On February 22, 1991, Melvin C., an indigent minor in a Maryland Correctional Facility, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiff, along with 3 others, brought suit in forma paupris on behalf of themselves ...
read more >
On February 22, 1991, Melvin C., an indigent minor in a Maryland Correctional Facility, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiff, along with 3 others, brought suit in forma paupris on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of Education and the Department of Corrections for failure to provide special education and related services to all eligible youths confined in Maryland's ten adult correctional facilities. The class was later represented by the Public Justice Center, Inc. Specifically the suit alleges a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq., ("IDEA"), which provides for special education for all mentally disabled or impaired children, ages three to twenty-one.
On August 2, 1991, the Court (Judge John R. Hargrove) referred the case to Magistrate Judge Catherine C. Blake for hearing and determination of all non-dispositive pretrial matters. On September 18, 1991 the case was temporarily reassigned to Judge Benson E. Legg, and then back to Judge Hargrove on October 23, 1991. On December 9, 1991, the Court (Judge Hargrove) again referred the case to Magistrate Judge Blake for other proceeding, specifically protective orders.
On June 9, 1993 the United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice on Conditions. The Stipulation named Dr. Osa D. Coffey as the Implementation Coordinator (monitor) and George L. Russell, Jr., Esq., as the Arbitrator. The Court awarded fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel. A jointly written Action Plan was attached to the Stipulation, and the court retained jurisdiction over the case for further enforcement until the plan had been fully implemented.
The Action Plan called for mandatory, timely screening of all age-eligible prisoners for possible special education needs, through intake interviews and educational and medical tests. After parents have been notified, and their input sought, Individual Education Programs are to be developed for all eligible prisoners. Prisoners in special units are to receive a minimum of six hours per week of educational services. Finally, the Action Plan called for in-service training of all state employees connected with the special education of inmates to apprise them of the changes.
On June 6, 1995, the Court (Judge Hargrove) Dismissed the case without prejudice.Greg Venker - 05/18/2006