2

3

4

5

6

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT TACOMA

9 CASANDRA BRAWLEY, an individual,

10

Plaintiff,

II

v.

NO.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

12 STATE OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
13 HAROLD CLARKE, former Secretary, Washington State Department of Corrections,
14 in his official capacity; ELDON VAIL, Secretary, Washington State Department of
15 Correcgons. in his official capacity; RUBEN CEDENO, Deputy Secretary, Department of
16 Corrections, in his official capacity; ALICE PAYNE, Prisons Administrator, in her official
17 capacity; DOUGLAS COLE, Superintendent of Washington Corrections Center for Women,
18 in his official capacity,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

19

Defendants.

20

21

Plaintiff Casandra Brawley alleges as follows:

22

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23

1.1 This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States,

24 specifically the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

25

1.2 This Court bas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(4). Further,

26 dus Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 220I(a) and 2202.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - I

PETERSON YOUNG PurRA
150 1 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2900 SEATILE, WASHINGTO N 1I!!101_1509
PHONE: (206) 624-6600 FAX: (206) 682·1~ 1 5

1 This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Washington State claims under 28 U.S.C. §

2 1367(a).

3

1.3 Venue is proper in the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.c. §

4 1391(b) because the plaintiff resides in Kitsap County, Washington; some of the defendants

5 reside in or are located in Thurston County, Washington; and the events underlying this

6 action occurred in Pierce County, Washington.

7

II. PARTIES

8

2.1 Plaintiff Casandra Brawley is an individual residing in Kitsap County. Ms.

9 Brawley was incarcerated at the Washington Corrections Center for Women ("WCCW")

10 from approximately December 16,2006, until May 10,2007.

11

2.2 Defendant Washington State Department of Corrections ("DOC") IS an

12 agency of the State of Washington.

13

2.3 Defendant Harold Clarke is the former Secretary of the DOC and was

14 Secretary at all times during the events described herein. In that capacity, Mr. Clarke had the

15 ultimate authority and responsibility for the administration of Washington prison facilities,

16 including the WCCW. On information and belief, Mr. Clarke had the authority to direct the

17 activities of subordinate officers and other employees of the WCCW. On information and

18 belief, he also had the power to create and implement policies and practices related to the use

19 of restraints on women incarcerated at the WCCW, including pregnant and laboring women.

20 Mr. Clarke is sued in his official capacity.

21

2.4 Defendant Eldon Vail is the Secretary of the DOC. In that capacity, Mr. Vail

22 has the ultimate authority and responsibility for the administration of Washington prison

23 facilities, including the WCCW. Op information and belief, Mr. Vail has the authority to

24 direct the activities of subordinate officers and other employees of the WCCW. On

25 information and belief, he also has the power to create and implement policies and practices

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 2

PETERSON YOUNG PuTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE. SUITE 2800 SEATTlE, WASHINGTON 99101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAA: (206)562-1415

1 related to the use of restraints on women incarcerated at the WCCW, including pregnant and

2 laboring women. Mr. Vail is sued in his official capacity.

3

2.5 Defendant Ruben Cedeno is the Deputy Secretary of the DOC. In that

4 capacity, Mr. Cedeno has responsibility for the administration of Washington prison

5 facilities, including the WCCW. On information and belief, Mr. Cedeno has the authority to

6 direct the activities of subordinate officers and other employees of Washington prisons. On

7 information and belief, he also has the power to create and implement policies and practices

8 related to the use of restraints on women incarcerated at the WCCW, including pregnant and

9 laboring women. Mr. Cedeno is sued in his official capacity.

!O

2.6 Defendant Alice Payne is the Prisons Administrator at Prisons Command

11 Central for the DOC. On information and belief, Ms. Payne, in that capacity, is responsible

12 for oversight of all DOC facilities in which women are incarcerated. including the WCCW.

13 On information and belief, Ms. Payne has the authority to direct the activities of subordinate

14 officers and other employees of Washington prisons. On information and belief, she also has

15 the power to create and implement policies and practices related to the use of restraints on

16 women incarcerated at the WCCW, including pregnant and laboring women. Ms. Payne is

17 sued in her official capacity.

