Case: Beatty v. Lamont

3:22-cv-00380 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Filed Date: March 14, 2022

Closed Date: Oct. 16, 2024

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Connecticut General Statute §§18-85a-c required current and formerly incarcerated people to pay $249 per day incarcerated as a so-called “pay-to-stay” law. This law resulted in debt that the state frequently collected against formerly incarcerated people's property. On March 14, 2022, two plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, filed suit against Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, responsible for overseeing the Department of Corrections, and Attorney General William Tong, vested with authority to fi…

Connecticut General Statute §§18-85a-c required current and formerly incarcerated people to pay $249 per day incarcerated as a so-called “pay-to-stay” law. This law resulted in debt that the state frequently collected against formerly incarcerated people's property. On March 14, 2022, two plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, filed suit against Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, responsible for overseeing the Department of Corrections, and Attorney General William Tong, vested with authority to file collections against people owing prison debt, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs alleged that the prison debt law violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the U.S. Constitution. On March 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a third formerly incarcerated plaintiff who was forced to pay half of a subsequent settlement to the State due to his prison debt. 

Plaintiffs are three Connecticut residents - one formerly incarcerated and two currently incarcerated. Due to their prison debt, the plaintiffs lost a significant portion of their inheritance and the proceeds of a police brutality civil suit respectively. Plaintiffs brought this action individually and as a class action on behalf of anyone owing prison debt to Connecticut by virtue of having been incarcerated by the state on or after October 1, 1997. Plaintiffs alleged that because this debt follows formerly incarcerated people even after they have paid their debt to society by serving a sentence, impedes formerly incarcerated people from building wealth, and protects state employees from facing accountability in civil suits brought by incarcerated people (because the State will take any settlement money in order to pay off the debt), it violated the Excessive Fines Clause in the 8th Amendment. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. 

On March 14, 2022, the case was assigned to District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer. On June 17, 2022 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on numerous grounds including that the Plaintiffs did not have standing as the debt had not actually been collected from them yet, the owed money was repayment to the Government for an individual's conduct and therefore not a fine under the 8th Amendment, and that amendments to the law limiting the State's ability to use money from civil suits towards this debt rendered two of the plaintiffs' claims moot.

On November 2, 2022, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s case against the governor of Connecticut with prejudice, and agreed to continue the action against only the Attorney General. On March 6, 2023, however, the Court granted defendants motion to dismiss without prejudice due to lack of standing.  The Court argued that the plaintiffs had not shown sufficient evidence that the Attorney General had sought to enforce the pay-to-stay law against them, or that there was any meaningful threat that he would.  The Court dismissed the case without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.  

On April 20, 2023, the plaintiffs, as a class, filed a second amended complaint against Michelle Gilman, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services (DAS), and Angel Quiros, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Corrections (DOC), in their official capacities. Plaintiffs sought certification of their class as defined as: all probate beneficiaries against whom the DAS and/or the DOC had asserted a carceral lien pursuant to statute §§18-85a-c, as well as those individuals who had liens asserted against their inheritance prior to 2022 legislative amendments. Plaintiffs contended that the imposition and collection of carceral debt by the Defendants violates the Excessive Fines Clause (U.S. Const. amend. 8, cl. 3.)  They argued that such debt and debt collection is disproportionate with the seriousness of committed offenses, and that it is improper because the amount depends on post-conviction actions and occurrences, of the plaintiffs, but also of other third parties, that are unknowable when the plaintiffs were sentenced. The plaintiffs sought relief in the form of nullifying the class’s debt, a declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction against enforcement of the prison debt statute, and attorney’s fees and costs.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on June 12, 2023. On February 27, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court held that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the pay-to-stay law violates the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause.

After this decision, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint for a third time, which defendants opposed. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. On July 9, 2024, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. In their complaint, plaintiffs requested that the court declare the pay-to-stay statute unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines as well as void the three plaintiffs’ debts. 

On September 18, 2024, the defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ third complaint. Defendants’ argued that the lawsuit was rendered moot as the state had stopped recovering money from estates earmarked for the three plaintiffs that had initiated the lawsuit. 

