University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Taylor v. Manson PC-CT-0009
Docket / Court H75-37 ( D. Conn. )
State/Territory Connecticut
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Attorney Organization ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU National Prison Project
Case Summary
This was a case brought by the National Prison Project of the ACLU and private counsel (Donald Holtman of the firm Connolly, Holtman and Losee) against officials and employees of the Connecticut Department of Correction on January 31, 1975. Plaintiffs Robert Graves, Donald Oberdorf, and Melvin ... read more >
This was a case brought by the National Prison Project of the ACLU and private counsel (Donald Holtman of the firm Connolly, Holtman and Losee) against officials and employees of the Connecticut Department of Correction on January 31, 1975. Plaintiffs Robert Graves, Donald Oberdorf, and Melvin Taylor were three inmates at the Connecticut Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut. Plaintiffs alleged that they were denied, or were warned that they would be denied, parole for failing to participate in an experimental behavior modification program for prisoners convicted of risk of injury to children. The program used as its primary techniques aversive faradic conditioning (electric shock), covert sensitization (hypnotism), and group therapy. Plaintiffs alleged that there was no evidence that this experimental program was successful in achieving its goals, that it was cruel and unusual punishment, and that being forced to choose between participating in the program or being denied parole violated their constitutional rights. They requested injunctive relief and monetary damages. Plaintiffs were granted leave to proceed in the action without being required to pay fees or costs.

There is no available docket for the case. The documents indicate that an answer was filed by the defendants denying the allegations. It appears that a Stipulation of Dismissal without prejudice was filed, but the document on record is not dated and is signed only by plaintiffs' counsel. The document stipulated that the Somers prison had discontinued faradic aversive conditioning and covert sensitization, and did not intend to reinstate the use of faradic aversive conditioning. The document also stipulated that the Department of Corrections would notify the Court and all counsel of record if in the future any program utilizing faradic aversive conditioning or covert sensitization was considered. All counsel of record would be given 60 days within which to file comments with the Department, but the Commissioner of Correction would retain his duty to approve or disapprove the initiation of new programs. According to the Stipulation of Dismissal, the plaintiffs were scheduled for a new parole hearing before an impartial parole board panel. The new panel would not be allowed to consider the plaintiffs' participation or non-participation in the no longer existing behavior modification program.

There is no indication of whether the case was ever closed or dismissed.

Theresa Spaulding - 05/29/2005


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
General
Disciplinary procedures
Personal injury
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Defendant(s) Connecticut Correctional Institution
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs incarcerated in the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Somers, Connecticut coerced to join an experimental behavior modification program for pedophiles
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU National Prison Project
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted Unknown
Prevailing Party Unknown
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Unknown
Source of Relief Unknown
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Unknown
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
No docket sheet currently in the collection
General Documents
Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice; Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice; Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice 01/01/1975
PC-CT-0009-0001.pdf | Detail
Order Granting Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 01/29/1975 (D. Conn.)
PC-CT-0009-0002.pdf | Detail
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Forma Pauperis Affadavit 01/29/1975
PC-CT-0009-0003.pdf | Detail
Complaint 01/29/1975
PC-CT-0009-0004.pdf | Detail
Judges Blumenfeld, Mosher Joseph (D. Conn.)
PC-CT-0009-0002
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bronstein, Alvin J. (District of Columbia)
PC-CT-0009-0003 | PC-CT-0009-0004
Holtman, Donald R. (District of Columbia)
PC-CT-0009-0001
Milstein, Barbara M. (District of Columbia)
PC-CT-0009-0003 | PC-CT-0009-0004
Myers, Matthew L. (District of Columbia)
PC-CT-0009-0001 | PC-CT-0009-0003 | PC-CT-0009-0004
Defendant's Lawyers Cochran, Frank (Connecticut)
PC-CT-0009-0001
O'Neill, Stephen J. (Connecticut)
PC-CT-0009-0001
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -