Case: Carty v. Farrelly

3:94-cv-00078 | District Court of the Virgin Islands

Filed Date: June 20, 1994

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 20, 1994, inmates of the Criminal Justice Complex in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, filed this class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands. The plaintiffs, who were represented by the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and others, sued the Governor of the Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections; they asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by the poor conditions of their confinement. Specifically, they complained of the inadequacy of the building in which they were housed to hold prisoners, up to five prisoners in each cell, lack of a functioning sink in each cell, only one showerhead for use by all prisoners in each cluster, overcrowding (population was, they said, 4 times capacity), lack of sufficient beds, transmission of infectious diseases, and defective plumbing. They also complained of inadequacies in the areas of sanitation, programming, exercise, food service, medical care, personal safety, noise levels, and an environment of tension, stress, and hostility. They contended that the overcrowding led to a high risk of violence, as well as infestation with roaches, rats, flies, mosquitoes, and mice. They complained of contaminated drinking water, moldy showers, broken cooling and ventilation systems, broken windows, asbestos particles in the air, poor lighting, risk of fire, poor medical care, inadequate classification and screening procedures, lack of delivery of prescription medication, poor dental care, poor mental health care, discrimination against disabled prisoners, excessive use of force, failure to protect prisoners from one another, denial of access to a law library and to attorneys, and interference with religious practices.

On October 12, 1994, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which they submitted to the court for approval. Under the terms of the agreement, the defendants agreed to limit the population to 97 inmates (less than half of the former population), to house female inmates separately from male inmates, and to eliminate double-celling. The agreement also addressed problems in the areas of insufficient mattresses, providing a storage area in each cell for each inmates' personal possessions, establishing a comprehensive kitchen maintenance and sanitation plan, preventive maintenance, clean drinking water, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, ventilation, air conditioning, nutrition, lighting, noise levels, temperature control, personal hygiene, provision of linens, soap, shampoo, and toothpaste, vermin and pests, fire safety, medical care, substance abuse treatment, medications, intake evaluations, disease testing, record-keeping, mental health care, inmate safety, activities, recreation, education, use of force, and other concerns mentioned in the complaint. The case was assigned to Judge Stanley Brotman, and the court adopted the agreement as a consent decree in December of 1994 and awarded the plaintiffs $155,000 in attorneys' fees.

Over the next two years, the defendants paid only one third of the attorneys' fees that had been ordered by the court, and the plaintiffs asked the court to hold them in contempt for this violation, as well as for other violations of the decree. Judge Brotman held hearings on these motions, and on November 26, 1996, the defendants asked the district court to modify the consent decree. They informed the court that over the two years following the adoption of the consent decree, the Virgin Islands experienced five major storms, which they alleged to have caused unforeseen and unbudgeted financial setbacks for the entire populace of the Islands, resulting in an unprecedented public debt. They alleged that due to these concerns, they were unable to comply with the consent decree in two areas: 1) overpopulation of the facility, and 2) psychiatric evaluation, care, and management of the prisoners. Due to this situation, they asked the court to excuse them from complying with these portions of the decree. The defendants then asked the district court to terminate the consent decree pursuant to the recently-enacted Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).

On January 30, 1997, Judge Brotman found for the plaintiffs; he held that the defendants' conduct and the conditions at the prison violated the Eighth Amendment by subjecting the prisoners to inhumane conditions of confinement. The Court further found that the defendants had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against prisoners with disabilities, and that they had violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by instituting unreasonable policies regarding inmate religious practices. The Court also found that they had denied the inmates meaningful access to the courts and defied the court by refusing to pay the attorneys' fees. Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727 (D.Virgin Islands 1997). A month later, the court held the defendants in contempt and ordered them to submit regular reports to the court on their progress.

(In a separate case addressing whether the federal government could constitutionally house prisoners in any of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections facilities, on April 2, 1997, District Judge Thomas Moore found that the prison conditions were unconstitutional and issued an order that no persons detained under process of the U.S. Government and any of its agencies should be lodged or housed in any facilities of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections. In the Matter Of: Federal Detainees Housed or Lodged in the Facilities of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections on St. Croix, 1997 WL 182301 (D.Virgin Islands April 2, 1997). On April 25, 1997, Judge Moore modified that order to allow the U.S. Marshal to lodge federal detainees in Bureau of Corrections facilities in St. Croix when required by logistical difficulties of moving such prisoners between the Virgin Islands and the Guaynabo Metropolitan Detention Center. In the Matter Of: Federal Detainees Housed or Lodged in the Facilities of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections on St. Croix, 1997 WL 222647 (D.Virgin Islands, April 25, 1997).)

