Case: McCoy v. Belmont

3:85-cv-00465 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Filed Date: Sept. 30, 1985

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 30, 1985, two adult men with developmental disabilities filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation and managers and doctors affiliated with Southbury Training School, an intermediate care facility for people with intellectual disabilities (ICF/MR) in Southbury, Connecticut. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages u…

On September 30, 1985, two adult men with developmental disabilities filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation and managers and doctors affiliated with Southbury Training School, an intermediate care facility for people with intellectual disabilities (ICF/MR) in Southbury, Connecticut. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Social Security Act.

This lawsuit was filed shortly after the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division announced investigative findings about Southbury pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq. That federal investigation led to both a CRIPA lawsuit, United States v. Connecticut, ID-CT-0003, and a class action, Messier v. Southbury Training School, ID-CT-0005. Although it appears that the CRIPA and class action lawsuits were sometimes treated as companion cases, it seems that this case, McCoy v. Belmont, was separately litigated.

On June 9, 1988, the plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint (the one in the file), alleging constitutional and state law violations. According to the complaint, after moving to Southbury in 1968, the plaintiffs lived in one of the institution's cottages. The plaintiffs received no habilitation programming and, as a result, neither gained nor maintained communication and other independent living skills. Southbury gave the plaintiffs no opportunity to participate in the community. Instead, they spent their days sitting on the dirty floor of a smelly and windowless common room. The plaintiffs were occasionally injured by improper physical restraint; one plaintiff's back was broken in three places. In addition, major illnesses were generally untreated. One plaintiff's scoliosis was completely untreated and caused organ damage.

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Judge Jose A. Cabranes) assigned the case to a magistrate judge (Judge Joan G. Margolis). On March 10, 1992, the parties entered a consent decree, which required Southbury to employ a "core group" of staff with person-specific training to care for the plaintiffs in a Southbury house, to promptly and comprehensively treat the plaintiffs' medical conditions, to support self-advocacy, and to commence individualized habilitation programming. The plaintiffs' parents, as their guardians, were given the authority to approve or reject staff assigned to the house. Four years later, on March 28, 1996, the court (Judge Margolis) found the State in contempt for failing to comply with the consent decree's standards for programming, medical care, and preventing and reporting abuse and neglect. The court awarded compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Between August and November 1996, the parties submitted proposed schedules of compliance for the court's consideration. On December 12, 1996, the court ordered the parties to abide by a partial schedule of compliance, based on similarities in their proposals. On June 22, 1998, the court appointed a Special Master (Edward Skarnulis, Ph.D.) to propose a schedule of compliance for the contested parts of the consent decree. On May 18, 1999, the Special Master recommended that Southbury install a new administrative team, including on-site shift managers. The Special Master also recommended that the plaintiffs' parents, who had moved into Southbury's house at some point, relocate to their own home. Both parties contested the Special Master's recommendations and the court scheduled hearings.

The court (Judge Margolis) denied the plaintiffs' request for discovery of the Special Master, holding that the Special Master was entitled to judicial immunity as an agent of the court. McCoy v. Belmont, No. 85-465, 1999 WL 33117446 (D. Conn. Aug 9, 1999). The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the State filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment.

Once hearings on the Special Master's report concluded, the plaintiffs petitioned the District Court to reopen hearings on January 24, 2000. The court (Judge Margolis) refused, holding that additional hearings were unnecessary because the new testimony was cumulative and would not introduce new information. McCoy v. Belmont, No. 85-465, 2000 WL 303222 (D. Conn. 2000). The plaintiffs appealed again to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 14, 2000, the District Court (Judge Margolis) adopted the Special Master's report and denied the State's motion for relief from the judgment. McCoy v. Belmont, No. 85-465, 2000 WL 1050911 (D. Conn. March 14, 2000). The court held that the defendants had failed to show that a significant change of law or fact justified non-enforcement of a consent decree.

