On March 11, 1988, plaintiff, a female New Jersey inmate, filed a lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Rehabilitation Act, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, challenging her segregation and confinement in the St. Francis Medical Center due to her AIDS diagnosis. Plaintiff was represented by attorneys of the Public Advocate/Public Defender, Department of the Public Advocate for New Jersey and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
In her initial complaint, plaintiff alleged that she was initially confined in the Corrections Institute for Women in Clinton ["Clinton"] prior to her AIDS diagnosis. After the diagnosis, plaintiff was hospitalized for pneumonia. She recovered and her AIDS went into remission. She sought return from the St. Francis Medical Center, where female AIDS inmates were confined, back to the general population in Clinton. Her request was denied. Plaintiff noted that male AIDS prisoners were placed in Special Medical Unit attached to Trenton State Prison, but that no such facility existed from women inmates with AIDS. Plaintiff requested an injunction compelling her transfer.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court (Judge Anne E. Thompson) denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Roe v. Fauver, 1988 WL 47359 (D.N.J. May 13, 1988). Defendants then moved for summary judgment. The District Court denied defendants' motion and granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to allege broader allegations on behalf of all inmates inflicted with AIDS. Roe v. Fauver, 1988 WL 47359 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 1988).
The Amended Complaint alleged that inmates diagnosed with AIDS were illegally segregated and deprived of all recreation, education, work programs, adequate legal access, solely on the basis of their illness. The amended complaint also alleged that they were denied proper medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The case was certified as a class action on October 6, 1989. Class members included inmates diagnosed with AIDS or infected with the HIV virus. Following class certification, the parties settled the case.
The District Judge Anne E. Thompson approved and entered the Consent Decree on June 26, 1992. The Consent Decree provided for various reforms, including the following:
1. The DOC was prohibited from enforcing any blanket segregation of inmates with AIDS or any other stage of HIV disease. The decision to assign inmates to Medical Units in any facility in the New Jersey State Prison System was to be solely a medical decision based on the medical condition of the individual inmate.
2. Inmates were to be discharged from hospital facilities as soon as their medical condition no longer required hospitalization and as soon as appropriate housing was available.
3. The DOC was prohibited from denying access to programs, services, jobs, work release and furloughs to class members on the basis of their status as class members.
4. The DOC was ordered to provide medical care to class members in conformity with community standards as guided by United States Public Health Service recommendations.
5. The DOC was to set up a health screening evaluation, including HIV-risk assessment, for all inmates. The DOC was also to establish protocols for administering HIV testing; and training and educational programs on HIV disease, transmission and risk reduction to all inmates and staff in DOC facilities.
In 1997, a motion to enforce the Consent Decree and to impose sanctions was filed pro se by inmate Rasheed A. Mujahid. District Judge Thompson treated the motion as an original and separately filed Complaint. That Complaint was amended and Mr. Mujahid moved for a preliminary injunction. Defendants responded by moving to dismiss. Defendants also moved to terminate the Consent Decree under the Prison Litigation Reform Act [PLRA].
By order dated March 18, 1998, the USA was granted leave to intervene in the case.
According to the PACER docket, District Judge Anne E. Thompson issued an Opinion on April 15, 1998 and an Order on June 9, 1998 terminating all pending motions. The reasons for the Court's Opinion and Order are not apparent from the PACER docket and no further case activity was reported.Dan Dalton - 03/12/2007