53,191 A

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPERIOR COURT MERRIMACK, ss. DOCKET # William Lepine, Anthony Renzzulla, Ellsworth John Miller, Donald Mickish, Oswald Allen, Jr., Eric Ladouceur, James Trudell, Zygmund Parda, and Andrew Higgins on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the inmate class in Laaman, et al. v. Powell, et al. vs. Henry Risley, Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Corrections BILL IN EQUITY AND PETITION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Now come the plaintiffs and respectfully move for declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin defendant from terminating the Technology Education vocational program at the New +mpshire State Prison in Concord in violation of the Settlement Agreement in the case of Laaman, et al. v. Powell, et al., Civil No. 75-258SD (USDC, [Link]) and set forth as follows: 1. Plaintiffs are New Hampshire state prison inmates at the New Hampshire

State Prison (hereinafter NHSP) located at 281 N. State Street, Concord, New Hampshire. Plaintiffs are: William Lepine, Anthony Renzzulla, Ellsworth John Miller, Donald

i .

Mickish, Oswald Allen, Jr., Eric Ladouceur, James Trudell, Zygmund Parda and Andrew Higgins. 2. Defendant, Henry Risley is Commissioner of the New Hampshire Depart-

ment of Corrections. Defendants address is New Hampshire Department of Corrections, 105 Pleasant Street, Concord, New Hampshire. Defendant is responsible for the overall administration of state correctional facilities, including NHSP, pursuant to RSA 21-H:8. 3. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and, pursuant to Rule

27A of the Rules of this Court, on behalf of those members of the inmate class in the case of Laaman, et al. v. Powell. et al., Civil No. 75-258SD (USDC, DNH) who are participating in or who are eligible or will be eligible to participate in the Technology Education program at the NHSP. 4. On May 22, 1990 a Consent Decree was approved by the United States

District Court for the District of New Hampshire in the case of Laaman, et al. v. Powell, et al, Civil No. 75-258SD (hereinafter, Laaman). of the Consent Decree is A copy attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. The plaintiff class in the Laaman case was certified and defined to include

all convicted felons incarcerated at the New Hampshire State Prison, located at 28 1 N. State Street, Concord, New Hampshire. See paragraphs 7, 15 and 16 of the Consent Decree, Exhibit A. 6. Pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Consent Decree the Decree constitutes a

settlement agreement which survives the termination of the jurisdiction of the federal court over the Decree. The jurisdiction of the federal court terminated on July 1, 1993,
2

pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Decree, except with respect to certain matters currently pending before the federal court not relevant to this matter. 7. The Consent Decree, at paragraphs 91-137, requires, inter alia, that

defendant establish and maintain certain vocational training programs at NHSP. 8. Paragraph 111 of the Consent Decree requires that defendant establish and 1 make operational an Industrial Arts vocational program at NHSP., 9. 10. Defendant did establish an Industrial Arts program at NHSP. By 1992 the Industrial Arts program at the NHSP was renamed

Technology Education. See Technology Education Program Guide attached hereto as Exhibit B. 11. In May, 1993 the vocational evaluator, appointed under paragraphs 138-144

of the Consent Decree, certified that the Technology Education Program was in compliance with paragraph 111 of the Consent Decree. See certification attached hereto as Exhibit C. 12. All members of the Laaman class, except for those in certain confinement

statuses as set forth in paragraph 102 of the Consent Decree, are eligible to participate in Technology Education if they meet the eligibility criteria for the program. 13. Paragraph 111 of the Consent Decree requires that the program have an .

enrollment capacity of at least 30 inmate/students. 14. The Technology Education program is a one-year high school, secondary

level program comprised of four separate program modules. See Exhibit B.

15.

