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.