Law360 (July 30, 2026, 5:41 PM EDT) -- Connecticut's prisons on Sept. 1 will stop using separate restraints on inmates locked in holding cells, the state's corrections commissioner announced Thursday, settling a lawsuit by disability rights advocates who said the state was inappropriately using shackles to deal with mental illness symptoms.
According to the Department of Correction, policies and procedures have been updated to generally ban in-cell restraints, with some exceptions for inmates who try to harm themselves or others. Included in the ban are the general use of handcuffs, leg irons, waist restraints and "other restraints used to limit an individual's movement while housed in a cell," the DOC said.
The settlement also includes staff training, oversight and auditing protocols, the department added.
"This agreement serves as a continuation of the progress we have made using mental health interventions and de-escalation techniques as appropriate alternatives to more restrictive practices," interim corrections commissioner Sharonda Carlos said in a statement.
Disability Rights Connecticut Inc. sued the state in 2021, backed by lawyers from the
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Connecticut. A 2022 version of the complaint said prisoners with mental illnesses were sometimes restrained in their cells for 20 hours a day. The department's actions exaggerated mental health conditions through increased punishment, rather than proper treatment, Disability Rights Connecticut alleged.
In an answer to the complaint, also filed in 2022, the state denied its existing methods amounted to prisoner abuse.
Disability Rights Connecticut Inc. is represented by Dan Barrett, Jaclyn Blickley and Joseph Gaylin of the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut, Kyle Mooney of
Morrison Foerster LLP and in-house by Kasey Considine.
The Connecticut Department of Correction is represented by Edward D. Rowley of the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General.
Disability Rights Connecticut Inc. v. Connecticut Department of Correction et al., case number
3:21-cv-00146, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
--Editing by Patrick Reagan.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.