The Technology Education program enrolls approximately 30 inmates for

each program quarter per year. 16. The Technology Education program is also offered one quarter per year to

approximately four maximum security inmates in the NHSP Special Housing Unit (SHU). 17. The Technology Education program provides valuable academic and

employment shills and training to inmates who enroll in and complete the program. 18. By memo dated August 7,1998 the Administrator of New Hampshire

Correctional Industries sent a memo to the Associate Professor and Program Coordinator of the Technology Education program stating that effective September 21, 1998 the program is being transferred to the Lakes Region Facility in Laconia. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 19. Defendant did not provide notice to the undersigned attorneys for the

Laaman class of the termination of the Technology Education program at NHSP in Concord. 20. Defendants do not have another Technology Education program at NHSP to

replace the current program as described in the Technology Education Program Guide, Exhibit B. 21. The most recent program quarter of the Technology Education program was

completed on or about September 11, 1998 and the next program quarter would begin on or about September 28, 1998 and end on December 11, 1998 if the program were to

remain at NHSP.

22.

Inmate plaintiff William Lepine is currently enrolled as a student in the

Communications module of Technology Education and is currently an inmate teacher in the Introduction To Engineering Drafting course associated with the Technology Education program and will be deprived not only of the opportunity to participate in the program if it is removed from NHSP but also of the opportunity to teach and assist other inmates who wish to enroll in the program as students and complete the program. See Affidavit of William Lepine, attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein. 23. Plaintiffs Renzzulla, Miller, Mickish, Allen, Trudell and Parda are currently

enrolled in either the Communications module or the Materials and Processes module of Technology Education this semester. See Plaintiffs Affidavits attached as Exhibit E. 24. Inmate Ladouceur, a Special Education student under age 2 1, attempted to

sign up for Technology Education this semester but was unable to do so when he was informed that the program was being removed from the NHSP effective September 21, 1998. See Affidavit of Eric Ladouceur, Exhibit E. 25. Inmate Andrew Higgins is housed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU). He

intends to enroll in Technology Education when it is offered to inmates in SHU next semester. See Affidavit of Andrew Higgins, Exhibit E. 26. Inmate class members who participate as students and/or as inmate teachers

in the program will be deprived of the opportunity to participate in and complete the Technology Education program as described in Exhibit B if the program is removed from

NHSP in Concord. See affidavits attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein.

27.

Inmate student participants and future participants in the Technology

Education program will suffer irreparable harm if the program is removed from NHSP. See Exhibit E affidavits, incorporated herein. 28. Many inmate class members are ineligible to be transferred to the Lakes

Region Facility and will not have access to the Technology Education program if it is transferred to the Lakes Region Facility in Laconia. 29. Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, requested in writing on September

10, 1998, that the defendant rescind the order to transfer the Technology Education program from NHSP on September 21, 1998. Defendants temporarily postponed the transfer originally scheduled to take place on September 21, 1998. See letter dated September 14, 1998, Exhibit D-l, incorporated herein. Defendants now intend to remove the Technology Education program with a start up date of November 2, 1998 in Laconia. See letter dated September 30, 1998, Exhibit D-2 and incorporated herein. 30. Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law to assure the continuance

of the Technology Education program at NHSP. 31. Enforcement of paragraph 111 of the Laaman settlement agreement is

necessary to assure that the Technology Education program continues to be provided at the NHSP in Concord. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court grant the following relief: A. Issue a temporary restraining order and, after a hearing, a preliminary

, i

injunction enjoining defendant fi-om removing the Technology Education program from the NHSP in Concord. B. Issue a declaratory judgment that the defendant is required by the Laaman settlement agreement to have a Technology Education program, as described in Exhibit B, at the NHSP in Concord. d. i Enter a permanent injunction enjoining defendant from failing to have a Technology Education program, as described in Exhibit B, at the NHSP in Concord. D. Enter an order enjoining defendant, his agents and employees from taking any retaliatory actions against plaintiffs or other class members for their participation in this case. E. F. Award plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorneys fees. Grant such other relief as is appropriate and just. Respectfully submitted, William Lepine, et al., Plaintiffs On Behalf Of Themselves And The Laaman Class By their Attorney NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGAL ASSISTANCE P.O. Box 778 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03802

/o/p/yf Date

Alan Linder, Esquire

. Li?L?-q&
7