West v. Manson
| Decision Date | 07 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 2:83-CV-366(RNC) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | VALERIE WEST, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER JOHN R. MANSON, ET AL. |
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the parties, including the plaintiff classes of women who are or who in the future will be confined in Connecticut's correctional institution for women and the plaintiff class of children of these women (hereinafter "plaintiffs") and the Defendant Commissioner of the Department of Correction ("DOC"), jointly move for the final approval of the Stipulation preliminarily approved by the Court on July 5, 2017. For the reasons that follow, the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement [Doc. #538] is GRANTED.
This action was filed in 1983 as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. A consent decree, entered on October 13, 1988, and approved by the Court on January 9, 1989, included a provision on page 66, Section IX, paragraph 2 stating in part: [Doc. #175 at 66, §IX, ¶2].
On March 31, 2017, Defendant Commissioner of Correction filed a Motion to Terminate Prospective Injunctive Relief [Doc. #491], seeking to terminate Section IX, paragraph 2 of the 1989 consent decree, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. §3626(b)(2).
On June 30, 2017, the parties entered into a private settlement agreement whereby plaintiffs agreed not to oppose defendant's pending motion to terminate and defendant agreed to certain steps to make family law information available to DOC inmates, through family law seminars and access to CTLawhelp.org materials. [Doc. #538 ¶3(a); Doc. #520-1 ¶(1)]. "As consideration for the plaintiffs' relinquishment of their rights to oppose the motion, the defendant shall, as set forth in this Agreement, arrange for provision on a gender neutral basis of civil legal assistance to [] inmates incarcerated in correctional institutions...."1 [Doc. #520-1 ¶(1)(a-c)].
Counsel for the parties jointly moved the Court, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for preliminary approval of the proposed Stipulation, for a hearing, and for authorization of notice of the hearing to be provided to members of the plaintiff class on June 30, 2017. [Doc. #520].
On July 5, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed Stipulation and set a hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the purpose of determining whether the proposed Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Regarding Court Access in Family Matters was issued to the plaintiff class. A fairness hearing was held on August 2, 2017, which offered any objector an opportunity to be heard. [Doc. ##523, 524, 525, 538].2
[Doc. #175 §I ("General Provisions"), ¶1]. Section I, paragraph 7(d) further states "'Inmate' shall mean the plaintiff class comprised of women who are or in the future will be confined in the Connecticut Correctional institution at Niantic whether in pretrial or sentenced status."
The Court hereby grants the Motion for Final Approval in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
Rule 23(e) requires court approval for a class action settlement to insure that it is procedurally and substantively "fair, reasonable and adequate." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Approval of a settlement under Rule 23 will only be disturbed upon a "clear showing" of abuse of discretion. D'Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 85 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), (citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000)).
To determine procedural fairness, courts examine the "negotiating process leading to the settlement." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir. 2005); D'Amato, 236 F.3d at 85 (citation omitted)("The District Court determines a settlement's fairness by examining the negotiating process leading up to the settlement as well as the settlement's substantive terms.").
495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), (citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000).
"A court reviewing a proposed settlement must pay close attention to the negotiating process, to ensure that the settlement resulted from 'arm's-length negotiations and that plaintiffs' counsel have possessed the experience and ability, and have engaged in the discovery, necessary to effective representation of the class's interests." D'Amato, 236 F.3d at 85 (quoting Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 74 (2d Cir. 1982)); Malchman v. Davis, 706 F.2d 426, 433 (2d Cir. 1983) (); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)(Rule 23(a)(4) requires that in a class action, "the interests of the class" must be "fairly and adequately protect[ed].").
This Court is familiar with the history of this case, with counsel and the legal entities that represent the Plaintiff Classes.3 Since 1993, the Court has overseen compliance with the 1989 Consent Decree, the monitoring panels established under the Decree and mediation of legal issues as they arose.
With respect to the parties' request to approve the Settlement Agreement, the Court finds that the interests of the Plaintiff Classes have been well represented by skilled and experienced counsel who effectively represented the classes' interests. Counsel for the Plaintiff Class of children represented that "[t]he parties engaged in lengthy negotiations, involving several in-person meetings and phone conferences, and including the Defendant's current contract attorneys who provide legal assistance to inmates in family matters." [Doc. #538-1 Cochran Decl. ¶6]. As set forth at the hearing, the Assistant Attorney General represented that informal discovery was conducted to ascertain the cost of providing legal services to all inmates of both genders. The parties agreed that the cost factor was prohibitive and a financial impossibility during the current state budgetary crisis. Counsel for defendant represented that this compromise will not cost the state additional money and, by reallocating the funds, these services are now available to inmates of both genders. The parties represent and the Court finds that "[t]his settlement agreement, a private settlement agreement with the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §3626(c)(2), is the product of these negotiations." Id. "All counsel determined that this agreement is fair, is more equitable to all inmates in that it provides reasonable access to family law legal self-help materials and information to both male and female inmates while eliminating female inmates' legal access to direct civil representation by the Defendant's contract attorneys." Id.
At the fairness hearing, counsel from Inmate Legal Services reported that they have held three to four well-received workshops on family issues at York CI, the women's facility which replaced Niantic. In June, two attorneys from ILAP held their first workshop at Carl Robinson Correctional Institution in Enfield, a facility that houses male inmates. Approximately forty-two inmates attended this seminar, which lasted about two hours. Each inmate was provided with an information packet containing forms, and judicial self-help booklets were made available. The first hour consisted of a presentation by counsel on family issues including divorce, custody and visitation, followed by a question and answer period when inmates asked questions at a microphone and the attorneys responded to the whole group. As per the proposed Settlement Agreement, similar workshops will be held at "each DOC facility once each year for such trainings and seminars." . Moreover, no inmate is precluded from accessing and using the services offered to pro se litigants by the Connecticut Superior Court in family court proceedings.
The agreement to resolve the defendant's Motion to Terminate Prospective Injunctive...
To continue reading
Request your trial