certification of class should not be modified pur. to FRCP Rule 23 into various sub-classes, etc. Show Cause Hearing set for 1/2/92 @ 4:30 p.m. ( signed by Judge John T. Elfvin ) Notice and copy sent to Donald Berens, John H. Stenger, Dennis Cunningham, Joseph Heath, Michael Deutsch, Elizabeth Fink, Jerome Rosenberg, Irving C. Maghran Jr., Joshua J. Effron, Richard E. Moot, John V. Elmore, Big Black . (NOTE: Judge Elfvin hand delivered copies of order to attys in Court on 12/30/91) (former empl) Modified on 04/24/1992 (Entered: 12/31/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
445

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why present certification of class should not be modified pur. to FRCP Rule 23 into various sub-classes, etc. Show Cause Hearing set for 1/2/92 @ 4:30 p.m. ( signed by Judge John T. Elfvin ) Notice and copy sent to Donald Berens, John H. Stenger, Dennis Cunningham, Joseph Heath, Michael Deutsch, Elizabeth Fink, Jerome Rosenberg, Irving C. Maghran Jr., Joshua J. Effron, Richard E. Moot, John V. Elmore, Big Black . (NOTE: Judge Elfvin hand delivered copies of order to attys in Court on 12/30/91) (former empl) Modified on 04/24/1992 (Entered: 12/31/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991

Dec. 30, 1991

PACER
446

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/18/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/31/1991)

Dec. 31, 1991

Dec. 31, 1991

PACER
446

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/18/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/31/1991)

Dec. 31, 1991

Dec. 31, 1991

PACER
446

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/18/91. (former empl) (Entered: 12/31/1991)

Dec. 31, 1991

Dec. 31, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: Ct. continues w/o jury w/ exam. of witness Dr. Sullivan; Offer of proof; trial continues w/ jury w/ examination of witnesses; colloquy w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 1/2/92 (former empl)

Dec. 31, 1991

Dec. 31, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: Ct. continues w/o jury w/ exam. of witness Dr. Sullivan; Offer of proof; trial continues w/ jury w/ examination of witnesses; colloquy w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 1/2/92 (former empl)

Dec. 31, 1991

Dec. 31, 1991

PACER

Minute entry: Ct. continues w/o jury w/ exam. of witness Dr. Sullivan; Offer of proof; trial continues w/ jury w/ examination of witnesses; colloquy w/ parties outside jury presence re: various matters; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 1/2/92 (former empl)

Dec. 31, 1991

Dec. 31, 1991

PACER
447

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 11/15/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/02/1992)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER
447

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 11/15/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/02/1992)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER
447

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 11/15/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/02/1992)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER
448

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/2/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/02/1992)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER
448

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/2/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/02/1992)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER
448

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/2/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/02/1992)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER
449

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/19/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/02/1992)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER
449

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/19/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/02/1992)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER
449

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/19/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/02/1992)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER

Minute entry: Ct. continues w/o jury re: various matters; trial continues w/ jury - examination of witnesses; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 1/3/92 (former empl)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER

Minute entry: Ct. continues w/o jury re: various matters; trial continues w/ jury - examination of witnesses; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 1/3/92 (former empl)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER

Minute entry: Ct. continues w/o jury re: various matters; trial continues w/ jury - examination of witnesses; reset Jury Trial for 9:00 1/3/92 (former empl)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER
450

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/9/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/03/1992)

Jan. 3, 1992

Jan. 3, 1992

PACER
450

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/9/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/03/1992)

Jan. 3, 1992

Jan. 3, 1992

PACER
450

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 12/9/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/03/1992)

Jan. 3, 1992

Jan. 3, 1992

PACER
451

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 11/14/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/03/1992)

Jan. 3, 1992

Jan. 3, 1992

PACER
451

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 11/14/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/03/1992)

Jan. 3, 1992

Jan. 3, 1992

PACER
451

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 11/14/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/03/1992)

Jan. 3, 1992

Jan. 3, 1992

PACER
452

TRANSCRIPT of excerpt from trial, testimony of 11/19/91. (former empl) (Entered: 01/03/1992)

Jan. 3, 1992

Jan. 3, 1992

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Attica Uprising Litigation

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 13, 1974

Closing Date: Aug. 28, 2000

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

"all persons who were on September 13, 1971 inmates of the facility and who then were present in “D-yard"

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Governor of New York, State

Commissioner of Corrections, State

Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, State

Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, State

Major of New York State Police, State

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

42 U.S.C. § 1985

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 12,000,000

Issues

General:

Aggressive behavior

Assault/abuse by staff

Conditions of confinement

Disciplinary procedures

Excessive force

Failure to supervise

Neglect by staff

Retaliation

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Torture

Affected Gender:

Male

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Untreated pain

Wound care

Type of Facility:

Government-run