Case: Denike v. Fauver

2:83-02737 | U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

Filed Date: July 24, 1983

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 24, 1983, inmates at Rahway State prison filed a law suit pro se against officials and employees of the New Jersey State Department of Corrections in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, alleging violations of their constitutional rights. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants had violated the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution by conducting urine tests of inmates. Two other pro se complaints contesting the urine tes…

On July 24, 1983, inmates at Rahway State prison filed a law suit pro se against officials and employees of the New Jersey State Department of Corrections in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, alleging violations of their constitutional rights. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants had violated the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution by conducting urine tests of inmates. Two other pro se complaints contesting the urine tests consolidated with this case and class certification was granted on April 6, 1984. The class consisted of all present and future inmates subjected to urine analysis utilizing an Enzyme Multiple-Immunoassay (EMIT') test. Plaintiffs, later represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

After a May 14, 1984 hearing, on May 15, 1984 the district court entered the consent decree signed by the parties on April 6, 1984. The decree set forth procedures governing when urine monitoring could be ordered, the manner in which the tests were to be administered, and the manner in which urine specimens were to be handled and tested.

On January 26, 1998, defendants filed a motion to terminate the 1984 consent decree pursuant to the termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. On April 9, 1998, the United States Department of Justice intervened on the question of the constitutionality of the PLRA termination provisions. Plaintiffs contended that the termination provisions of the PLRA are unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers doctrine by requiring the reopening of a final judgment, by prescribing a rule of decision in a pending action, and by depriving the Court of the ability to provide an effective remedy for violations of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Additionally, Plaintiffs argued that the immediate termination provisions violate their right to equal protection.

On May 4, 1998, the district court (Judge Dickinson Richards Debevoise) denied defendants' motion, finding that the immediate termination provision of the PLRA violated the separation of powers doctrine. Denike v. Fauver, 3 F.Supp.2d 540 (D.N.J. 1998). We have no further information on this case.

Summary Authors

Emilee Baker (9/30/2006)

People


Judge(s)

Debevoise, Dickinson Richards (New Jersey)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abel, Laura K. (New Jersey)

Lustberg, Lawrence S. (New Jersey)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bollheimer, Ronald L. (New Jersey)

Spellmeyer, Gregory A. (New Jersey)

Verniero, Peter (New Jersey)

Other Attorney(s)

Active

Active

Active

Active

Judge(s)

Debevoise, Dickinson Richards (New Jersey)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abel, Laura K. (New Jersey)

Lustberg, Lawrence S. (New Jersey)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bollheimer, Ronald L. (New Jersey)

Spellmeyer, Gregory A. (New Jersey)

Verniero, Peter (New Jersey)

Other Attorney(s)

Cassell, Susan C. (New Jersey)

Garvey, Vincent M. (District of Columbia)

Hochberg, Faith S. (New Jersey)

Hunger, Frank W. (District of Columbia)

Kirschner, William R. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:83-02737

Opinion

3 F.Supp.2d 540, 1998 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 6449

May 4, 1998

May 4, 1998

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated June 6, 2022, 3:11 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: New Jersey

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 24, 1983

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All present and future inmates that have been, are, or will be subjected to urine analysis utilizing an Enzyme Multiple-Immunoassay (``EMIT'') test. Plaintiffs, later represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

NJ Prison System, State

Case Details

Availably Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1984 - None

Issues

General:

Testing

Discrimination-area:

Medical Exam / Inquiry

Testing

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run