|
FILE NO., COURT AND DATE FILED
3:02-CV-00429 (D. Conn., Mar. 8, 2002)
CITATION
2003 WL 1740672 (D. Conn. Mar. 24, 2003) (unreported); 2004 WL 2377142 (D. Conn. Sep. 30, 2004) (unreported)
CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW NO.
None
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Anne Louise Blanchard
Bet Gailor
Douglas M. Crockett
Connecticut Legal Services
872 Main Street, P.O. Box 258
Willimantic, CT 06226
(860) 456-1761
Fax: (860) 456-7420
ablanchard(at)connlegalservices.org
Catherine L. Williams
Connecticut Legal Services
211 State Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
(203) 336-3851
Fax: (203) 333-4976
cwilliams(at)connlegalservices.org
Lori Welch-Rubin
Engelman & Welch-Rubin
195 Church Street, 11th floor
New Haven, CT 06510
(203) 787-4259
Fax: (203) 785-8378
lwr(at)werlaw.com
ISSUES
Plaintiffs filed this suit on behalf of children with mental and emotional disabilities in custody of the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF). Plaintiffs allege that by denying them community-based residential treatment that meets their special needs, DCF violates their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (the Rehabilitation Act), and Connecticut's law and Constitution. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as money damages (for one named plaintiff).
HISTORY AND STATUS
On June 4, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In August, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court should abstain pursuant to the doctrines of Younger and Burford abstention, that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and that money damages were not available. Defendants also argued that they were not liable under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.
On March 24, 2003, the court denied most of defendants' motion to dismiss. However, the court dismissed plaintiffs' damages claims.
On September 30, 2004, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court rejected plaintiffs' class description as too vague, but left open the possibility of amending the description.
On July 21, 2005, defendants moved for summary judgment. A hearing on defendants' motion has not yet been scheduled.
|
 | |
|