On December 20, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal of the discovery ruling, reasoning it lacked jurisdiction over the decisions of a magistrate judge. On January 5, 2001, the Second Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal from the district court's refusal to reopen the Special Master hearings.

On July 15, 2002, the District Court (Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns) partially granted a motion by the plaintiffs for contempt, but denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction and another motion by the State for relief from the judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's rulings on September 29, 2003.

In June 2005, hearings on all remaining motions were held; judgment is apparently still pending as of May 31, 2006. We have no further information on the disposition of this case. In addition, the docket we have begins almost three years after the Complaint was filed.

On July 10, 2007, the Court granted in part defendants' motions for contempt and modification of the consent decree because of plaintiffs' abuse of defendants' staff and changed circumstances, respectively. The modification prevented one of plaintiffs' parents from visiting during meal times and being involved in the staff selection process to avoid administrative obstacles; the Court also denied plaintiffs' motion for contempt. The plaintiffs appealed this decision with respect to the modification of the consent decree, but on September 4, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. As of July 11, 2014, this case has had no other significant activity.

Summary Authors

Elizabeth Chilcoat (5/31/2006)

Maurice Youkanna (7/11/2014)

Related Cases

U.S. v. Connecticut, District of Connecticut (1986)

Messier v. Southbury Training School, District of Connecticut (1994)

People


Judge(s)

Burns, Ellen Bree (Connecticut)

Calabresi, Guido (Connecticut)

Margolis, Joan Glazer (Connecticut)

Parker, Barrington Daniels Sr. (District of Columbia)

Straub, Chester J. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Engstrom, Katrena K. (Connecticut)

Glenn, Marc L. (Connecticut)

Lottman, Michael S. (New York)

Palmieri, William Sylvester (Connecticut)

Pattis, Norman A. (Connecticut)

Judge(s)

Burns, Ellen Bree (Connecticut)

Calabresi, Guido (Connecticut)

Margolis, Joan Glazer (Connecticut)

Parker, Barrington Daniels Sr. (District of Columbia)

Straub, Chester J. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Engstrom, Katrena K. (Connecticut)

Glenn, Marc L. (Connecticut)

Lottman, Michael S. (New York)

Palmieri, William Sylvester (Connecticut)

Pattis, Norman A. (Connecticut)

Shaw, David C. (Connecticut)

Zito, Jennifer Lynn (Connecticut)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Deane, Laurie A. (Connecticut)

Welsh, James P. (Connecticut)

York, Thomas B. (Pennsylvania)

Other Attorney(s)

Philpot, W. Martyn Jr. (Connecticut)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Aug. 31, 2010 Docket

Third Amended Complaint

June 9, 1988 Complaint

Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Defendants to Third Amended Complaint

1988 WL 1098718

Sept. 13, 1988 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Contempt and Enforcement

Leo and William McCoy v. Michael Belmont

June 10, 1993 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Recommendations of the Special Master's Office

No Court

May 17, 1999 Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

Ruling on Plaintiffs' Request for Discovery From Special Master

1999 WL 33117446, 1999 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 21815

Aug. 9, 1999 Order/Opinion

Ruling on Plaintiffs' Request to Reopen Hearing

2000 WL 303222

March 1, 2000 Order/Opinion
322

Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Relief from Judgment

2000 WL 1050911, 2000 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 6627

March 14, 2000 Order/Opinion
510

Plaintiffs' Post Hearing Brief

Sept. 12, 2005 Pleading / Motion / Brief
518

Ruling on Defendants’ Motions for a Finding of Contempt and for Clarification or Modification of the Consent Decree, Defendants’ Motion for Authorization to Appoint a New Advocate and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt, Enforcement and Other Relief

July 10, 2007 Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
263

MOTION by William McCoy, Leo McCoy, Esther McCoy to Extend Time until 7/8/99 to file objection to 5/17/99 Recommendation of Special Master (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/28/1999)

May 27, 1988
96

Statement Regarding Proposed Dismissal Pursuant to Local Rule l6. (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/08/1991)

Nov. 8, 1991
97

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER filed, ( signed by Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/15/1991)

