Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JAMES J. RUANE, ESQ : 3:20 CV 813 (XXX) MIGUEL CASTRO : RICHARD BROWN : JUAN VASQUEZ : Plaintiffs, : v. : : : HONORABLE PATRICK CARROLL, III : : Defendant. : JUNE 12, 2020
C O M P L A I N T
1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to redress the
deprivation by the defendant of rights secured to the plaintiffs of substantive
and procedural due process afforded by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, Art 1, Sections 8, 10, and 12
of the Connecticut Constitution and Connecticut General Statutes, access to
the state courts of Connecticut, and reasonable accommodation requests
under the ADA.
2. During all times mentioned in this action, Plaintiff James J. Ruane was
and still is, an adult citizen of the United States, residing in Connecticut. Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 19
3. During all times mentioned in this action, Plaintiff Angel Miguel Castro
was and still is, an adult citizen of the United States, residing in Connecticut.
4. During all times mentioned in this action, Plaintiff Richard Brown was
and still is, an adult citizen of the United States, residing in Connecticut.
5. During all times mentioned in this action, Plaintiff Juan Vazquez was and
still is, an adult citizen of the United States, residing in Connecticut.
6. During all times mentioned in this action, Defendant Honorable Patrick
L. Carroll, III, was, and still is, the Chief Court Administrator of the
Connecticut Judicial Branch. He is the chief policymaker and decision-maker
of the Connecticut Judicial Branch.
7. The Chief Court Administrative position is created by statute, C.G.S.
Section 51-1b, and such person serves at the pleasure of the Chief Justice of
the Connecticut Supreme Court.
8. The Chief Court Administrator is the administrative director of the
Connecticut Judicial Department and is responsible for the efficient operation
of the department, the prompt disposition of cases, and the prompt and
proper administration of the judicial business.
9. . The Chief Court Administrator is tasked to take any action necessary in
the event of a major disaster, emergency, civil preparedness emergency or
disaster emergency, or public health emergency, to ensure the continued
efficient operation of the Supreme, Appellate and Superior Courts, the prompt Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 19
disposition of cases and the proper administration of judicial business, which
necessary action may include: (A) Establishing alternative locations to
conduct judicial business in the event that one or more court locations cannot
be used, (B) suspending any judicial business that is deemed not essential by
the Chief Court Administrator, and (C) taking any other appropriate action
necessary to ensure that essential judicial business is effectively handled by
the courts.
10. The defendant, during all times mentioned in this action, acted under
color of law of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the laws and
Constitution of the State of Connecticut. He is sued only in his official
capacity.
11. The Connecticut Judicial Branch was not adequately prepared to
address a pandemic or prolonged closure.
12. In the past, the Connecticut criminal courts have taken weeks to recover
during the rare occasion event the court close for a few consecutive days due
to a significant snowstorm.
13. Upon information and belief, the defendant was aware of the potential for
the disruption of judicial operations.
14. About 15 years ago, Hurricane Katrina devastated the City of New
Orleans where several courthouses were severely damaged or destroyed. Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 19
15. In May of 2019, the National Center for State Courts conducted a Summit
on Pandemic Preparedness.
16. On March 10, 2020, Governor Ned Lamont declared public health and civil
preparedness emergencies throughout the state.
17. In the thirteen weeks since the proclamation of a state of emergency, the
Judicial Department has conducted limited business other than arraignments.
18. Notwithstanding the unpreparedness of the Judicial Branch to deal with
the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendant, in the past thirteen weeks, has not
fulfilled his statutory charge of ensuring the prompt disposition of cases and
the proper administration of judicial business.
19. During the thirteen weeks, the Judicial Branch, at the direction of Judge
Carroll, begun to remotely conduct civil business including pre-trials and
status conferences.
20. In his response to the COVI-19 epidemic and the reopening of court
services, Judge Carroll has prioritized the civil section of the judicial branch.
21. The Connecticut Judicial Branch has a demonstrated history of addressing
civil matters over criminal matters as evidenced by its e-filing process. For
several years, though e-services, civil litigants have been able to file motions
and documents in most matters. The public, without a password or fee, may,
in civil matters only. review nonprotected filings and docketed entries, and
print materials free of charge. Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 5 of 19
22. The Judicial Branch only permits the viewing of the name, docket number
charges, and next court appearance in criminal matters. The Judicial Branch
does not permit the e-fling of motions or documents in criminal matters.
23. In contrast, the federal courts, under PACER or CM/ECF, permit the filing
of motions and documents in criminal and habeas matters, and such
documents, unless sealed, are searchable by the general public.
24. On March 31, 2020, the Judicial Conference of the United States
approved the use of video and teleconferencing for criminal proceedings in
federal matters.
25. In contrast to Connecticut, during these eleven weeks, the federal courts
in the District of Connecticut have handled criminal matters, including
arraignments, pleas, and sentencings via video conferencing shortly after the
COVID court closures took effect.
26. Several states have been conducting criminal matters by video; including
New Jersey since March 16th, California, Alaska, North Dakota. Texas since
March 24th, Michigan, Florida, New York since March 22nd, and
Massachusetts since May 14th.
27. The state courts in Michigan have criminal court calendars captioned on
Zoom with live feeds to the public.
https://3rdcc.org/divisions/criminal/virtual-courtroom-
meeting Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 6 of 19
28. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Sections 1331,
1343, and 1367(a) of Title 28 and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
29. Plaintiffs’ declaratory and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. 2201,
2202, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rules 23, 57, and 65.
30. On March 10, 2020, by executive order No. 7G, Governor Ned Lamont,
upon consultation with Judge Carroll, suspended noncritical court operations
and identified priority 1 matters.
31. The priority1 matters include, and are limited to the following types of
cases.
a. Criminal arraignments of defendants held in lieu of bond and all arraignments involving domestic violence cases;
b. Juvenile Detention hearings
c. Family orders of relief from abuse
d. Civil orders of relief from abuse
e. Civil protection orders
f. Ex parte motions
g. Orders of temporary custody (Juvenile Matters)
h. Orders to appear (Juvenile Matters)
i. Emergency ex parte order of temporary custody
Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 7 of 19
j. Juvenile detention operations for detainees held for juvenile court
k. Termination of parental rights
l. Domestic violence victim notification
m. Civil and family capias mittimus execution and bond review.
32. On March 12, 2020, all Connecticut State jury trials were postponed.
33. On March 18, 2020, the Judicial Branch expanded priority one business to
13 courthouses.
34. On March 26, 2020, physical entrance into a Connecticut state
courthouses were limited to individuals who are:
a. filing or have a hearing for a Temporary Restraining Order;
b. filing or have a hearing for a Civil Protection Order;
c. filing or have a hearing on an emergency Ex Parte motion for
custody, or
d. are involved in a criminal arraignment or other criminal proceedings
29. On April 3, 2020, the Judicial branch instituted a policy permitting
the remote filing of temporary restraining orders. Restraining order
applications may be filed by email or fax.
30. On April 15, 2020, the courts began accepting nonpriority civil and
family matters. Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 8 of 19
31. . On April 17, 2020, the judicial department reinstated non arguable
short calendar sessions.
32. On April 29, 2020, the Judicial Department court issued an order
permitting hearings on applications for temporary restraining
orders, or on the extension or alleged contempt thereof; and hearings on
applications for emergency orders of custody on which ex-parte relief has
been granted.
33. On May 1, 2020, an order was issued permitting judges to rule on
civil arguable short calendar matters that are marked take papers.
34. On May 7, 2020, the court authorized telephonic family pre-trials and status conferences.
35. On May 7, 2020, the judicial branch announced that it would
resume its daily schedule of civil pre-trials, trial management conferences,
and status conferences by video link or telephone.
36. On May 2020, the judicial branch indicated that it was conducting
video conferencing for arraignments, and indicated that protective orders
may be subject to review pursuant to State v Fernando A. The criminal
video arraignment hearings require the defendant and their counsel to be
physically present in court.
37. On June 1, 2020 Judge Carroll was quoted in the New Haven
register Carroll noting that “technical limitations of legacy Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 9 of 19
systems limit the opportunities for electronic filing by external
users.”
38. Judge Carrol stated that Zoom was not being used due to security
risks. Judge Carroll stated that judicial has successfully deployed and
utilized other video conference programs, including WEBEX and
Microsoft Teams to conduct a wide range of video conferenced
proceedings across all divisions.