18

2.7 Defendant Douglas Cole is the Superintendent of WCCW. On information

19 and belief. in that capacity, Mr. Cole has the authority to direct the activities of subordinate

20 officers and other employees of Washington prisons, including the WCCW. On information

21 and belief. he also has the power to create and implement policies and practices related to the

22 use of restraints on women incarcerated at the WCCW. including pregnant and laboring

23 women. Mr. Cole is sued in his official capacity.

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 3

PETERSON YOUNG PurRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE. SUITE 2800 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON !lB1D1·1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAX: (206) 682·1.15

1

III. FACTS

2

3.1 In April 2007, Casandra Brawley was incarcerated at the Washington

3 Corrections Center for Women near Gig Harbor, Washington. She was serving a fourteen-

4 month sentence for second degree theft- a nonviolent crime.

5

3.2 Ms. Brawley had never been convicted of a violent crime. She was an

6 exemplary inmate who was never disciplined for any infraction. She was released after less

7 than seven months, without the need for probation, because her crime was non-violent and

8 she was given credit for good time served.

9

3.3 In April 2007, Ms. Brawley was also nine months pregnant.

10

3.4 At 4:00 a.m. on April 13, 2007, Ms. Brawley'S amniotic sac ruptured, causing

11 a slow leak. She immediately asked to be taken to the prison clinic. Instead, she was

12 permitted to talk to a clinic nurse by phone. The nurse told her to go back to bed and report

13 to "sick call" in the morning.

14

3.5 At "sick call" three and a half hours later, the clinic nurse tested Ms. Brawley

15 to determine whether she was in labor, and decided to send her to St. Joseph Hospital in

16 Tacoma, Washington. During her transportation to St. Joseph. DOC agents kept Ms.

17 Brawley shackled with a chain around her belly (known as a "waist chain") attached to hand

18 cuffs. At the hospital, a certified nurse midwife asked a DOC agent to remove Ms.

19 Brawley's waist chain and handcuffs for the examination. The DOC agent agreed and

20 removed the restraints, but chained Ms. Brawley to a hospital bed by a metal chain ankle

21 restraint, where she remained throughout the examination. After examining her, the certified

22 nurse midwife discharged Ms. Brawley with instructions to return if she had significant water

23 leakage, excessive bleeding, or quick contractions. Ms. Brawley was again restrained with

24 the waist chain and handcuffs and transported back to WCCW.

25

3.6 Because she continued to experience water leakage and believed she was in

26 labor, Ms. Brawley returned to the prison clinic on Saturday, April 14,2007, where she was

COMPLAlNT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 4

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE. SUITE 2900 S EAffi E, WASH INGTON 981 01-1 609
PHON E: (206) 624.oaoo FAX: (206) 6 B2·1 415

1 allowed to stay overnight- at her insistence-for observation. At 3:00· a.m. on April 14,

2 2007, Ms. Brawley began to have contractions in her lower back and abdomen every eight

3 minutes. She was told - repeatedly and without explanation - that these were the "wrong"

4 kind of contractions. She was released seven hours later.

5

3.7 At 4:00 p.m. on April 15,2007, Ms. Brawley's contractions were five minutes

6 apart. Because she feared that her reports of her labor would be treated dismissively once

7 again, she waited an hour and a half, then reported her contractions to a corrections officer

8 and asked to be taken to the clinic. She was taken to the clinic and monitored by clinic

9 personnel. After being subjected to what she was told was a routine strip search, she was

10 shackled with a waist chain attached to hand cuffs and transported to the hospital by DOC

11 agents.

12

3.8 When she arrived at St. Joseph Hospital, DOC agents shackled Ms. Brawley

13 to the hospital bed by one leg, using a metal ankle restraint attached to a metal chain. During

14 this time, Ms. Brawley was having painful and frequent labor contractions. After five hours

15 of laboring-in shackles the entire time-she was given an epidural. She was shackled

16 throughout that medical procedure. After the epidural, Ms. Brawley's temperature was

17 elevated above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. She was given antibiotics, Tylenol and cold

18 compresses, which failed to reduce her temperature. Eventually she was given oxygen.

19 During this process, DOC agents kept Ms. Brawley shackled to a hospital bed.

20

3.9 A physician then attempted to induce labor by breaking the amniotic sac, but

21 found the sac empty. Left leaking and untreated for two days, her uterus had become

22 infected. The fetal heartbeat was dangerously accelerated, as well. During this process, Ms.

23 Brawley remained shackled to a hospital bed.

24

3.10 At 1:30 a.m. on April 16, 2007, an on-call physician determined that a

25 caesarean section was necessary for the health of both mother and child, and Ms. Brawley

26 consented. It was only then that she was freed from the restraints, because the physician

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 5

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE. SUITE 2aoo SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101_1609
PHONE: (206)624.saDO FAX; (206)&62-1415

I insisted that her restraints be removed before he would perform the surgery. Once the

2 surgery was completed and the baby was delivered, a DOC agent shackled Ms. Brawley to

3 the bed once again by the metal leg restraint.

4

3.11 Ms. Brawley remained in the hospital for an additional three days, to recover

5 from her c-section surgery and to undergo antibiotic treatment for the infection in her uterus.

6 During her entire hospitalization - even though walking is extremely difficult in the first few

7 days after a caesarean section - Ms. Brawley was kept shackled to a hospital bed by the

8 metal leg restraint and guarded by a DOC corrections officer 24 hours per day. Her baby, a

9 boy, was also treated with antibiotics in the neo-natal intensive care unit for seven days. Ms.

10 Brawley was able to see him periodically. When she needed to hold her baby or respond to

11 his cries, she had to request that the DOC corrections officer release her restraints. If she

12 needed to use the bathroom or take slow walks as was recommended by her physician for

13 appropriate recovery from a caesarean section, DOC agents shackled her ankles together by

14 an ankle chain. Other than those brief periods, DOC officers kept her shackled to a hospital

15 bed throughout her hospital stay.

16

3.12 Ms. Brawley was released from the WCCW on May 10,2007. She currently

17 lives with her son, his father, and their new baby born in November of2008.

18

3.13 Washington State Department of Corrections policy states: "a female offender

19 shall not be restrained during labor or delivery of an infant." [

20

3.14 This policy is in apparent recognition that is it dangerous and unnecessary to

21 shackle laboring incarcerated women. The American College of Obstetricians and

22 Gynecologists (ACOG) is the foremost national professional association for physicians

23 practicing obstetrical care. ACOG states: "Physical restraints have interfered with the ability

24 of physicians to safely practice medicine by reducing their ability to assess and evaluate the

25
26 [Amnesty International, State by State Survey of Policies and Practices in the United States, citing Wash. Dep't of Corrections, Policy on "Use of Restraints," 420.250 (page 5,D), available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/womenlcustody/stateslwashington.pdf.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 6

PETERSON YOUNG PUmA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATIlE. WASHINGTON 98101_1609
PHONE: (2DB) 624-6600 FAX: (206) 882-1415

1 physical condition of the mother and the fetus, and have similarly made the labor and

2 delivery process more difficult than it needs to be; thus, overall putting the health and lives of

3 the women and unborn children at risk... [t]he practice of shackling an incarcerated woman

4 in labor may not only compromise her health care but is demeaning and unnecessary. Most

5 women in correctional facilities are incarcerated for non-violent crimes and are accom}?anied

6 by guards when they are cared for in medical facilities. Testimonials from incarcerated

7 women who went through labor with shackles confirm the emotional distress and the

8 physical pain caused by the restraints. Women describe the inability to move to allay the

9 pains oflabor, the bruising caused by chain belts across the abdomen, and the deeply felt loss

10 of dignity.'"

II

3.15 Similarly, the American Public Health Association has declared that "women

· 12 must never be shackled during labor and delivery.,,3

13

IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

14

First Claim for Relief Violation of the United States Constitution

15

The allegations of paragraphs 2.1 through 3.15 above are incorporated herein.

16

4.1 The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and

17 unusual punishment. This prohibition is extended to state actors by the Due Process Clause

18 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

19

4.2 Defendants' agents shackled Plaintiff Casandra Brawley in her ninth month of

20 pregnancy, whi le she was in labor, while she was laboring before delivery of her baby, and

21 immediately after delivery of her baby by caesarean section.

22

4.3 Defendant Department of Corrections' own policy against shackling pregnant

23 women in labor and delivery demonstrates that the DOC, the other named Defendants, and

24

25

2 Ralph Hale, M.D., Executive Vice President, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Leiter supportingfederallegislation to prohibit shackling incarcerated

26

pregnant women in labor, June 12,2007, available at http://www.acog.org(departmentsldept notice.cfm?recno=18&bulletin=4631.

3APHA Standards for Health Services in Correctional Institutions, 3rd, 108 (2003).