On October 6, 2024, the parties reached a resolution. They agreed to dismiss the proposed class action. This was influenced by amendments to the pay-to-stay law that took place in 2022. The 2022 amendments exempted the first $50,000 of an incarcerated person's assets and protected civil judgments for formerly incarcerated individuals. The case is closed.  

 

Summary Authors

Anna Lennon (11/18/1997)

Nina Charap (4/27/2023)

Renuka Wagh (1/2/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63155439/parties/beatty-v-lamont/


Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

3:22-cv-00380

Complaint

March 14, 2022

March 14, 2022

Complaint
45

3:22-cv-00380

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Beatty v. Tong

March 6, 2023

March 6, 2023

Order/Opinion
49

3:22-cv-00380

Second Amended Class Action Complaint

Beatty v. Gilman

April 20, 2023

April 20, 2023

Complaint
122

3:22-cv-00380

Third Amended Class Action Complaint

Beatty v. Gilman

July 9, 2024

July 9, 2024

Complaint

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63155439/beatty-v-lamont/

Last updated April 15, 2026, 5:38 a.m.

ECF Number Date Description Link
1 March 14, 2022

COMPLAINT against Ned Lamont, William Tong ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACTDC-6863558.), filed by Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Slossberg, David) (Entered: 03/14/2022)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Clearinghouse
2 March 14, 2022

NOTICE of Appearance by Dan Barrett on behalf of Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens (Barrett, Dan) (Entered: 03/14/2022)

RECAP
3 March 14, 2022

Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 5/13/2022 Discovery due by 9/13/2022 Dispositive Motions due by 10/18/2022 Signed by Clerk on 3/14/2022.(Carr, Dave) (Entered: 03/14/2022)

RECAP
4 March 14, 2022

ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/14/2022.(Carr, Dave) (Entered: 03/14/2022)

RECAP
5 March 14, 2022

STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/14/2022.(Carr, Dave) (Entered: 03/14/2022)

RECAP
6 March 14, 2022

NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of 2 Notice of Appearance filed by Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens, 4 Electronic Filing Order, 5 Protective Order, 1 Complaint filed by Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens, 3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines Signed by Clerk on 3/14/2022.(Carr, Dave) (Entered: 03/14/2022)

RECAP
7 March 14, 2022

ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Ned Lamont, William Tong* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *David A. Slossberg* *Hurwitz Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff, LLC* *147 N. Broad Street* *Milford, CT 06460*. (Carr, Dave) (Entered: 03/14/2022)

RECAP
March 14, 2022

Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Ned Lamont, William Tong. (Slossberg, David)

March 14, 2022

Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer added. (Oliver, T.)

March 14, 2022

Request to Issue Summons

March 14, 2022

Add and Terminate Judges

8 March 15, 2022

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens. All Defendants. (Barrett, Dan) (Entered: 03/15/2022)

RECAP
9 March 16, 2022

NOTICE of Appearance by Erica Oates Nolan on behalf of Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens (Nolan, Erica) (Entered: 03/16/2022)

RECAP
10 March 18, 2022

NOTICE of Appearance by Elana Spungen Bildner on behalf of Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens (Bildner, Elana) (Entered: 03/18/2022)

RECAP
11 March 25, 2022

AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens.(Barrett, Dan) (Entered: 03/25/2022)

RECAP
March 25, 2022

Request for Clerk to issue summons as to All Defendants. re. Amended Complaint (Barrett, Dan)

March 25, 2022

Request to Issue Summons

12 March 28, 2022

ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Ned Lamont, William Tong* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Dan Barrett* *American Civil Liberties Union - CT* *765 Asylum Ave., 1st Floor* *Hartford, CT 06105*. (Carr, Dave) (Entered: 03/28/2022)

RECAP
13 April 6, 2022

NOTICE of Appearance by Robert J. Deichert on behalf of Ned Lamont, William Tong (Deichert, Robert) (Entered: 04/06/2022)

RECAP
14 April 6, 2022

First MOTION for Extension of Time until May 27, 2022 to Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, whether by Answer or Motion Under Rule 12 11 Amended Complaint by Ned Lamont, William Tong. (Deichert, Robert) (Entered: 04/06/2022)

RECAP
15 April 6, 2022

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens, Karl Weissinger. All Defendants. (Barrett, Dan) (Entered: 04/06/2022)

RECAP
16 April 7, 2022

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. # 14 ). The Court GRANTS in part the motion for extension of time to file any answer or other response to the complaint by May 9, 2022. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 4/7/22. (Barry, Donna) (Entered: 04/07/2022)

RECAP
April 7, 2022

Answer deadline updated for Ned Lamont and William Tong to 5/9/2022. (Barry, Donna)

April 7, 2022

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

April 7, 2022

Update Answer Deadline

17 April 11, 2022

NOTICE of Appearance by Krislyn Mina Launer on behalf of Ned Lamont, William Tong (Launer, Krislyn) (Entered: 04/11/2022)

RECAP
18 May 5, 2022

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until May 23, 2022 to Respond to Plaintiffs' Operative Complaint, Whether by Answer or Motion under Rule 12 of the FRCP, in Light of Impending Changes to the Challenged Laws 11 Amended Complaint by Ned Lamont, William Tong. (Deichert, Robert) (Entered: 05/05/2022)

RECAP
19 May 9, 2022

ORDER granting 18 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until May 23, 2022 to Respond to Plaintiffs' Operative Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 5/9/2022. (Petkun, J.) (Entered: 05/09/2022)

RECAP
May 9, 2022

Answer deadline updated for Ned Lamont and William Tong to 5/23/2022. (Barry, Donna)

May 9, 2022

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

May 10, 2022

Update Answer Deadline

20 May 17, 2022

Joint MOTION for Order to Modify Scheduling Order by Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens, Karl Weissinger. (Nolan, Erica) (Entered: 05/17/2022)

RECAP
21 May 18, 2022

ORDER. The Court GRANTS the parties' joint motion for modification of scheduling order (Doc # 20 ) and adopts the dates as proposed by the parties in their motion. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 5/18/22. (Barry, Donna) (Entered: 05/18/2022)

RECAP
May 18, 2022

Answer deadline updated for Ned Lamont and William Tong to 6/17/2022. (Barry, Donna)

May 18, 2022

Order on Motion for Order

May 18, 2022

Update Answer Deadline

22 June 13, 2022

NOTICE of Appearance by Benjamin A. Abrams on behalf of Ned Lamont, William Tong In Addition to Counsel On File (Abrams, Benjamin) (Entered: 06/13/2022)

RECAP
23 June 17, 2022

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim by Ned Lamont, William Tong.Responses due by 7/8/2022 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Appendix)(Deichert, Robert) (Entered: 06/17/2022)

1 Memorandum in Support

View on RECAP

2 Appendix

View on PACER

RECAP
24 June 17, 2022

MOTION to Stay re 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim Requesting that the Court Stay All Discovery in this Action Pending Decision on the Pending Motion to Dismiss by Ned Lamont, William Tong.Responses due by 7/8/2022 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Deichert, Robert) (Entered: 06/17/2022)

RECAP
25 June 23, 2022

Memorandum in Opposition re 24 MOTION to Stay re 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim Requesting that the Court Stay All Discovery in this Action Pending Decision on the Pending Motion to Dismiss filed by Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens, Karl Weissinger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Stay Discovery)(Nolan, Erica) (Entered: 06/23/2022)

RECAP
26 June 24, 2022

ORDER. Defendants are requested to file any reply to plaintiffs' opposition (Doc. # 25 ) on or before July 1, 2022. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/24/22.(Barry, Donna) (Entered: 06/25/2022)

RECAP
June 25, 2022

~Util - Set Motion and Rcmd Ruling Deadlines/Hearings AND Order

27 June 29, 2022

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim until July 22, 2022 by Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens, Karl Weissinger. (Nolan, Erica) (Entered: 06/29/2022)