39. On June 4, 2020, Judge Carroll was quoted by Connecticut Post
and commented that family court has held over 600 remote status or
settlement conferences and disposed of more than 300 divorce
cases remotely. Civil court has conducted close to 1,000 remote
events and has ruled on more than 7,000 short calendar
matters. Juvenile Court is holding remote detention hearings each day of
operation and reviewing permanency plans remotely.
40. As of June 8, 2020, upon information and belief, the judicial branch
has just begun conducting remote criminal pre-trials in certain matters,
but has not, or cannot, remotely conduct plea, hearings, sentencing or
hearings, other criminal hearings.
41. The current procedure for video arraignments and hearings permits
the judge and court reporter to remain in a separate room and screened Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 10 of 19
from each other by a plastic partition. Prosecutors and public defenders
appear at the courthouse by video from their respective offices. Private
attorneys are required to appear at the courthouse before a video camera,
inches away from their clients, and within a short distance from marshals
violation of the 6-foot social distancing guidelines. Private attorneys are
required to appear at the courthouse, wait with the other attorneys and
defendants before their matter being addressed by the court.
42. The May 13, 2020 order further indicated that motions for bail
review, sentence modifications, competency to stand trial hearings were
being conducted.
43. On May 28, 2020, the Judicial Branch issued an update regarding
its remote capabilities, noting that:
a. all civil pre-trials, trial management conferences, status
conferences and civil short calendars are being conducted
remotely.
b. criminal matters are limited to arraignments, competency
hearings and sentence modifications.
c. family pretrial and status conferences are being held remotely via video or phone.
Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 11 of 19
COUNT ONE DEPRIVATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF
A NON-CUSTODIAL CRIMINAL DEFENDANT
1-43 Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained in
paragraphs 1-39 hereinabove with the same force and effect as if fully set
forth herein.
44. Although the courts are handling civil restraining order and
protective order hearings, Fernando A. hearings challenging protective
orders are not being scheduled.
45. Plaintiff Angel Miguel Castro was arrested and accused of
committing family violence crimes.
46. He posted bail and appeared in court with counsel.
47. At his video court appearance, the logistics of his appearance with
his attorney required him to stand inches away from each other so the
court video camera could capture each participant.
48. The plaintiff, through his counsel. objected to the protected order
and requested a Fernando A. hearing to challenge the issuance of the
protective order.
49. Under the Judicial Branch orders in place at the time, the trial court
was unable to schedule a firm date for such hearing because the
Fernando A. Hearings did not fall within Priority one matters as designated
by Judge Carroll. Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 12 of 19
50 The acts complained of, especially the policies set in place by
Judge Carroll, deprived Plaintiff, Miguel Castro of his 14th
Amendment right to due process, and his 6thAmendment Right to confront
his accusers.
51. The differentiation of judicial branch policies toward criminal and
civil matters has no rational basis.
COUNT TWO
DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS OF A DETAINED CRIMINAL DEFENDANT
1-39. Paragraphs one through 1-39 of Count One are hereby
incorporated as paragraphs 1-39 of Count Two.
40. Plaintiff Richard Brown is currently held on bond and has several
pending criminal matters in the Fairfield Judicial District.
41. Mr. Brown’s cases have been rescheduled numerous times
because they do not fall within priority 1 matters.
42. Mr. Brown has been deprived of his opportunity to have a judicial
pretrial, litigate, or effectively seek outstanding discovery.
43. As a result of the policies of the defendant Plaintiff Richard Brown’s
procedural due process rights, protected by the 14th amendment, have
been violated. Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 13 of 19
44. The differentiation of judicial branch policies toward criminal and
civil matters has no rational basis.
COUNT THREE
DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF A HABEAS LITIGANT
1- 39. Paragraphs one through forty-five of Count One are hereby
incorporated as paragraphs one through forty-five of Count Four.
40. Article I, Section 9, of the United States Constitution secures the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and does not permit its suspension,
absent rebellion, or invasion.
41. The Connecticut State Constitution, Article I, Section 12 only
permits the suspension of habeas corpus by the legislative in situations of
rebellion or invasion.
42. Plaintiff Juan Vazquez is a habeas petitioner whose case is
pending in the Rockville Superior Court.
43. On October 18, 2018, the trial court scheduled Mr. Vazquez’s
habeas trial for June 25, 2020.
44. On February 25, 2020, the court scheduled a trial management
conference for April 3, 2020. Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 14 of 19
45. On March 27, 2020, at the direction of the Chief Court
Administrator, Defendant Judge Carroll, the habeas trial court canceled
the trial because habeas matters are considered nonpriority civil matters.