Nov. 15, 1991

ENDORSEMENT granting [96−1] remark. The Clerk shall continue this case on the docket. It is so ordered. ( signed by Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/18/1991)

Nov. 18, 1991

Docket call held ( JAC) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/11/1992)

Jan. 22, 1992

MINUTE Entry: Jury Selection on 2/25/92 at 10:00 a.m. Trial to begin immediately after N−87−138 Acampora or on 48 hour's notice. By 2/21/92 counsel shall submit Prposed Voir Dire and Jury Instructions and Exhibits shall be pre−marked with the Clerk.( JAC) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/11/1992)

Jan. 22, 1992
98

ORDER referring case to Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis for the purpose of settlement discussions (signed by Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Former Employee)

Jan. 23, 1992
99

ORDER: For the duration of this Magistrate Judge's involvement with this file, and in accordance with LR 9(a)2, courtesy copies of all filings should be forwarded to her Chambers. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/31/1992)

Jan. 29, 1992
100

PROPOSED Voir Dire Questions by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/19/1992)

Feb. 18, 1992
101

MOTION by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont in Limine (Brief Due 3/12/92 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/20/1992)

Feb. 20, 1992
102

MEMORANDUM by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont in support of [101−1] motion in Limine by defendant (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/20/1992)

Feb. 20, 1992
103

MOTION by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy to Video Tape Deposition of Michael B. Millis, M. D. and to Admit Video Deposition into Evidence. (Brief Due 3/12/92 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/20/1992)

Feb. 20, 1992
104

MEMORANDUM by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy in support of [103−1] motion to Video Tape Deposition of Michael B. Millis, M. D. and to Admit Video Deposition into Evidence. by Esther McCoy, McCoy, McCoy (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/20/1992)

Feb. 20, 1992
106

MOTION by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont to Modify Final Pretrial Order. (Brief Due 3/13/92 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/1992)

Feb. 21, 1992
105

SECOND SET OF OBJECTIONS by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont re: Plaintiff's Proposed Exhibits. (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/1992)

Feb. 24, 1992
107

MOTION by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont for Protective Order (Brief Due 3/16/92 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/1992)

Feb. 24, 1992
107

MEMORANDUM by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont in opposition to [103−1] motion to Video Tape Deposition of Michael B. Millis, M. D. and to Admit Video Deposition into Evidence. by Esther McCoy, McCoy, McCoy (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/1992)

Feb. 24, 1992

ENDORSEMENT denying [101−1] motion in Limine without prejudice to renewal at trial pursuant to the ruling on the record today. ( signed by Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/1992)

Feb. 25, 1992

ENDORSEMENT granting in part [103−1] motion to Video Tape Deposition of Michael B. Millis, M. D. and to Admit Video Deposition into Evidence in accordance with the colloquy on the record today.. ( signed by Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/1992)

Feb. 25, 1992

Pre−Trial Conference held ( JAC) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/28/1992)

Feb. 25, 1992

MINUTE Entry: denying [107−1] motion for Protective Order, [105−1] objection under advisement, granting [103−1] motion to Video Tape Deposition of Michael B. Millis, M. D. and to Admit Video Deposition into Evidence., denying [101−1] motion in Limine without prejudice, granting platf's motion to substitute defense witnesses( JAC) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/28/1992)

Feb. 25, 1992

JURY Selection held ( JAC) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/28/1992)

Feb. 25, 1992

MINUTE Entry: 10 jurors excused for cause. Clerk draws panel of 18. Counsel sxercises challenges. Trial shall commence on 3/10/92 at 10:00 a.m. The Jury panel will be sworn prior to commencement of evidence on 3/10/92. (JAC) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/28/1992)

Feb. 25, 1992

ENDORSEMENT denying [107−1] motion for Protective Order pursuant to the oral ruling on the record on 2/25/92. ( signed by Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/1992)

Feb. 26, 1992
108

APPEARANCE of Attorney for Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont −− Laurie A. Deane (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/03/1992)