RECAP
28 June 30, 2022

ORDER granting plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. # 27 ) until July 22, 2022 to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. # 23 ). Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/30/22. (Barry, Donna) (Entered: 07/01/2022)

RECAP
29 July 1, 2022

REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Nolan, Erica) (Entered: 07/01/2022)

RECAP
30 July 1, 2022

REPLY to Response to 24 MOTION to Stay re 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim Requesting that the Court Stay All Discovery in this Action Pending Decision on the Pending Motion to Dismiss Filed in Accordance with the Court's Request at ECF No. 26 filed by Ned Lamont, William Tong. (Deichert, Robert) (Entered: 07/01/2022)

RECAP
July 1, 2022

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion

31 July 22, 2022

Memorandum in Opposition re 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim filed by Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens, Karl Weissinger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Nolan, Erica) (Entered: 07/22/2022)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F

View on PACER

7 Exhibit G

View on PACER

RECAP
32 Aug. 5, 2022

REPLY to Response to 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim filed by Ned Lamont, William Tong. (Deichert, Robert) (Entered: 08/05/2022)

RECAP
33 Sept. 16, 2022

NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.Oral argument on defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 23 ) is set for October 31, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom Three, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer. (Barry, Donna) (Entered: 09/16/2022)

RECAP
Sept. 16, 2022

Set Motion and Rcmd Ruling Deadlines/Hearings AND Calendar Entry

34 Sept. 30, 2022

NOTICE of Appearance by James W. Caley on behalf of Natalie Braswell Comptroller, State of Connecticut (Caley, James) (Entered: 09/30/2022)

RECAP
35 Sept. 30, 2022

MOTION for Protective Order Or, In the Alternative, Modification of the Subpoena by Natalie Braswell.Responses due by 10/21/2022 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Caley, James) (Entered: 09/30/2022)

RECAP
36 Sept. 30, 2022

Memorandum in Support re 35 MOTION for Protective Order Or, In the Alternative, Modification of the Subpoena filed by Natalie Braswell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C)(Caley, James) (Entered: 09/30/2022)

1 Exhibit B

View on PACER

2 Exhibit C

View on PACER

RECAP
37 Oct. 3, 2022

ORDER. Plaintiffs may file any objection or other response to the motion for protective order (Doc. # 35 ) by October 4, 2022. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/03/22.(Barry, Donna) (Entered: 10/03/2022)

RECAP
Oct. 3, 2022

~Util - Set Motion and Rcmd Ruling Deadlines/Hearings AND Order

38 Oct. 4, 2022

Memorandum in Opposition re 35 MOTION for Protective Order Or, In the Alternative, Modification of the Subpoena filed by Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens, Karl Weissinger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (return of service), # 2 Exhibit 2 (email from Erica Nolan to James Caley), # 3 Exhibit 3 (email from James Caley to Erica Nolan))(Barrett, Dan) (Entered: 10/04/2022)

RECAP
40 Oct. 5, 2022

ORDER. The Court GRANTS for good cause shown the Comptroller's motion for protective order (Doc. # 35 ) until 21 days after the Court's ruling on the pending motion to dismiss. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/5/22. (Barry, Donna) (Entered: 10/06/2022)

RECAP
39 Oct. 6, 2022

Notice of Additional Authority re 35 MOTION for Protective Order Or, In the Alternative, Modification of the Subpoena filed by Natalie Braswell. (Attachments: # 1 1, # 2 2)(Caley, James) (Entered: 10/06/2022)

RECAP
Oct. 7, 2022

Order on Motion for Protective Order

41 Oct. 31, 2022

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer: Oral argument held on 10/31/2022Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 23 ) was taken under advisement. Total Time: 1 hour (Court Reporter Diana Huntington) (Barry, Donna) (Entered: 10/31/2022)

RECAP
42 Nov. 2, 2022

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT GOVERNOR LAMONT. In accordance with the colloquy with counsel at oral argument on the defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court DISMISSES plaintiffs' claims against defendant Governor Ned Lamont, and this action shall proceed at this time solely as to the plaintiffs' claims against defendant Attorney General William Tong. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 11/02/2022. (Mahard, S.) (Entered: 11/02/2022)