46. The cancellation notice indicated that the matter will be
rescheduled in due course.
47. The acts complained of deprived Plaintiff, Vasquez, of his federal
constitutional right to present his habeas claims absent rebellion or
invasion.
48. The cancellation of his habeas trial exceeded the state
constitutional authority of the trial court or Defendant Chief Court
Administrator, as habeas matters may only be suspended by the
legislature, and resulted in the deprivation of his substantive due process
rights.
49. The differentiation of judicial branch policies toward criminal and
civil matters has no rational basis.
50. Upon information and belief, the judicial branch is only hearing
emergency COVID -19 habeas matters and suspended substantive non
COVID -19 habeas hearings.
51. As a result of the policies of the Judicial Branch, as established by
the Defendant Chief Court Administrator, Plaintiff Vasquez was deprived
of his procedural due process rights. Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 15 of 19
52. The differentiation of judicial branch policies toward criminal and
civil matters has no rational basis.
COUNT FOUR DEPRIVATION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
1-39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation contained in
paragraphs 1-39 hereinabove with the same force and effect as if fully set
forth herein.
40. The Centers for Disease Control (‘CDC’)have identified those
people 65 years and older as high risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
41. Further, the Centers for Disease Control identified other factors that
place individuals of all ages at a high risk of severe illness from COVID
including coronary artery disease.
42. The CDC’s COVID-19 recommendations have been endorsed by
the Connecticut Department of Public Health, (“CT DPH”),
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/Fact-Sheets/COVID19-High-Risk-
Fact-Sheet.pdf
43. Plaintiff James J. Ruane is a criminal law practitioner who has been
admitted to the bar of Connecticut since October 4, 1977. Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 16 of 19
44. Attorney Ruane is over the age of 65 and has heart disease and
high blood pressure.
45. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires state
government services, including courts.
46, The Connecticut Judicial Branch, on its website,
https://www.jud.ct.gov/ADA/faq.htm has stated its long-standing
commitment to carrying out the objectives of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Title II of the ADA requires public entities, such as
the Connecticut Judicial Branch, to accommodate individuals with
disabilities by providing equal access to their services, programs, and
activities.
47. Under the ADA a disability includes cardiovascular disorders and
heart disease.
48. The ADA provides for the use of video remote interpreting that uses
video conference technology.
49. The ADA requires a state to provide accommodations for those with
a disability including which may include video or telephone services.
50. The current policies and court arraignment procedures of the
Judicial Branch violate the social distancing recommendations of the CDC
and the CT DPH. Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 17 of 19
51. The failure to conduct criminal court proceedings by remote video
or telephone place attorneys who meet the criteria of medical disability
vulnerable to severe risk of illness.
52. The differentiation of judicial branch policies toward criminal and
civil matters has no rational basis.
Robert Berke
By their Attorney
/s/ Robert Berke
______Robert M. Berke Law Office of Robert Berke, LLC 640 Clinton Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06605 203 332-6000 203 332-0661 fax Bar No. 22117 [email protected]
Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 18 of 19
Requested Relief
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
A. As to the First Second and Third Counts, declaratory judgment that enforcement of the Judicial Branch’s current policies, as alleged herein, violate the
Plaintiffs’ due process rights under the Constitution of the United States as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an order allowing Defendants a reasonable but prompt amount of time to correct the violations;
B. As to the Second through Fourth Claims, appoint a Special Master or panel of
Special Masters to find facts and make recommendations regarding the modifications of the Judicial Branch’s policies.
C. As to the Fourth Count, issue a declaratory judgment stating that in light of the current public health emergency caused by COVID-19 and executive orders pertaining to social distancing and further orders requiring Connecticut citizens stay at home and shelter in place, the Judicial Branch’s policy requiring private retained attorneys to appear in-person at court for hearings, is violative of federal law and/or unconstitutional and cannot be constitutionally enforced; Case 3:20-cv-00813-KAD Document 1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 19 of 19
C. Attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and costs; and
D. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendant for such
requested relief.
The Plaintiffs
By their Attorney
/s/ Robert Berke
______
Robert M.
Law Office of Robert Berke, LLC 640 Clinton Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06605 203 332-6000 203 332-0661 fax Bar No. 22117 [email protected]