On December 2, 1997, the district court (Judge Brotman) ruled on another motion by the plaintiffs for civil contempt. The Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to monetary sanctions, and ordered the defendants to continue reporting on their progress. Carty v. Schneider, 986 F.Supp. 933 (D.Virgin Islands 1997).

Four years later, the district court did hold the defendants in contempt of the consent decree, finding that they had not made a reasonable effort to comply with the court's orders. Carty v. Turnbull, 144 F.Supp.2d 395 (D.Virgin Islands 2001).

On February 27, 2007, the district court again held the defendants in contempt, finding that the defendants had failed to even file a reply to the plaintiff class motion for an order holding the defendants in contempt for failure to comply with the consent decree's requirements in the area of mental health care.

On February 21, 2008, the court ordered a corrections expert to inspect the prison facilities. On January 12, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to terminate the consent decree and remove the court supervision. The court then filed a scheduling order setting discovery deadlines and a date for a hearing. The defendants did not comply with the deadlines, leading the court to rule that the defendants would not be permitted to present evidence contradicting the findings of the plaintiffs' corrections expert or of any remedial efforts taken since the experts' tour of the prison facilities. The defendants ultimately withdrew their motion to terminate.

On May 18, 2010, the court issued an opinion regarding the report made by the corrections expert on his visit to the prison facilities. Carty v. DeJongh, 2010 WL 2024524. The court found the defendants were still not in compliance with the settlement agreement and ordered them to resolve all deficiencies swiftly and fully. The order required that the defendants supply the court with periodic status reports on its compliance with the settlement agreement and other remedial orders. The defendants submitted the status reports, as ordered, for the following two years.

On March 4, 2011, plaintiffs moved for the appointment of an expert to work with the defendants on population management and prisoner classification issues. Judge Brotman agreed on June 28, 2011, issuing an order assigning Dr. James Austin to serve as a population manager and classification expert. The order also required Dr. Austin to perform periodic criminal justice assessments to assist the government in reducing the prisoner population at the Criminal Justice Complex and Annex. The defendants moved for reconsideration, on October 7, 2011, and apparently this reconsideration motion was never ruled upon.

On May 13, 2013, parties proposed a new settlement agreement. Under the settlement, the defendant agreed to make significant improvements to classification and housing of prisoners, prisoner supervision, general security, housing and environmental health conditions, population control, development of policies and procedures, use of force, use of physical restraints, addressing prisoner grievances, programming, staffing, fire safety, medical and mental health care, training of staff, and monitoring of the prison. The settlement also stated that relief would terminate when the defendant has achieved and maintained substantial compliance for one year. On August 14, 2013, the court approved the settlement.

There was very little progress towards compliance, however. So as the court explained later (in an order dated March 11, 2016) on May 10, 2015, Dr. James Austin--who had been designated the court's expert on population management in 2011--sent an email to the defendants notifying them that he wanted to make a site visit to the correctional facilities in June 2015, to conduct his criminal justice assessment in line with the June 28, 2011 order. The defendants' response was that no provision of the consent decree authorized such an assessment and, as such, Dr. Austin could not perform that task.

On June 2, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the June 28, 2011 order. On December 9, 2015, a regularly scheduled quarterly evidentiary hearing was held. During the hearing, the defendants acknowledged that nothing had superseded the original order; the court (Judge Gomez) accordingly ruled orally that day that the 2011 appointment remained in effect. That decision was filed in written form in an order dated March 11, 2016.

During the two years following the order, plaintiffs continued to work to enforce the settlement agreement more generally, with contested motions relating to site visits and the like. Following the settlement, notice of expert reports were filed monthly and status reports and evidentiary hearings occurred quarterly.

In response to two years of continuing reports and evidentiary hearings, the plaintiffs filed a motion on December 13, 2018 to set additional goals and request information including (1) the total number of inmates in need of intermediate or inpatient care; (2) the dates those inmates will be transferred to psychiatric facilities; and (3) for the 2018 calendar year, the number of inmates in need of intermediate or inpatient care at appropriate psychiatric facilities that have been released. The court ordered on December 17, 2018 that the defendants produce the requested information. The defendants responded with the information on December 28, 2018.

