In 1985, James Silvia filed a pro se complaint in the U.S. District Court District of Rhode Island (Providence), alleging violation of various of his civil rights due to his confinement at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) in Cranston, Rhode Island. It was assigned case number 85-cv-00110-L. On May 21, 1991, Plaintiff Charles Hockenhull (who was also a plaintiff in the Silvia case) filed a similar pro se civil rights case in the U.S. District Court District of Rhode Island (Providence), challenging conditions at ACI. That case was assigned case number 91-cv-00267-L.

Our information on these two cases is limited. It appears from the PACER dockets that the District Court certified the Silvia as a class action and entered a Consent Decree in 1988. The terms of the Decree are unknown.

On May 7, 1992, Magistrate Judge Hagopian issued his Report & Recommendation in the Hockenhull case, which recommended that Plaintiff Hockenhull's motion for class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 be denied. Hockenhull v. Vose, 1992 WL 426451 (D.R.I. May 7, 1992.) The District Court (Judge Ronald R. Lagueux) adopted the Magistrate's R&R and denied class certification.

The Silvia (#85-cv-00110) and Hockenhull (#91-cv-00267-L) cases were consolidated on April 22, 1993. The District Court appointed Magistrate Judge Hagopian to serve as Special Master in the consolidated cases to analyze the current conditions at ACI inmate libraries and to determine defendant's compliance.

On February 1, 1994, the District Court approved a Dismissal Stipulation of the parties in the Hockenhull case, which provided for the creation of training program for inmate law clerks. The case was dismissed without prejudice and was ordered closed on April 22, 1994. The Silvia case remained active.

On May 21, 1991 the District Court (Judge Ronald R. Lagueux) approved a Settlement Agreement and Dismissal Stipulation, finding that the 1988 Consent Decree in Silvia was obsolete. The case was ordered dismissed and the Decree vacated. Two inmates appealed.

On September 17, 2003, the First Circuit Court of Appeals entered Judgment affirming the District Court's approval of the settlement. The case was remanded for the limited purpose of changing the disposition to termination of the Consent Decree as opposed to vacating it.

We have no further information on these consolidated cases.

Dan Dalton - 02/28/2007


compress summary