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF-7

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATTlE. WASHINGTON 98101 -1609
PHONE; (206) 624-6111X1 fAX: (206)682·1415

1 Defendants' agents showed deliberate indifference for the safety and health of Casandra

2 Brawley and her child.

3

4.4 The Defendants' actions toward Casandra Brawley constitute cruel and

4 unusual punislunent, prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

5 States Constitution.

6

4.5 Casandra Brawley suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' violation of

7 her ri ght to he free from cruel and unusual punishment.

8

Second Claim for Relief - Violation of Washington State Constitution

9

The allegations of paragraphs 2.1 through 3.15 above are incorporated herein.

10

4.6 The Defendants inflicted cruel punishment on Casandra Brawley in violation

11 of Article I, Section 14 of the Washington State Constitution.

12

4.7 Casandra Brawley suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' infliction

13 of cruel punishment. 14

v. JURy DEMAND

15

5. 1 Plaintiff hereby demands that this matter be tried to ajury.

16

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17

6. 1 A declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the Defendants violated

18 Casandra Brawley's rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

19 States Constitution.

20

6.2 A declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the Defendants violated

21 Casandra Brawley's right tmder Article 1, Section 14 of the Washington State Constitution to

22 be free of cruel punishment;

23

6.3 Damages in an amotmt to be proven at trial;

24

6.4 Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

25

6.5 That this matter be tried to a jury; and

26

6.6 For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 8

PETERSON YOUNG PlITRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUiTe 2800 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6600 FAX: {2(6) 682_1415

DATED this 25~ day of June, 2009.
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 9

P ETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
slMichael S. Wampold Michael S. Wampold, WSBA No. 26053 Peterson Young Putra 150 1 4~ Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98 101 Ph. 206-624-3800 Email: wampold@pypfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Cooperating Counsel for Legal Voice
LEGAL VOICE
slSara Ainsworth Sara Ainswotth, WSBA No. 26656
Legal Voice
Sara Ainsworth Northwest Women's Law Center 907 Pine Street, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98 10 1 Ph. 206-682-9552 Email: sainsworth@LegaIVoice.org Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
PETERSON YOUNG PLTmA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624.6800 FAX: {206)682-1415

I

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I hereby certify that on the date shown below I electronically filed the foregoing to the
following e-mail address: 3

4

newcases.tacoma@wawd.uscourts.gov

5

6 Dated : June 25, 2009
7

8

sJElizabeth Chandler

Elizabeth Chandler

9

Peterson Young Putra

Paralegal IO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 10

PETERSON YOUNG PumA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2Il00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9811)1 - 1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAX: (206)682'1~15

 
 1

2

3

4

5

The Honorable Robert J. Bryan

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

8

CASANDRA BRAWLEY, an individual,

NO. C09-5382

9

Plaintiff,

STIPULATED MOTION TO

10

v.

FILE AMENDED MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

11 STATE OF WASHINGTON;

TO SEAL PREVIOUSLY-FILED

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

12 OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

JUDGMENT AND PROPOSED

ORDER

13

Defendants.

NOTE ON MOTION

14

CALENDAR: MARCH 25, 2010

15 1. Motion
16 DEFENDANTS and PLAINTIFF jointly seek leave of court for the Defendants to file
17
18 an Amended Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum In Support. The

19 parties also respectfully move the court to seal the previously-filed Defendants’ Motion for

20 Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(g).

21

22

2. Stipulated Facts in Support of Motion

23

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, filed

24 March 23, 2010, contains one sentence with information the parties intend should remain

25 confidential. Declaration of Gary Andrews, Attorney for defendants. The inclusion of the

26

NO. C09-5382

1

STIPULATED MOTION TO FILE

AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND TO SEAL

PREVIOUSLY-FILED MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

PROPOSED ORDER

ERROR! AUTOTEXT ENTRY NOT DEFINED.

