Case: Doe v. Meachum

[For unknown reasons, the docket does not begin with the complaint, but instead begins with a 1988 order and skips ahead nearly three years to a motion filed in 1991.]

On August 15, 1988, prisoners brought this class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. They sought to challenge the policies and practices of the Connecticut Department of Corrections (DOC) pertaining to the care, custody and confidentiality issues of prisoners with AIDS, AIDS-Related Complex (ARC), or HIV infections. The prisoners were represented by attorneys from the Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation, and the Center for Children's Advocacy.

On February 10, 1989, Judge Peter Dorsey certified the plaintiff class. The class consisted of all persons who were at any time since August 15, 1985, or would be, subject to the care and custody of the DOC, but excluding the individuals in the class certified in Smith v. Meachum. The plaintiffs sought interim relief of their claims relating to deficiencies in the provision of information about HIV infection to the prison population and the inadequate counseling services available for the results of HIV-related tests.

A consent judgment was filed on November 2, 1990 regarding health care for HIV-infected prisoners and the confidentiality of HIV-related information. These provisions included sections on intake and assessment, delivery of routine health services, access to medical care for acute illnesses, drug therapies, health care records, prescription and administration of medications, emergency kits, diet, mental health care, dental care, eye care and additional criteria for HIV-infected women, discharge planning, housing of symptomatic HIV-infected prisoners, staff education, staffing, quality assurance, confidentiality and monitoring. An Agreement Monitoring Panel (AMP) was to be established to monitor compliance with the Judgment. The AMP was to provide monitoring reports, and the DOC was also required to submit written compliance reports. 1990 WL 261348.

Magistrate Judge Joan Margolis approved the Consent Judgment, and notice was given to interested parties. District Judge Jose Cabranes approved the Consent Judgment on December 6, 1990.

The docket begins with a 1988 order referring the case to Magistrate Judge Margolis, signed by Judge Cabranes, and skips ahead nearly three years to a motion by plaintiffs filed on August 5, 1991 for injunctive relief and enforcement of judgment. The docket indicates that several compliance reports and AMP reports were filed between 1991 and 1993.

On October 7, 1993, Judge Cabranes issued an order stating that in accordance with colloquy with counsel on the record in open court at a hearing on October 4, 1993, the case was to be closed by October 18, 1993 if no objection was received. On April 26, 1994, Judge Cabranes issued an Order of Dismissal, and the case was closed.

The next entry on the docket indicated that a letter was sent to the court by plaintiffs on May 2, 1994, and on May 6, 1994, the court modified the Order of Dismissal such that the action was to remain under the court's active supervision with respect to monitoring the defendants' compliance with the Consent Judgments.

On November 19, 1998, the case was reassigned to Judge Christopher Droney. Monitoring continued, and status conferences were held periodically. On January 29, 2001, Judge Droney issued an order giving consent to trial before Magistrate Judge Margolis. Several other status conferences were held, and on February 24, 2003 the court ordered the State of Connecticut to reimburse plaintiffs' counsel for services rendered from May 2000 through February 2003.

The court received a letter on December 7, 2016, from a former prisoner regarding the consent judgment entered in this case. However, as the author of the letter no longer resided in a DOC facility, the following day, the court found that the author was no longer a class member.

As of December 2019, the docket shows no further activity.