March 2, 1992

Settlement Conference held ( jgm) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/05/1992)

March 2, 1992
109

PROPOSED JURY Instructions (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/10/1992)

March 6, 1992

Pre−Trial Conference held ( JAC) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/11/1992)

March 10, 1992

MINUTE Entry: Pltfs. present. Counsel report to the Court that this case is settled. Pltf. witness, Esther McCoy, sworn and testified. Pltf. witness Leo McCoy, sworn and testified. Consent Decreee filed and Approved by the Court. Stipulation re: Atty's fees. The Clerk shall close this case forthwith. The Court orders counsel to retrieve their exhibits from the Clerk.( (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/11/1992)

March 10, 1992
110

CONSENT JUDGMENT/DECREE by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy, Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont ( signed by Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/13/1992)

March 10, 1992

ENDORSEMENT granting [110−1] judgment order. So ordered pursuant to a colloquy with counsel and plaintiffs' representatives today on the record. ( signed by Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/13/1992)

March 10, 1992
111

STIPULATION by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy, Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont re: Attorneys' Fees and Costs. (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/13/1992)

March 10, 1992

ENDORSEMENT granting [111−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/13/1992)

March 10, 1992

Case closed (Graham, T.) (Entered: 03/19/1992)

March 10, 1992
112

MOTION by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont for Approval of Residence Design (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 11/04/1992)

Nov. 2, 1992
113

MEMORANDUM in support of [112−1] motion for Approval of Residence Design by defendant (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 11/04/1992)

Nov. 2, 1992
114

MOTION by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont REFERRING case for the purpose of for Approval of Resid. Design (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 11/04/1992)

Nov. 2, 1992

ENDORSEMENT granting [114−1] motion REFERRING case for the purpose of for Approval of Resid. Design (docu #112) ( signed by Chief Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Moore, P.) (Entered: 11/06/1992)

Nov. 6, 1992

Deadline updated; REFERRING MOTION [112−1] motion for Approval of Residence Design referred to Mag. Judge Joan G. Margolis (see endorsement of document #114 entered this date (Graham, T.) (Entered: 11/09/1992)

Nov. 6, 1992

Motion hearing re: [112−1] motion for Approval of Residence Design by defendant set at 2:00 12/9/92 ( JGM) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/20/1992)

Nov. 20, 1992
115

APPEARANCE of Attorney for McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy −− Michael S. Lottman (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 12/08/1992)

Dec. 7, 1992
116

RESPONSE by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy to [114−1] motion REFERRING case for the purpose of for Approval of Resid. Design by defendant, [112−1] motion for Approval of Residence Design by defendant (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 12/08/1992)

Dec. 7, 1992
118

MOTION by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy for David Shaw to Withdraw as Attorney (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 12/08/1992)

Dec. 7, 1992

ENDORSEMENT granting [118−1] motion for David Shaw to Withdraw as Attorney for pltfs William and Leo McCoy. (Terminated David Shaw) (Signed Chief Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/11/1992)

Dec. 11, 1992
119

MOTION by Belmont to Withdraw [112−1] motion for Approval of Residence Design by defendant (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 02/03/1993)

Jan. 25, 1993
120

MOTION by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont to Withdraw [112−1] motion for Approval of Residence Design by defendant (Brief Due 2/15/93 ) (Kunofsky, L.) (Entered: 02/03/1993)

Jan. 25, 1993

ENDORSEMENT granting [119−1] motion to Withdraw [112−1] motion for Approval of Residence Design by defendant ( signed by Chief Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (admin) (Entered: 02/06/1993)

Feb. 4, 1993
121

MOTION by Leo McCoy, William McCoy for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree (Brief Due 7/5/93 ) (Smith, S.) (Entered: 06/15/1993)

June 14, 1993
122

MEMORANDUM in support of [121−1] motion for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree by Leo McCoy, William McCoy (Smith, S.) (Entered: 06/15/1993)