On January 4, 2019, the court ordered the defendants to submit a plan detailing how and when training will be completed on the Use of Force policies including: Umbrella Use of Force, Restraint Devices, Video Recording, Cell Extractions, and Reporting Requirement, being completed no later than March 15, 2019.

On February 15, 2019, the parties filed their quarterly status reports. The defendants' report noted completed training of employees and ongoing plans to update their reporting requirements and policies. The plaintiffs status report indicated violent incidents from failure to hospitalize that occurred over the quarter and the defendants failure to meet five of their quarterly goals, which required mental health trainings, tracking referrals for mental health care, increased oversight, and improvements to disciplinary system.

On February 19, 2019, the defendants filed a motion for a protective order in response to the plaintiffs' counsel publishing video footage online entitled “Brutality Against Prisoners Is Often Unseen. In this Virgin Islands Jail, It Was Caught on Video.” The defendants claimed this to be a security risk and requested that the video be taken down. The court denied the motion.

On March 5, 2019, the court ordered that the parties each file a brief addressing if the court needed to appoint a receiver. The court expressed concerns regarding the defendants' continuing failure to provide for the timely transfer of seriously mentally ill prisoners in need of inpatient or intermediate care as required by the settlement agreement. The court asked the parties if the appointment of a receiver should be considered in this matter given the nearly 25-year history of non-compliance. Following the order, both parties requested time extensions to prepare their responses. On April 15, 2019, both parties submitted briefs addressing if a receiver should be appointed.

On August 1, 2019, the court held a status conference with the parties to discuss how the defendants could make meaningful progress toward substantial compliance with the 2013 and the 1994 Settlement Agreements. The court and parties agreed to that the court appointed mental health expert and the security expert each submit an independent plan outlining a pathway to compliance. The court experts submitted plans and on August 15, 2019, the court ordered the defendants to complete certain short-term tasks by August 31, 2019 and September 30, 2019. These included developing a position description for an additional mental health professional at the Alexander Farelly Criminal Justice Complex, working to secure an alternate psychiatrist, submit a report identifying progress towards the 2018 staffing goals, and to complete hospital security training. The court further ordered that failure to comply with any of the tasks may result in sanctions starting at $2500 per day for each uncompleted task.

The court experts also submitted numerous near-term, mid-term, and long-term tasks in their plans. However, the defendants asserted several objections to these tasks. The defendants did not present alternative tasks by which it could achieve substantial compliance with the 2013 and the 1994 Settlement Agreements. As a result, on September 13, 2019, the court ordered the defendants to file a plan proposing “specific, demonstrable, and tangible tasks necessary to be undertaken to obtain substantial compliance” with the settlement agreements. The defendants filed a plan with the court on September 30, 2019.

On November 27, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to add a quarterly goal. The plaintiffs requested that the court add the complete installation, testing, and implementation of the new CCTV surveillance system.

As of December 2019, the plaintiffs’ motion to add a quarterly goal remained pending, the court had not appointed a receiver, and the parties continued to submit quarterly status reports. The case is ongoing.


3:94-cv-00078	Docket [PACER] Carty v. DeJongh	Nov. 27, 2019	Nov. 27, 2019 Docket
3:94-cv-00078	Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief	June 20, 1994	June 20, 1994 Complaint
3:94-cv-00078	Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief	Sept. 1, 1994	Sept. 1, 1994 Complaint
805-2 3:94-cv-00078	Settlement Agreement	Oct. 12, 1994	Oct. 12, 1994 Settlement Agreement
3:94-cv-00078	Consent Decree Table of Compliance	Dec. 1, 1994	Dec. 1, 1994 Settlement Agreement
3:94-cv-00078	Stipulation	Dec. 1, 1994	Dec. 1, 1994 Pleading / Motion / Brief
3:94-cv-00078	Stipulation	Jan. 12, 1995	Jan. 12, 1995 Pleading / Motion / Brief
3:94-cv-00078	Order	July 22, 1996	July 22, 1996 Order/Opinion
175 3:94-cv-00078	Motion for Modification of Consent Decree and Supporting Memorandum of Law	Nov. 26, 1996	Nov. 26, 1996 Pleading / Motion / Brief
186 3:94-cv-00078	Opinion	Jan. 30, 1997	Jan. 30, 1997 Order/Opinion