RECAP
43 Nov. 2, 2022

ORDER. The Court GRANTS the defendants' motion to stay discovery (Doc. # 24 ) pending the Court's ruling on defendants' pending motion to dismiss. In view of the plaintiffs' concession that they may not proceed with their claims against defendant Governor Lamont and the substantial arguments otherwise raised by the defendants in their motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' claims against defendant Attorney General Tong and the absence of prejudice to plaintiffs from a stay of discovery until such time that the Court rules on the motion to dismiss, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to STAY discovery pending its resolution of the defendants' motion to dismiss. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 11/02/2022. (Mahard, S.) (Entered: 11/02/2022)

RECAP
Nov. 2, 2022

Order

Nov. 2, 2022

Order on Motion to Stay

44 Jan. 4, 2023

NOTICE of Appearance by Kyle A. Bechet on behalf of Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens, Karl Weissinger (Bechet, Kyle) (Entered: 01/04/2023)

RECAP
45 March 6, 2023

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court GRANTS without prejudice the motion to dismiss (Doc. # 23 ). In view of the plaintiffs' request for leave to file a second amended complaint, the plaintiffs may do so by April 6, 2023. In the event that the plaintiffs do not file a timely amended complaint, the Clerk of Court shall close this case.It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/6/2023. (Mahard, S.)

Clearinghouse
March 6, 2023

Set Deadline: Amended Pleadings due by 4/6/2023 (Barry, Donna)

March 7, 2023

Set Deadlines/Hearings

46 March 22, 2023

NOTICE of Appearance by Sapana Anand on behalf of Teresa Beatty, Michael Llorens, Karl Weissinger (Anand, Sapana) (Entered: 03/22/2023)

RECAP
47 March 24, 2023

MOTION for Extension of Time until April 20, 2023 to file second amended complaint by Teresa Beatty. (Bildner, Elana) (Entered: 03/24/2023)

RECAP
48 March 27, 2023

ORDER granting MOTION for Extension of Time until April 20, 2023 to file second amended complaint (Doc. # 47 ). Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/27/2023. (Lewis, D) (Entered: 03/27/2023)

RECAP
March 27, 2023

Set Deadlines/Hearings

March 27, 2023

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

March 27, 2023

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Amended Pleadings due by 4/20/2023 (Lewis, D)

49 April 20, 2023

AMENDED COMPLAINT against Angel Quiros, Michelle Gilman, filed by Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado, Douglas Johnson.(Barrett, Dan) (Entered: 04/20/2023)

Clearinghouse
April 20, 2023

Request to Issue Summons

April 20, 2023

Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Michelle Gilman, Angel Quiros. (Barrett, Dan)

50 April 21, 2023

ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Michelle Gilman, Angel Quiros* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Dan Barrett* *American Civil Liberties Union - CT* *765 Asylum Ave., 1st Floor* *Hartford, CT 06105*. (Chartier, AnnMarie) (Entered: 04/21/2023)

RECAP
51 May 1, 2023

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Douglas Johnson, Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado. Michelle Gilman served on 4/21/2023, answer due 5/12/2023; Angel Quiros served on 4/21/2023, answer due 5/12/2023. (Barrett, Dan) (Entered: 05/01/2023)

RECAP
52 May 4, 2023

NOTICE of Appearance by Robert J. Deichert on behalf of Michelle Gilman, Angel Quiros (Deichert, Robert) (Entered: 05/04/2023)

RECAP
53 May 4, 2023

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until June 12, 2020 to Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 49 Amended Complaint by Michelle Gilman, Angel Quiros. (Deichert, Robert) (Entered: 05/04/2023)

RECAP
54 May 5, 2023

ORDER granting Consent MOTION for Extension of Time (Doc. # 53 ) until June 12, 2023 to Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 49 ). Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 5/5/2023. (Lewis, D) (Entered: 05/05/2023)

RECAP
55 May 5, 2023

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Type of Hearing: Motion Hearing. Held on October 31, 2022 before Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer. Court Reporter: Diana Huntington. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 5/26/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/5/2023. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/3/2023. (Huntington, D.) (Entered: 05/05/2023)

