Free Order on Motion for Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:89-cv-00570-PCD

Document 137

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT WILLIAM ROE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL HOGAN, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : ORDER Plaintiffs Roy Sastrom and Robert Schapira have filed pro se motions for compliance with the Consent Decree entered in this class action in 1991, and Plaintiff Kenneth B. Ruggles has filed a motion to appoint counsel. These motions [Doc. Nos. 111, 117, 120, 123, and 131] are hereby denied without prejudice. In the past, a plaintiff's concerns with the enforcement of the Consent Decree would be referred to an attorney serving as monitor of the class action settlement, who would attempt to resolve any disputes with the defendants before filing a compliance motion in this Court. Attorneys Martha Stone and Philip Tegeler had functioned in the position of monitor in the past, but neither continues to do so nor has been replaced. Upon consultation with the Court, Attorney David McGuire of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut has agreed to try to resolve the question of a replacement monitor and to work with the Attorney General's office to identify a monitor suitable to all parties. Once a new monitor has been named, the subject matter of Plaintiffs Sastrom's, Schapira's, and Ruggles's motions will be referred to the monitor, and plaintiffs, with the assistance of the monitor, will be free to renew their motions if it is appropriate to do so and if there are no other means of resolving their claims. In the meantime, Plaintiffs' motions [Doc. Nos. 111, 117, 120, 123, and 131] are denied without prejudice to renewal.

Case No. H89-570 (PCD)

Case 2:89-cv-00570-PCD

Document 137

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 2 of 2

SO ORDERED. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 8th day of February, 2008.

/s/ Peter C. Dorsey, U.S. District Judge United States District Court