University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Denike v. Fauver PC-NJ-0008
Docket / Court 83-2737 ( D.N.J. )
State/Territory New Jersey
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
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 ... read more >
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.

Emilee Baker - 09/30/2006


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action None on record
Defendant(s) NJ Prison System
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.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1984 - n/a
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
Opinion 05/04/1998 (3 F.Supp.2d 540) (D.N.J.)
PC-NJ-0008-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Judges Debevoise, Dickinson Richards (D.N.J.)
PC-NJ-0008-0001
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Abel, Laura K. (New Jersey)
PC-NJ-0008-0001
Lustberg, Lawrence S. (New Jersey)
PC-NJ-0008-0001
Defendant's Lawyers Bollheimer, Ronald L. (New Jersey)
PC-NJ-0008-0001
Spellmeyer, Gregory A. (New Jersey)
PC-NJ-0008-0001
Other Lawyers Cassell, Susan C. (New Jersey)
PC-NJ-0008-0001
Garvey, Vincent M. (District of Columbia)
PC-NJ-0008-0001
Hochberg, Faith S. (New Jersey)
PC-NJ-0008-0001
Hunger, Frank W. (District of Columbia)
PC-NJ-0008-0001
Kirschner, William R. (District of Columbia)
PC-NJ-0008-0001

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -