Representative Cases
Fernandez v. Artuz, 402 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2005) (prison mailbox rule applies to filing of state habeas for purposes of the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act).

Cain v. Herbert, 129 Fed. Appx. 644 (2d Cir. 2005) (companion case).

Spencer v. Doe, 139 F.3d 107 (2d. Cir. 1998) (reversing dismissal of supervisory officials alleged to have failed to protect juvenile detainee from sexual assault).

Baker v. Pataki, 85 F.3d 919 (2d. Cir. 1996) (en banc) (application of Voting Rights Act to claim of felon disenfranchisement).

Chalmers v. Mitchell, 73 F.3d 1262 (2d. Cir. 1996) (constitutionality of “reasonable doubt” instruction).

United States v. Harris, 268 F.Supp. 500 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (Rule 60(b) motion to set aside habeas judgment held not subject to second and successive petition restrictions of Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act).

Dennis v. INS, 2002 WL 295100 (D.Conn. 2002) (alien inadvertently deported ordered returned and ultimately released pursuant to order of Bureau of Immigration Affairs).

Peddle v. Sawyer, 64 F.Supp. 10 (D.Conn. 1999) (federal defendants settled claim of sexual assault by federal correctional officer for $350,000).

James v. Tilghman, 194 F.Supp. 398 (D.Conn. 1999) (state defendants found liable for failure to protect inmate from rape and not entitled to qualified immunity).

DuPerry v. Kirk, 90 Conn. App. 493 (Conn. App. 2005) (petitioner did not establish prejudice from counsel’s failure to advise him of appeal) (Motion to Re-argue pending).

DuPerry v. Solnit, 261 Conn. 309 (Conn. 2003) (court exercises its supervisory powers to establish right of insanity acquittee to advisement of rights at entry of plea).

Rivera v. Commissioner of Correction, 254 Conn. 214 (Conn. 2000) (petitioner entitled to good time earned during continuous term of imprisonment).

Washington v. Meachum, 238 Conn. 692 (Conn. 1996) (challenge to monitoring and recording of inmate telephone calls under state statutes and constitution).

Thomas v. Warden,20053 WL 3781596 (Conn. Super. August 30, 2005) (granting habeas and holding that respondent’s use of records that led to acquittal to classify petitioner as sex offender constituted a liberty deprivation).