There are no documents available in this case. However, through reference to it in a later case opinion by Judge Dickinson Richards Debevoise of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, we are able to understand some aspects of this case. Calloway v. Fauver, 544 F. Supp 584 ...
read more >
There are no documents available in this case. However, through reference to it in a later case opinion by Judge Dickinson Richards Debevoise of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, we are able to understand some aspects of this case. Calloway v. Fauver, 544 F. Supp 584 (D. N.J. 1982) (PC-NJ-0012).
As chronicled by Calloway, the Wooten plaintiffs were fifty-eight of the then sixty-six inmates confined to the Vroom Readjustment Unit (VRU) of the Trenton State Prison. Some of the plaintiffs had been confined in VRU for disciplinary reasons while others were in protective custody. In February 1975, they filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner of the Department of Institutions and Agencies and several other departmental and prison officials alleging Sixth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. Specifically, they alleged arbitrary procedures in transferring inmates in and out of VRU; arbitrary infliction of physical punishment in VRU; and deprivation of virtually all freedom, right of association, and access to programming to medical care.
Various pretrial proceedings occurred in 1975 and 1976, and the case was ultimately terminated by a consent order filed December 14, 1976. The consent order incorporated a stipulation of settlement which recorded the agreements the parties had reached in negotiations. The stipulation addressed the transfer of inmates to VRU and the counseling of inmates transferred there for disciplinary reasons. It also provided that there must be periodic review of the status of VRU inmates and that the defendants must make all best efforts to maintain programming and healthful and sanitary conditions in VRU. With respect to inmates confided to VRU for protective custody, the stipulation provided that the conditions must be a close as possible to those in the general population. Finally, it set forth minimum requirements for legal assistance for VRU inmates. The stipulation culminated by dismissing the complaint with prejudice with the exception of any action filed within a certain time frame relating to any individual plaintiff's personal allegation of the use of brutality against him.
In addition to there being no documents in this case, the docket is not available on PACER, and therefore our information ends with the discussion of the case in the Calloway opinion. Sherrie Waldrup - 04/03/2006