Case: Doe v. Milano

2:87-cv-00673 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Filed Date: Sept. 1, 1987

Closed Date: 1988

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 1, 1987, a group of children under the age of 16 who were non-delinquent status offenders, filed this class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act against the State of Connecticut in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, and they alleged that the defendants had violated their rights by unlawfully holding them in secure juvenile deten…

On September 1, 1987, a group of children under the age of 16 who were non-delinquent status offenders, filed this class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act against the State of Connecticut in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, and they alleged that the defendants had violated their rights by unlawfully holding them in secure juvenile detention facilities, despite the fact that they were non-delinquent out-of-state juvenile runaways. The plaintiffs were represented by the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union.

On October 9, 1987, the district court (Judge Alan Nevas) certified the plaintiff class. On February 2, 1988, the court approved a consent decree that had been agreed upon by both sides. Under the terms of the decree, the defendants agreed that they would no longer deliver non-delinquent juvenile runaways to secure juvenile detention facilities. They also agreed that if a member of the plaintiff class was delivered by any party to a secure detention facility, they would pick them up from that facility within 6 hours. They agreed that if a member of the plaintiff class wanted to return to their home state to be with their parent or guardian, but they (and their parent/guardian) lacked the finances to return them to that state, the defendants would file a petition for the child's return under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles.

On July 7, 1988, the court dismissed the case.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (11/18/2008)

People


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Geballe, Shelley D. (Connecticut)

Attorney for Defendant

Adler, Laurie (Connecticut)

Antoinetti, Amelie (Connecticut)

Borowy, Frank (Connecticut)

Earl, Judith Merrill (Connecticut)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:87-cv-00673

Docket

July 7, 1988

July 7, 1988

Docket
2

2:87-cv-00673

Class Action Complaint

Sept. 1, 1987

Sept. 1, 1987

Complaint
56

2:87-cv-00673

Consent Judgment

Feb. 2, 1988

Feb. 2, 1988

Settlement Agreement
57

2:87-cv-00673

Stipulated Settlement of Plaintiff's Claim for Costs and Attorney's Fees

March 1, 1988

March 1, 1988

Settlement Agreement
59

2:87-cv-00673

Stipulation of Dismissal

July 6, 1988

July 6, 1988

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

Last updated Feb. 21, 2024, 3:14 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Connecticut

Case Type(s):

Juvenile Institution

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 1, 1987

Closing Date: 1988

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

non-delinquent out-of-state juvenile runaways being held at secure juvenile detention facilities

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of Connecticut (Hartford), State

Hartford Juvenile Detention Center (Hartford), City

Department of Children and Youth Services (Hartford), State

Newington Police Department (Newington), City

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Juvenile Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5672

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1988 - 0

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Type of Facility:

Government-run