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
	June 20, 1994	Description not available
	June 20, 1994	Jams Calendar Events
98	Jan. 17, 1996	SEE DOCKET CARD FOR PREVIOUS ENTRIES (Entered: 01/17/1996)	RECAP
101	Jan. 22, 1996	ORDER that this matter is hereby scheduled for a status conference with District Judge Stanley S. Brotman on Thursday, January 25, 1996 at 2:00 pm in the visiting Judge's chambers of the District Court in St. Croix eod 01/31/96 (Entered: 01/22/1996)	RECAP
99	Jan. 25, 1996	MOTION TO RECONSIDER by defendants (Entered: 01/25/1996)	RECAP
100	Jan. 25, 1996	MEMORANDUM in support of motion for reconsideration by defendants (Entered: 01/25/1996)	RECAP
102	Jan. 25, 1996	MOTION TO RECONSIDER by defendants (Entered: 01/25/1996)	RECAP
103	Feb. 2, 1996	RESPONSE to Plaintiff's motion for an Order to show cause by Defendants (Entered: 02/02/1996)	RECAP
104	Feb. 12, 1996	MOTION in opposition to defendants' memorandum in support of motion for reconsideration by plaintiffs (Entered: 02/12/1996)	RECAP
105	Feb. 15, 1996	REPLY to defendants' response to motion to show cause by plaintiffs (Entered: 02/15/1996)	RECAP
106	March 21, 1996	MOTION (SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL) for reasonable Attorneys' Fees and expenses by plaintiffs eod 03/22/96 [CAB] (Entered: 03/21/1996)	RECAP
107	March 21, 1996	MEMORANDUM of law in support of second supplemental motion for reasonable Attorneys' fees and expenses by plaintiffs eod 03/22/96 [CAB] (Entered: 03/21/1996)	RECAP
108	April 17, 1996	OPPOSITION to plaintiffs' supplemental motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses by defendant eod 04/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 04/17/1996)	RECAP
109	April 17, 1996	MEMORANDUM of Law in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' second supplemental motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses eod 04/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 04/17/1996)	RECAP
110	April 23, 1996	OPPOSITION (SUPPLEMENTAL) to plaintiffs' motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses eod 04/23/96 [CAB] (Entered: 04/23/1996)	RECAP
111	April 30, 1996	REPLY to defendants' opposition and supplemental opposition to motion for reasonable Attorneys' fees by plaintiffs eod 05/01/96 [CAB] (Entered: 04/30/1996)	RECAP
112	May 3, 1996	NOTICE of filing of Declaration of Benjamin A. Currence in support of plaintiff's objections to special Masters' Report eod 05/06/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/03/1996)	RECAP
113	May 3, 1996	DECLARATION of Benjamin A. Currence in support of plaintiff's objections to special Master's Report eod 05/06/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/03/1996)	RECAP
114	May 6, 1996	OBJECTION to special Master's Report by plaintiff eod 05/07/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/06/1996)	RECAP
115	May 7, 1996	ORDER OF REFERENCE (SSB) 4/24/96 eod 05/08/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/07/1996)	RECAP
116	May 15, 1996	OBJECTION to Special Master's Report by defendants eod 05/15/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/15/1996)	RECAP
117	May 16, 1996	BRIEF addressing impact of prison litigation perform act upon order of reference by defendants eod 05/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/16/1996)	RECAP
118	May 20, 1996	ORDER (SSB) eod 05/22/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/20/1996)	RECAP
119	May 20, 1996	NOTICE ASSIGNS HEARING to 07/09/96 at 09:30AM Room 310 (SSB) c/m at the District Court in St. Croix. Parties should be prepared to offer evidence and present argument on the plaintiffs' outstanding motion for an order to show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt. All attorneys must be present eod 05/22/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/20/1996)	RECAP
120	May 22, 1996	IMPACT of the prison Litigation Reform Act on the appointment and compensation of the special master eod 05/23/96 [CAB] (Entered: 05/22/1996)	RECAP
121	June 4, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 5/30/96 that such motion be granted eod 06/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/04/1996)	RECAP
122	June 13, 1996	NOTICE to taking deposition Duces Tecum of representative of office of the Governor eod 06/14/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/13/1996)	RECAP
123	June 14, 1996	NOTICE of depositions of Dr. James Austin and Michael Mahoney eod 06/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/14/1996)	RECAP