1 information was not intentional, and the information is private, confidential medical history

2 that is irrelevant to the case at bar and unnecessary for its resolution. Id. 3

4

3. Argument

5

Under Local Civil Rule 5(g)(2), there is a strong presumption in favor of public access

6 to the court’s files. This request outweighs that presumption because the parties are not asking

7 the court to seal the dispositive motions in this case and keep the issues at hand from public
8 view, but only to seal the previously-filed motion to protect one sentence containing private
9 medical information unnecessary for the resolution of this case. The parties agree that, after
10 obtaining leave of court in this motion, the defendants will file an Amended Motion for
11
12 Summary Judgment without the one sentence containing the private information, and that the

13 Amended Motion should remain publicly available.

14 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Michael Wampold and
15
16 Sara Ainsworth, counsel for plaintiff herein, and Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, and

17 Gary Andrews, Assistant Attorney General, counsel for defendants herein, that the defendants

18 shall filed an Amended Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by Friday, March 26,

19 2010. This Amended Motion will supersede and replace the previously-filed Motion. The
20 parties jointly request that the court seal defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
21 Memorandum in Support, filed on March 23, 2010.
22

23

24

25

26

NO. C09-5382

2

STIPULATED MOTION TO FILE

AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND TO SEAL

PREVIOUSLY-FILED MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

PROPOSED ORDER

ERROR! AUTOTEXT ENTRY NOT DEFINED.

1 ORDER
2 The parties having stipulated, and the stipulated facts having overcome the presumption
3
4 against sealing court records, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The Defendants shall file an Amended Defendants’ Motion for Summary

6

Judgment and Memorandum in Support by March 29, 2010.

7

2. The clerk of the Court shall seal the previously-filed Defendants’ Motion for

8 Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and take the necessary steps
9 to render the previously-filed document publicly unavailable.
10
Dated this 29th day of March, 2010. 11

12 13

A

14

ROBERT J. BRYAN

United States District Judge

15

16

DATED this 25th day of March 2010.

ROBERT M. MCKENNA

17

Attorney General

18

19

/s/ Gary E. Andrews

GARY ANDREWS, WSBA No. 9518

20

Assistant Attorney General

21

22

/s/ Michael Wampold

MICHAEL WAMPOLD, WSBA No. 26053

23

Attorney at Law

24
25
26
NO. C09-5382
STIPULATED MOTION TO FILE AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO SEAL PREVIOUSLY-FILED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

/s/ Sara Ainsworth SARA AINSWORTH, WSBA No. 26656 Attorney at Law

3

ERROR! AUTOTEXT ENTRY NOT DEFINED.

 
 712 F.Supp.2d 1208 (2010)
Casandra BRAWLEY, an individual, Plaintiff, v.
State of WASHINGTON, Washington State Department of Corrections, Brydee Glasco, Correctional Officer, Washington Corrections Center for Women, in her individual and official capacity, Herbert Joy, Correctional Officer, Washington Corrections Center for Women, in his individual and
official capacity, Defendants.
Case No. C09-5382RJB.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma.
May 3, 2010.
1211*1211 Michael Simon Wampold, Ana M. Popp, Ann Heacox Rosato, Peterson Young Putra, Seattle, WA, Sara Ainsworth, Legal Voice, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.
Gary E. Andrews, Attorney General's Office, Olympia, WA, for Defendants.
ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ROBERT J. BRYAN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 22 refiled as 34), Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 27) and Defendants' motions to strike (Dkts. 44 and 46). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support and in opposition to the motions and the record.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Thirty year old Plaintiff, Casandra Brawley, brings this case seeking relief from violations of her constitutional rights that she alleges occurred during the birth of her first child in April of 2007. Dkt. 1.
A. FACTS
In 2004, Plaintiff was sent to the Washington State Corrections Center for Women ("WCCW") to serve an approximately year long sentence after a possession of stolen property conviction. Dkt. 28, at 2. She was released early for good time served. Dkt. 28, at 2. Plaintiff has never been convicted of a violent crime. Dkt. 28, at 2. Plaintiff has seven total felony convictions, including one from 2006 for second degree theft. Dkts. 28, at 2 and 30-2, at 11. Plaintiff was sent back to the WCCW in December of 2006 to serve fourteen months on the second degree theft conviction. Dkt. 28, at 2. Plaintiff was five months pregnant, having a due date of April 16, 2007. Dkt. 28, at 2 and 3. When she began her 2006 sentence, she had two outstanding warrants for felonies in two other counties. Dkt. 28, at 2. When she began her sentence she was classified as "medium security." Dkt. 28, at 2. Kevin Mauss, a Correctional Program Manager at