June 14, 1993
123

AFFIDAVIT of Sister Barbara Eirich Re [121−1] motion for Contempt/enforcement of consent decree by Leo McCoy, William McCoy (Smith, S.) (Entered: 06/15/1993)

June 14, 1993
124

AFFIDAVIT of Esther McCoy Re [121−1] motion for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree by Leo McCoy, William McCoy (Smith, S.) (Entered: 06/15/1993)

June 14, 1993
125

MOTION by Leo McCoy, William McCoy for referral to Magistrate Margolis (Smith, S.) (Entered: 06/15/1993)

June 14, 1993

ENDORSEMENT granting [125−1] motion for referral to Magistrate Margolis, abs obj ( signed by Chief Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Smith, S.) (Entered: 06/18/1993)

June 18, 1993

CASE reassigned to Mag. Judge Joan G. Margolis (admin) (Entered: 02/17/2000)

June 23, 1993
126

ORDER referring: [121−1] motion for Contempt/enforcement of consent decree referred to Mag. Judge Joan G. Margolis (signed by Chief Judge Jose A. Cabranes) (Smith, S.) (Entered: 06/23/1993)

June 23, 1993
127

MEMORANDUM of status Conference held on 7/13/93, Brief Deadline set for 8/23/93 [121−1] motion for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree . Parties shall submit a stipulation of facts by 10/4/93. Evidentiary hearing set for 10/12/93 at 10:00am before JGM/Bpt. ( signed by Mag. Judge Joan G. Margolis ) (Smith, S.) (Entered: 07/15/1993)

July 14, 1993
128

MOTION by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Michael Belmont to Extend Time to respond to motion for contempt, to 9/11/93 (Smith, S.) (Entered: 08/26/1993)

Aug. 24, 1993

ENDORSEMENT granting [128−1] motion to Extend Time to respond to motion for contempt, to 9/11/93, Brief Deadline set for 9/13/93 [121−1] motion for Contempt/enforcement of consent decree ( signed by Chief Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Smith, S.) (Entered: 08/27/1993)

Aug. 27, 1993
129

MEMORANDUM by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont in opposition to [121−1] motion for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree by Leo McCoy, William McCoy (Smith, S.) (Entered: 09/15/1993)

Sept. 13, 1993
130

STIPULATION re pending motion for contempt, enforcement, &further relief, by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy, Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont (Smith, S.) (Entered: 10/07/1993)

Oct. 6, 1993

MINUTE Entry:3 Pltf Wtn's sExhb. 1−16 marked as full exhibits. Court 10:05a.m.−4:30p.m.. ( JGM) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 10/15/1993)

Oct. 13, 1993

Motion hearing held re: [121−1] motion for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree by McCoy, McCoy ( JGM) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 10/15/1993)

Oct. 14, 1993

MINUTE Entry: [121−1] motion for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree under advisement, One pltf. wtn. resumes stand for cont'd testimony. Defts' Exhbs A−P,Q. One pltf. wtn. sPltf exhb's 18−21 marked as full. Pltf rests at 2:57p.m.. 2 Deft. Wtn. SDeft. Exhb R,S,T,U,V1−21,W all marked as full. Deft. Rests at 4:25p.m.. One rebuttal wtn. SPltf &deft rest once again at 4:30pm. Simultaneous briefs due by 11/8/93. ( JGM) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 10/15/1993)

Oct. 14, 1993
131

TRANSCRIPT for dates of Oct. 12, 1993 (Evidentiary hearing) (Court reporter: Cunningham) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/28/1993)

Oct. 28, 1993
132

TRANSCRIPT for dates of Oct. 13, 1993 (Evidentiary hearing) (Court reporter: Cunningham) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/28/1993)

Oct. 28, 1993
133

MOTION by Leo McCoy, William McCoy, Esther McCoy to Extend Time to submit post−trial briefs, to 11/22/93 (Smith, S.) (Entered: 11/03/1993)

Nov. 1, 1993

ENDORSEMENT granting abs obj [133−1] motion to Extend Time to submit post−trial briefs, to 11/22/93 ( signed by Mag. Judge Joan G. Margolis ) (Smith, S.) (Entered: 11/15/1993)