124	June 14, 1996	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE eod 06/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/14/1996)	RECAP
125	June 17, 1996	MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER to Quash notice to take depositions Duces Tecum eod 06/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/17/1996)	RECAP
126	June 17, 1996	NOTICE of Deposition Duces Tecum of Assistant Warden Agnes George on Thursday, June 20, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. eod 06/18/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/17/1996)	RECAP
127	June 19, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 6/17/96 that the defendants motion for a protective order is denied eod 06/20/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/19/1996)	RECAP
128	June 20, 1996	NOTICE (Amended) of taking deposition Duces Tecum of representative of office of the Governor eod 06/20/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/20/1996)	RECAP
129	June 21, 1996	MOTION for protective order to quash notice to take depositions Duces Tecum by defendants eod 06/21/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/21/1996)	RECAP
130	June 24, 1996	RESPONSE to defendants' motion for a protective order by plaintiffs eod 06/24/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/24/1996)	RECAP
131	June 25, 1996	NOTICE of taking deposition Duces Tecum of Elwood York, Director of the Bureau of Corrections eod 06/26/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/25/1996)	RECAP
132	June 27, 1996	NOTICE of taking deposition of Governor Roy L. Schneider on Wednesday, July 2, 1996 at 10:00 a.m. eod 06/27/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/27/1996)	RECAP
133	June 27, 1996	NOTICE of taking deposition of Governor Roy L. Schneider on Wednesday, July 2, 1996 at 11:00 a.m. eod 06/27/96 [CAB] (Entered: 06/27/1996)	RECAP
134	July 3, 1996	PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM eod 07/09/96 [CAB] (Entered: 07/03/1996)	RECAP
137	July 3, 1996	ORDER (SSB) that the testimony of the witness, Alfonso Lambertis, will be taken at the Federal Courthouse in St. Thomas at 1:00 pm on July 8, 1996; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of the hearing will take place, as previously scheduled, in the Federal Courthouse in St. Croix on July 9, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. eod 07/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 07/03/1996)	RECAP
138	July 3, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 7/3/96 eod 07/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 07/03/1996)	RECAP
135	July 10, 1996	MOTION to terminate the Consent Decree by defts. eod 07/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 07/10/1996)	RECAP
136	July 10, 1996	MEMORANDUM in support of motion to terminate Consent Decree Pursuant to 1996 Amendments to 18 U.S.C. Section 3626 eod 07/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 07/10/1996)	RECAP
139	July 15, 1996	MOTION for an enlargement of time in which to file a response to deft. mot. to terminate the consent decree & for a stay of the automatic stay provision of PLRA by pltf. eod 07/16/96 [CAD] (Entered: 07/15/1996)	RECAP
140	July 17, 1996	ORDER (GWB) that the pltf. mot. for an enlargement of time is GRANTED. & that the pltfs. mot. for stay of the automatic stay provision of the prison litigation reform act, 18 U.S.C. 3636(E) (2) IS GRANTED. eod 07/23/96 [CAD] (Entered: 07/17/1996)	RECAP
141	July 19, 1996	RETURN of USM service dated issued to Elwood York (unexecuted) eod 07/23/96 [CAD] (Entered: 07/19/1996)	RECAP
142	Aug. 6, 1996	STIPULATION (entered but not docketed) eod 08/07/96 [CAB] (Entered: 08/06/1996)	RECAP
143	Aug. 7, 1996	MEMORANDUM in response to defendants' motion to terminate the Consent Decree by plaintiffs eod 08/08/96 [CAB] (Entered: 08/07/1996)	RECAP
144	Aug. 13, 1996	OBJECTION to Special Master's July 18, 1996 report by plaintiffs eod 08/14/96 [CAB] (Entered: 08/13/1996)	RECAP
146	Sept. 12, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 9/6/96 that the time within which the Plaintiffs' may respond to Report No. 2 of the Special Master herein is extended to August 6, 1996 eod 09/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 09/12/1996)	RECAP
147	Sept. 12, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 9/4/96 Authorizing Clerk to make payment; that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoice(s) $3789.45 to Michael Mahoney eod 09/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 09/12/1996)	RECAP