the WCCW, states that Plaintiff was classified as "medium security" because of the two outstanding warrants, and because she had an incident of failing to report while on community supervision, and so was placed on "escape status" then. Dkt. 25, at 3.
Plaintiff states that anytime she was transported from WCCW for prenatal care, she was placed in full restraints. Dkt. 28, at 2. She states that "full restraints" meant that she had a metal chain around her waist, her hands were handcuffed together, and the handcuffs were attached to the waist chain. Dkt. 28, at 2. She asserts that the chains were humiliating and uncomfortable. Dkt. 28, at 2.
On April 13, 2007, Plaintiff states that she woke up around 4:00 a.m. and noticed that she was leaking fluid. Dkt. 28, at 3. She states that this was her first baby and she did not know what to expect. Dkt. 28, 1212*1212 at 3. Plaintiff states that she went to the officer on duty, who called the clinic, and they eventually decided to send her back to bed. Dkt. 28, at 3. She reported another "gush of water" at 8:00 a.m., went to the medical clinic, and they decided to send her to St. Joseph Hospital in Tacoma, Washington. Dkt. 28, at 3-4. Plaintiff states that she was stripped-searched and put in an orange jumpsuit. Dkt. 28, at 4. Plaintiff states that she was put in full restraints and transported to the hospital. Dkt. 28, at 4. She was examined by medical personnel who determined that she had not ruptured her membranes and was not in labor. Dkts. 28, at 4, and 30-2, at 45. Plaintiff was returned to the WCCW in full restraints. Dkt. 28, at 4.
Plaintiff reported continued leaking and so spent the night in the WCCW's clinic. Dkts. 28, at 4 and 30-2, at 25. Treatment notes from L.K. Wilts, R.N., indicate that Plaintiff denied having any contractions. Dkt. 30-2, at 25. Nurse Wilts suspected "Braxton Hicks contractions." Dkt. 30-2, at 25. She was returned to her unit on April 14, 2007. Dkt. 30-2, at 25.
The next day, April 15, 2007, around 6:00 p.m., Plaintiff returned to the WCCW's clinic and reported having contractions four to five minutes apart. Dkt. 30-2, at 25. Nurse Melissa Morgan noted on the fetal monitor that Plaintiff's contractions were three minutes apart and lasting 30 seconds. Dkts. 30-2, at 25, and 30-3, at 6. Plaintiff reported that she was in a lot of pain from the contractions. Dkt. 28, at 5. She reports contractions in her abdomen and lower back. Dkt. 28, at 5. Nurse Morgan stated that she filled out a transfer form to tell the shift office and transporting officers that Plaintiff need to be taken to the hospital because nurse Morgan thought that Plaintiff was in labor. Dkt. 30-3, at 6. The Incident Report states that Plaintiff was to be transported to the hospital "due to the possibility of active labor." Dkt. 30-3, at 37. The report states that Officers Brydee Glasco and Herbert Joy, the remaining Defendants here, "will transport via a state vehicle and have been advised of this situation." Dkt. 30-3, at 37.
Plaintiff states that she was strip-searched, put on the orange jumpsuit, and placed in full restraints. Dkt. 28, at 5. Officer Glasco, a mother herself, testified that she was aware that DOC policy at the time stated that offenders would not be restrained during labor and delivery, but that the policy did not say they would not be restrained during transportation. Dkt. 30-3, at 14. Officer Glasco acknowledges that it was contrary to DOC policy to use waist chains while transporting women in the third trimester of pregnancy. Dkt. 30-3, at 14. Officer Glasco states that when her supervisor told her she was transporting Plaintiff, she was not told Plaintiff posed any risk of harm or escape. Dkt. 30-3, at 15. Officer Glasco denies Plaintiff was put in a waist restraint, and maintains that Plaintiff was only handcuffed in the front. Dkt. 30-3, at 15. Officer Glasco states that the clinic nursing staff, she can't remember who, told her that Plaintiff was full term, had a fever, did not feel well, and needed to be seen at St. Joseph's hospital. Dkt. 30-3, at 16. Officer Glasco denies ever being told that Plaintiff was having contractions and that the contractions were coming at regular intervals. Dkt. 30-3, at 16. Officer Glasco states that she asked Plaintiff if her water broke, and Plaintiff stated that she did not think so. Dkt. 30-3, at 16. Officer Glasco states that she asked Plaintiff if she was having contractions and Plaintiff denied having any contractions. Dkt. 30-3, at 16. Officer Glasco testified that she felt that if an inmate was in active labor, it was not appropriate to restrain the inmate. Dkt. 23-3 at 19. Officer Joy was armed with a gun. Dkt. 30-3, at 30.
1213*1213 On the way to the hospital the evening of April 15, 2007, Officer Joy drove the car, Officer Glasco sat in the front, and Plaintiff sat in the back. Dkt. 30-3, at 17. Plaintiff states that while on the drive