RECAP
May 5, 2023

Update Answer Deadline

May 5, 2023

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

May 5, 2023

Answer deadline updated for Michelle Gilman to 6/12/2023; Angel Quiros to 6/12/2023. (Lewis, D)

56 June 9, 2023

MOTION for Status Conference by Teresa Beatty, Douglas Johnson, Natasha Tosado. (Nolan, Erica) (Entered: 06/09/2023)

RECAP
57 June 12, 2023

ORDER granting 56 Motion for Status Conference. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/12/2023. (Lewis, D) (Entered: 06/12/2023)

RECAP
58 June 12, 2023

NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/23/2023 02:30 PM before Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer. Counsel shall call 877-402-9753 and use access code 8576007# to participate. (Lewis, D) (Entered: 06/12/2023)

RECAP
59 June 12, 2023

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim by Michelle Gilman, Angel Quiros.Responses due by 7/3/2023 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Appendix)(Deichert, Robert) (Entered: 06/12/2023)

1 Memorandum in Support

View on PACER

2 Appendix

View on PACER

RECAP
60 June 12, 2023

MOTION to Stay re 59 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim Requesting that the Court Stay All Discovery in this Action Pending Decision on the Pending Motion to Dismiss by Michelle Gilman, Angel Quiros.Responses due by 7/3/2023 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Deichert, Robert) (Entered: 06/12/2023)

RECAP
June 12, 2023

Calendar Entry

June 12, 2023

Order on Motion for Conference

61 June 13, 2023

ORDER RE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STAY. Plaintiffs may file any objection or other response to the motion to stay (Doc. # 60 ) by June 21, 2023. It is so ordered.(Responses due by 6/21/2023, ) Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/13/2023.(Lewis, D) (Entered: 06/13/2023)

RECAP
June 13, 2023

Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and Rcmd Ruling Deadlines/Hearings

62 June 21, 2023

Memorandum in Opposition re 60 MOTION to Stay re 59 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim Requesting that the Court Stay All Discovery in this Action Pending Decision on the Pending Motion to Dismiss filed by Teresa Beatty, Douglas Johnson, Natasha Tosado. (Nolan, Erica) (Entered: 06/21/2023)

RECAP
63 June 23, 2023

MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY. In accordance with today's status conference, the Court DENIES defendants' motion to stay discovery (Doc. # 60 ). "Where a party seeks a stay of discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion, the Court considers '(1) the strength of the dispositive motion; (2) the breadth of the discovery sought; and (3) the prejudice a stay would have on the non-moving party.'" Johnson v. Gonzalez, 2023 WL 2770684, at *3 (D. Conn. 2023). I have carefully considered those factors in light of the amended complaint and the pending motion to dismiss, and I conclude that the balance does not weigh in favor of again granting a stay of discovery. Counsel have agreed to meet and file a Rule 26(f) report on or before July 14, 2023, and I encourage counsel to try to agree on what discovery is most necessary to conduct during the period of time while the motion to dismiss is pending. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/23/2023. (Wang, S.) (Entered: 06/23/2023)

RECAP
64 June 23, 2023

Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer: Telephonic Motion Hearing/Status Conference held on 6/23/2023; re 60 MOTION to Stay; Motion to Stay is denied for reasons stated on the record. Rule 26f Report due by 7/14. 17 minutes(Court Reporter Diana Huntington.) (Lewis, D) (Entered: 06/23/2023)

RECAP
June 23, 2023

Order on Motion to Stay

Case Details

State / Territory:

Connecticut

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 14, 2022

Closing Date: Oct. 16, 2024

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Current and formerly incarcerated Connecticut residents owing debt to the State of Connecticut for their time spent incarcerated.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling

Defendants

State

Angel Quiros

Connecticut

Michelle Gilman

Ned Lamont

William Tong

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Excessive Bail/Fines

Other Dockets:

District of Connecticut 3:22-cv-00380

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Relief Granted:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General/Misc.:

Fines/Fees/Bail/Bond

Recommended Citation