Nov. 10, 1993
134

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont in opposition to [121−1] motion for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree by Leo McCoy, William McCoy (Smith, S.) (Entered: 11/30/1993)

Nov. 22, 1993
135

MEMORANDUM in support of [121−1] motion for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree by Leo McCoy, William McCoy, Esther McCoy (Smith, S.) (Entered: 12/02/1993)

Nov. 29, 1993
136

MOTION by Leo McCoy, William McCoy, Esther McCoy for Leave to file reply brief in response to defts' trial memo (Smith, S.) (Entered: 12/07/1993)

Dec. 3, 1993

ENDORSEMENT granting [136−1] motion for Leave to file reply brief in response to defts' trial memo−−by 12/14/93. (signed by Mag. Judge Joan G. Margolis) (Smith, S.) (Entered: 12/10/1993)

Dec. 8, 1993
137

REPLY MEMORANDUM to response to [121−1] motion for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree by Leo McCoy, William McCoy, Esther McCoy (Smith, S.) (Entered: 12/15/1993)

Dec. 13, 1993
138

MOTION by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy for Interim Order re; practical nurse Joanne Parkhurst of Southbury Training School and her being prohibited contact with plaintiffs (Brief Due 3/21/94 ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/02/1994)

Feb. 28, 1994
139

MOTION by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy for Expedited Relief (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/09/1994)

May 6, 1994

ENDORSEMENT by agreement of counsel during the telephonic status conference held today, the pending motion may be denied without prejudice as moot, L.P.N. Parkhurst having been transferred from the STS health care unit, and defense counsel agreeing that pltfs' counsel shall have prior notice before Parkhurst is reassigned to pltfs' unit [138−1] motion for Interim Order re; practical nurse Joanne Parkhurst of Southbury Training School and her being prohibited contact with plaintiffs ( signed by Mag. Judge Joan G. Margolis ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/20/1994)

May 18, 1994
140

MEMORANDUM of Status Conference held on 5/18/94. Defts shall file their brief in opposition on or before 6/10/94. Evidentiary hearing will be held on 6/28/94 at 10:00 a.m. ( signed by Mag. Judge Joan G. Margolis ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 05/23/1994)

May 18, 1994
142

RESPONSE by Belmont, et al to [139−1] motion for Expedited Relief by Esther McCoy, McCoy, McCoy (Grady, B.) (Entered: 06/20/1994)

June 17, 1994

ENDORSEMENT granted absent objection, nunc pro tunc [141−1] motion to Extend Time until 6/17/94 to file a pleading ( signed by Chief Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 06/21/1994)

June 20, 1994

Motion hearing re: [139−1] motion for Expedited Relief by Esther McCoy, McCoy, McCoy set at 10:00 7/6/94 ( JGM) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/23/1994)

June 23, 1994
143

APPEARANCE of Attorney for McCoy, McCoy −− Jennifer Lynn Zito (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/15/1994)

Aug. 12, 1994
144

MOTION by McCoy, McCoy to Withdraw [139−1] motion for Expedited Relief by Esther McCoy, McCoy, McCoy (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/16/1994)

Aug. 12, 1994

ENDORSEMENT granted [144−1] motion to Withdraw [139−1] motion for Expedited Relief by Esther McCoy, McCoy, McCoy ( signed by Judge Jose A. Cabranes ) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/18/1994)

Aug. 18, 1994
145

MOTION by McCoy, McCoy to Compel Withdrawal of Counsel (Grady, B.) (Entered: 08/31/1994)

Aug. 26, 1994
146

MEMORANDUM/DECLARATION IN RESPONSE by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy to [145−1] motion to Compel Withdrawal of Counsel by McCoy, McCoy (Grady, B.) (Entered: 09/26/1994)