to St. Joseph's hospital, Defendant Officer Glasco was timing her contractions with a watch. Dkts. 28, at 6, 30-2, at 4. Plaintiff states that during this 20 or so minute drive, the contractions were about two minutes apart. Dkt. 28, at 6. Officer Glasco contradicts Plaintiffs assertions, testifying that during the drive she repeatedly asked Plaintiff whether she was having contractions, and Plaintiff denied them, just saying that she did not feel good, that she was in pain. Dkt. 30-3, at 18.
When they arrived at the hospital, around 7:00-7:30 p.m., the officers put Plaintiff into a wheelchair. Dkt. 28, at 6 and 30-2, at 5. Officer Joy states that he remembers one of the nurses being upset that there was a male officer escorting a woman who was "obviously in labor." Dkt. 30-3, at 32-33. Officer Joy states that he told the nurse "deal with it, because [he's] not going anywhere." Dkt. 30-3, at 33. Officer Joy states that he stayed outside the room when Plaintiff had vaginal examinations. Dkt. 30-2, at 33. Officer Joy stated that he stayed on the other side of a privacy curtain. Dkt. 30-3, at 33. Plaintiff states that once they got into an examination room, the officers took the waist chain and handcuffs off, and chained her ankle to the bed. Dkt. 28, at 6. Plaintiff was put in a hospital gown and a fetal monitor was attached to her abdomen. Dkt. 30-3, at 19. Plaintiff reports very painful contractions at this point. Dkt. 28 at 6. She states that the chain attaching her ankle to the bed gave her "enough room to turn from side to side a little bit, but not fully." Dkt. 28, at 6. She could not get up and stand or walk. Dkt. 28, at 6. She reports being unable to get in any other position that would help relieve the pain. Dkt. 28, at 6. Plaintiff reports feeling panicked when she was told that the hospital staff was thinking of sending her back to WCCW because her labor was not progressing. Dkt. 28, at 6. Plaintiff asked them to please not send her back. Dkt. 28, at 6. Officer Glasco states that she has had children herself and has been around several other women who were having contractions. Dkt. 30-3, at 20. Officer Glasco states that she was in the room with Plaintiff the whole four hours prior to her admission, and Plaintiff did not seem to be having contractions. Dkt. 30-3, at 20.
Around 11:00 p.m., Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital. Dkt. 30-2, at 35. Her admission form indicates that she was having contractions and vaginal spotting. Dkt. 30-2, at 35. Her temperature was "99+," and her son's heart rate was 170 beats per minute, leading to the impression that he had fetal tachycardia. Dkt. 30-2, at 35. Officer Glasco states that as soon as Plaintiff was admitted, Officer Joy left. Dkt. 30-3, at 21. Officer Glasco states that she doesn't think that she was told that Plaintiff was being admitted for delivery of the baby. Dkt. 30-3, at 21. She states that she recalls the hospital staff saying that she needed to be admitted because of the "fever and the condition of the child ... something is going on ... it could be an infection." Dkt. 30-3, at 21. Plaintiff states that once admitted, an IV was inserted and she was moved into a birthing room. Dkt. 28, at 7. She states that Officer Glasco chained her to a wheelchair to move her and then chained her to the bed in the birthing room. Dkt. 28, at 7. Plaintiff reports "intense, hard labor pains" at this point. Dkt. 28, at 7. Plaintiff states that the chain made it hard to move in bed, and she could not get up and move around. Dkt. 28, at 7. Sometime before 11:45 p.m., Plaintiff was given an epidural. Dkts. 28, at 7 and 30-2, at 37. She was unchained long enough for medical staff to insert the epidural, and then re-chained to 1214*1214 the bed. Dkt. 28, at 7. Officer Glasco reports that she understood at that point the epidural was given for pain and so Plaintiff could attempt a vaginal delivery. Dkt. 30-3, at 22. Hospital treatment notes indicate that Plaintiff was comfortable on the epidural. Dkt. 30-2, at 37. She reports that within minutes of having the epidural, her temperature "suddenly went up and the baby's heartbeat was way too high." Dkt. 28, at 7. She reports that the nurses tried putting cold towels on her and giving her Tylenol, but it did not help. Dkt. 28, at 7. She states that they tried to break her membranes, and discovered that she had no amniotic fluid left. Dkt. 28, at 7. She was given oxygen. Dkts. 28, at 7 and 30-2, at 37.
At around 1:30 a.m. on April 16, 2007, Plaintiff consented to an emergency cesarean. Dkt. 30-2, at 37. Plaintiff's leg restraint was removed just prior to surgery. Dkts. 28, at 7, and 30-3, at 23. Around 2:30 a.m., Plaintiff's son was born. Dkt. 30-2, at 38. Carol Sarner, M.D. performed the surgery and her diagnosis was "term intrauterine pregnancy, chorioamnionitis, fetal tachycardia, failure to dilate, prolonged rupture of membranes." Dkt. 30-2, at 38. Plaintiff's son was immediately taken to the neonatal intensive care unit ("NICU") to receive antibiotics. Dkt. 28, at 8. Plaintiff reports that right after surgery, before she could even feel her legs, Officer Glasco chained her to the bed again. Dkt. 28, at 8. Officer Glasco states that she