145	Sept. 16, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 9/11/96 Notice of hearing before Judge Stanley S. Brotman on Wednesday, October 30, 1996 at 8:45 a.m. at the District Court in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands eod 09/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 09/16/1996)	RECAP
148	Sept. 27, 1996	NOTICE and MOTION of the United States of America to intervene Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403(a) and Memorandum in support eod 09/30/96 [CAB] (Entered: 09/27/1996)	RECAP
149	Sept. 27, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 9/27/96 eod 10/03/96 [CAB] (Entered: 09/27/1996)	RECAP
150	Oct. 3, 1996	NOTICE of appearance of Maureen Phelan Cormier eod 10/04/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/03/1996)	RECAP
151	Oct. 4, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 10/01/96 that the Motion of the United States of America to Intervene Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S2403(a) is GRANTED eod 10/07/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/04/1996)	RECAP
152	Oct. 8, 1996	NOTICE of appearance of Assistant Attorney General, Cornelius D. Williams, Jr. eod 10/09/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/08/1996)	RECAP
153	Oct. 10, 1996	MEMORANDUM of Law of the United States of America with respect to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act eod 10/10/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/10/1996)	RECAP
154	Oct. 15, 1996	REQUEST to enter and inspect premises by plaintiffs eod 10/15/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/15/1996)	RECAP
155	Oct. 17, 1996	MOTION (Third Supplemental) for reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses by Plaintiffs eod 10/17/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/17/1996)	RECAP
156	Oct. 24, 1996	BRIEF in response to memorandum of law of the United States with respect to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act by plaintiffs eod 10/25/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/24/1996)	RECAP
157	Oct. 28, 1996	NOTICE of taking deposition Duces Tecum of Governor Roy L. Schneider on Thursday, October 31, 1996 at 10:00 a.m. eod 10/29/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/28/1996)	RECAP
158	Oct. 28, 1996	NOTICE of taking Depositioin Duces Tecum of Governor Roy L. Schneider on Thursday, October 31, 1996 at 11:00 a.m. eod 10/29/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/28/1996)	RECAP
159	Oct. 28, 1996	NOTICE of taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Governor Roy L. Schneider on Thursday, October 31, 1996 at 12:00 eod 10/29/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/28/1996)	RECAP
160	Oct. 29, 1996	NOTICE (Revised) of taking deposition Duces Tecum of Mr. Nellon Bowry eod 10/30/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/29/1996)	RECAP
161	Oct. 29, 1996	NOTICE (Revised) of taking deposition Duces Tecum of Nellie Varlack eod 10/30/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/29/1996)	RECAP
162	Oct. 29, 1996	NOTICE (Revised) of taking deposition Duces Tecum of Ms. Anise Hodge eod 10/30/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/29/1996)	RECAP
163	Oct. 29, 1996	NOTICE of hearing on motion (SSB) 10/25/96 eod 10/31/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/29/1996)	RECAP
164	Oct. 31, 1996	OBJECTION (s) to Special Master's Third Report by plaintiffs eod 11/01/96 [CAB] (Entered: 10/31/1996)	RECAP
165	Nov. 1, 1996	OBJECTION to Subpoena by defendants eod 11/04/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/01/1996)	RECAP
166	Nov. 15, 1996	NOTICE of Motion by defendant eod 11/18/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/15/1996)	RECAP
167	Nov. 15, 1996	MOTION to extend deadline by defendants eod 11/18/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/15/1996)	RECAP
169	Nov. 18, 1996	MOTION for Leave to Amend by substituting successor in office eod 11/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/18/1996)	RECAP
168	Nov. 19, 1996	COURTROOM MINUTES (SSB) 11/7/96 Hearing on application by Government to terminate consent agreement. Decision Reserved. Hearing on application by plt. to amend complaint. Ordered application Granted. Order to be submitted by Counsel eod 11/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/19/1996)	RECAP
170	Nov. 19, 1996	NOTICE or recent decision submitted by Intervenor The United States of America eod 11/19/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/19/1996)	RECAP
