Search for:
clear search

Docket Number

Key Dates

Filing Date

Settlement / Judgment Date

Terminating Date

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Case Details

Outcome

Issues

MORE▾

Document Details

Document Filing Date

MORE▾

Document Citations

Citation 1

Citation 2

Citation 3

Search for:
9 cases, 9 documents
Ordered by
CHILD WELFARE
L.J. v. Massinga

1:84-cv-04409 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Filed Date: Dec. 5, 1984

This class action involving children placed in Maryland's foster care program was filed on December 5, 1984, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore). The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel and Public Justice Center; they sought broad interim and permanent injunctive relief as well as monetary damages against the state to redress deficiencies in the foster care program, claiming that the state violated Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, Title IV-E …
DISABILITY RIGHTS
Brantley v. Maxwell-Jolly

4:09-cv-03798 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Aug. 18, 2009

Closed Date: 2012

On August 18, 2009, three individuals receiving adult day health care services in California filed a class action lawsuit against the California Department of Health Care Services and its Director to enjoin the Department from making cuts to the Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) services program. Represented by Disability Rights California, AARP Foundation Litigation, and the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the plaintiffs filed their suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of …
SCHOOL DESEGREGATION
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education

3:65-cv-01974 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina

Filed Date: Jan. 19, 1965

Closed Date: April 15, 2002

This summary seeks to describe how the Swann litigation influenced the desegregation of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS). For a more thorough analysis of this litigation and policy challenge through the present day, see Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: School Desegregation and Resegregation in Charlotte (Roslyn Arlin Mickelson, et al. eds. 2015). For a complete discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Swann, see Bernard Schwartz, Swann's Way: The School Busing Case and the Supreme Court …
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Roman v. Wolf

5:20-cv-00768 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: April 13, 2020

Case Ongoing

COVID-19 Summary: This is a representative habeas action filed by immigrant detainees in the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, seeking writs of habeas corpus in light of COVID-19. The plaintiffs alleged that everyone at the detention center was particularly vulnerable to contracting the virus because the tight quarters in the detention center made it impossible to implement social distancing. The district court entered a preliminary injunction on April 23, which was stayed by the Ninth Circuit an…
EDUCATION
D.L. v. District of Columbia

1:05-cv-01437 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Filed Date: July 21, 2005

Case Ongoing

The named plaintiffs, former preschool-aged children with various disabilities, filed this lawsuit against the District of Columbia in July 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged that the District had engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to provide special education and related services to them and other children, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabili…
PRISON CONDITIONS
Perez v. Tilton

3:05-cv-05241 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Dec. 19, 2005

Closed Date: 2013

On December 19, 2005, a California state prisoner filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief on behalf of himself and other prisoners for alleged unconstitutional conditions with respect to dental care provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys of the Prison Law Office in California. This case stem…
MENTAL HEALTH (FACILITY)
Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services (IPAS) Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

1:08-cv-01317 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Filed Date: Oct. 1, 2008

Case Ongoing

On Oct. 1, 2008, the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission (IPAS) filed this lawsuit on behalf of a group of prisoners with serious mental illness in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. IPAS, represented by the ACLU, proceeded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC), asking the court for injunctive and declaratory relief. IPAS alleged that IDOC failed to adequately treat the prisoners in non-segregated and therapeutic …
CHILD WELFARE
J.K. v. Eden

4:91-cv-00261 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: May 8, 1991

Closed Date: March 21, 2014

Representing the class of persons under age twenty-one who were eligible for behavioral health services through Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) mandate, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., the Bazelon Center, Arizona Center for Disability Law, and National Center for Youth Law brought suit in 1991 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, against the state of Arizona.Both parties sought summary judgment, but in 1993, District Judge John Roll denied …
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (OTHER)
Morales v. Hickman

3:06-cv-00219 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Jan. 11, 2006

Case Ongoing

On January 11, 2006, several inmates at the state prison at San Quentin filed lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, all of whom were scheduled to be executed by lethal injection, alleged that their constitutional rights were threatened, arguing that lethal injection was cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth Amendment. They further argued that pancuroni…