Sept. 19, 1994
147

REPLY by McCoy Leo, McCoy William to Attorney Lottman's 9/15/94 response to [145−1] motion to Compel Withdrawal of Counsel by McCoy, McCoy (Grady, B.) (Entered: 09/30/1994)

Sept. 29, 1994
148

REPLY by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy to response to [145−1] motion to Compel Withdrawal of Counsel by McCoy, McCoy (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/21/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994

Motion hearing held re: granting [145−1] motion to Compel Withdrawal of Counsel by McCoy, McCoy ( TPS) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/27/1994)

Dec. 20, 1994
149

Request by William McCoy, Leo McCoy for Oral Argument re: motion for Contempt (doc. # 121) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 01/18/1995)

Jan. 18, 1995

ENDORSEMENT − Moot. Argumrnt has been held before Judge Margolis, who will act on the pending matters when she is able to, See memorandum and order of this date. [149−1] motion for Oral Argument re: motion for Contempt (doc. # 121) ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/14/1995)

Feb. 10, 1995
150

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER − that the parties shall submit to the undersigned before 2/17/95 a proposed order setting for those dates ... see for complete details ( signed by Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/14/1995)

Feb. 10, 1995
151

TRANSCRIPT for dates of 3/10/92 (Court reporter: Paul Collard) (Montgomery, C.) (Entered: 04/28/1995)

April 25, 1995

Motion hearing re: [121−1] motion for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree by McCoy, McCoy set at 10:00 6/2/95 ( TPS) (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 05/11/1995)

May 10, 1995
152

Settlement Conference held ( TPS) (D'Onofrio, B.) (Entered: 05/15/1995)

May 10, 1995
153

JOINT STATEMENT of DISPUTED PROVISIONS by McCoy, McCoy, Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont regarding [121−1] for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree by McCoy, McCoy (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 05/25/1995)

May 25, 1995
156

STATUS REPORT by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 07/05/1995)

June 29, 1995
155

Status Conference held (JGM) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 06/30/1995)

June 30, 1995
157

MEMORANDUM of Status Conference held on 06/30/95. Hearing set for 3:00 pm on 7/13/95 for [153−1] facts statement; Hearing set for 9:30 am on 8/31/95 for [121−1] motion for Contempt/enforcement of consent decree ( signed by Mag. Judge Joan G. Margolis ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 07/10/1995)

June 30, 1995
158

MEMORANDUM by Lensink, King, Guevarra, Gino, Paul Bruch, Belmont Concerning their [153−1] facts statement to [121−1] motion for Contempt/ enforcement of consent decree by McCoy, McCoy (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 07/12/1995)

July 11, 1995
159

MEMORANDUM by McCoy, McCoy, Esther McCoy in support of their Interpretation re: [153−1] facts statement of defendants &plaintiff re: their [110−1] approved judgment order (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 07/14/1995)

July 12, 1995
160

Motion hearing held re: [153−1] Joint Statement of Disputed Provisions re: [121−1] motion for Contempt/enforcement of consent decree by McCoy, McCoy (JGM) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 07/14/1995)

July 13, 1995

State / Territory: Connecticut

Case Type(s):

Intellectual Disability (Facility)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 30, 1985

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Two males, both determined incompetent by a court, living at Southbury Training School challenging the inadequate conditions and the lack of programs and services necessary to meet their health and safety needs

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Southbury Training School, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Social Security (Title XX), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1397 et seq.

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1992 - 0

Content of Injunction:

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Monitoring

Hire

Monitor/Master

Preliminary relief denied

Issues

General:

Assault/abuse by staff

Bathing and hygiene

Communication skills

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Habilitation (training/treatment)

Individualized planning

Informed consent/involuntary medication

Neglect by staff

Personal injury

Reassessment and care planning

Record-keeping

Recreation / Exercise

Rehabilitation

Restraints : physical

Sanitation / living conditions

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Visiting

Disability:

disability, unspecified

Mental impairment

Mental Disability:

Developmental disability without intellectual disability

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Medical care, unspecified

Mental health care, general

Mental health care, unspecified

Type of Facility:

Government-run