171	Nov. 19, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 11/19/96 that Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline is Denied eod 11/20/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/19/1996)	RECAP
172	Nov. 21, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 11/20/96 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoice(s), $9,573.78 to Robert E. Glotz eod 11/22/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/21/1996)	RECAP
173	Nov. 22, 1996	OPPOSITION to Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline by Plaintiffs eod 11/25/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/22/1996)	RECAP
174	Nov. 22, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 11/19/96 that Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline is DENIED eod 11/25/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/22/1996)	RECAP
176	Nov. 25, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 11/22/96 Granting leave to amend by substituting successors in office eod 12/02/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/25/1996)	RECAP
175	Nov. 26, 1996	MOTION for Modification of Consent Decree and supporting Memorandum of Law by The Virgin Islands Bureau of Corrections eod 11/26/96 [CAB] (Entered: 11/26/1996)	RECAP
177	Dec. 10, 1996	POST-HEARING BRIEF by plaintiffs eod 12/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 12/10/1996)	RECAP
178	Dec. 10, 1996	OPPOSITION to defendants' motion for modification of Consent Decree eod 12/11/96 [CAB] (Entered: 12/10/1996)	RECAP
179	Dec. 13, 1996	FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSION OF LAW by defendants eod 12/13/96 [CAB] (Entered: 12/13/1996)	RECAP
180	Dec. 13, 1996	MOTION (Supplemental) for modification of Consent Degree and supporting Memorandum of Law eod 12/13/96 [CAB] (Entered: 12/13/1996)	RECAP
181	Dec. 23, 1996	ORDER (SSB) 12/16/96 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoices, the follwing: a. $4116.67 to Sonia I. Oquendo, M.D., M.P.H. eod 12/26/96 [CAB] (Entered: 12/23/1996)	RECAP
182	Jan. 8, 1997	ORDER (SSB) 12/23/96 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoices, the following: a. $2475.84 to NCCD & Darlene C. Grant, Esq., Special Master eod 01/09/97 [CAB] (Entered: 01/08/1997)	RECAP
183	Jan. 14, 1997	ORDER (SSB) 1/6/97 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay out of said Fund, in accordance with the attached invoices(s), $23,118.10 to NCCD & Darlene C. Grant, Esq. eod 01/15/97 [CAB] (Entered: 01/14/1997)	RECAP
184	Jan. 14, 1997	ORDER (SSB) 1/6/97 that the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall pay $4067.42 to NCCD & James Austin eod 01/15/97 [CAB] (Entered: 01/14/1997)	RECAP
185	Jan. 30, 1997	ORDER (SSB) 1/29/97 that defendants' motion to modify the Settlement Agreement is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to hold defendants in civil contempt is GRANTED; See doc. for more information eod 01/31/97 [CAB] (Entered: 01/30/1997)	RECAP
186	Jan. 30, 1997	OPINION (SSB) 1/29/97 on motions pertaining to the Settlement Agreement eod 01/31/97 [CAB] (Entered: 01/30/1997)	RECAP
187	Feb. 12, 1997	LETTER to Judge Brotman by John Schumann eod 02/12/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/12/1997)	RECAP
188	Feb. 18, 1997	MOTION (Fourth Supplemental) for reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses by plaintiffs eod 02/19/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/18/1997)	RECAP
189	Feb. 20, 1997	NOTICE of Motion eod 02/25/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/20/1997)	RECAP
190	Feb. 20, 1997	MOTION to Extend deadline by defendants eod 02/25/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/20/1997)	RECAP
191	Feb. 24, 1997	ORDER (SSB) 2/21/97 that Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART eod 02/25/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/24/1997)	RECAP
192	Feb. 28, 1997	OPPOSITION to Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline by plaintiffs eod 03/03/97 [CAB] (Entered: 02/28/1997)	RECAP
193	March 7, 1997	MOTION for Reconsideration by defendants eod 03/10/97 [CAB] (Entered: 03/07/1997)	RECAP
194	March 7, 1997	MEMORANDUM in support of Motion for Reconsideration (Preamble) eod 03/10/97 [CAB] (Entered: 03/07/1997)	RECAP
195	March 19, 1997	OPPOSITION to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Introduction eod 03/20/97 [CAB] (Entered: 03/19/1997)	RECAP

Case: Carty v. Farrelly

3:94-cv-00078 | District Court of the Virgin Islands

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Docket for: Carty v. Governor Albert Bryan, Jr.

Case Details