chained Plaintiff to the bed in the postrecovery room after the nurses "cleared her for restraining." Dkt. 303, at 23.
A few hours later, Plaintiff was brought in a wheelchair to the NICU to see her son. Dkt. 28, at 8. She reports being chained to the wheelchair. Dkt. 28, at 8. She states that she could walk only one or two steps at this point. Dkt. 28, at 8.
Plaintiff states that after 24 hours in the NICU, her son was allowed to move into her room. Dkt. 28, at 8. He was taken to the NICU every four hours for more medicine. Dkt. 28, at 8. Plaintiff was chained to the bed. Dkt. 28, at 8. She states that once her son was returned from the NICU, after receiving his medicine, out of her reach. Dkt. 28, at 8. Plaintiff states that the baby made a noise like he was choking or was vomiting, so she called for help. Dkts. 28, at 8 and 30-2, at 10. Plaintiff states that she pulled and pulled herself against the chains, but could not reach him. Dkts. 28, at 8, and 30-2, at 10. She reports being in pain and being "terrified." Dkt. 28, at 9. Plaintiff states that she had difficulty doing the walking the nurses wanted her to do after her surgery because of the leg restraints Defendants forced her to wear. Dkt. 28, at 9.
Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on April 19, 2007. Dkt. 30-2, at 43. Plaintiff was released from WCCW on May 10, 2007. Dkt. 30-2, at 10.
The Washington State Department of Corrections' policy in place at the time, Restricted Policy 420.250, provides: "[a] female offender will not be restrained during labor and delivery of an infant." Dkt. 39, at 10.
B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 25, 2009, Plaintiff filed this case. Dkt. 1. She makes a claim for violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under both the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (via 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and Article 1, Section 14 of the Washington State Constitution. Id. She seeks declaratory relief that the Defendants violated her rights under both the federal and state constitution. Id. She also seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Id.
1215*1215 Parties have now filed cross motions for summary judgment. Dkts. 34 and 27. Defendants seek summary dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. Dkt. 34. Plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment on her Eighth Amendment claim against Officer Glasco. Dkt. 27. Some of the issues raised in these motions are now resolved (see the discussion in the next section). The outstanding issues are summarized in Section I.D. below.
C. RESOLVED ISSUES
With the exception of Officers Glasco and Joy, all individually named Defendants have been dismissed by stipulation. Dkts. 16, 18, and 38. To the extent that Defendants' motion for summary judgment seeks dismissal of these dismissed parties, it should be denied as moot. Further, Plaintiff states in her response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, that she will not pursue her claim for declaratory relief under either federal or Washington law. Dkt. 42, at 2. To the extent that Defendants seek dismissal of these claims in their motion for summary judgment, the motion should be granted and those claims dismissed. Plaintiff does not dispute that monetary damages are not available here against the Defendant State of Washington and its agency, the Department of Corrections, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Pittman v. Oregon Employment Dept., 509 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.2007) (internal quotations omitted) (as the Supreme Court has applied the Eleventh Amendment, an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State absent certain exceptions). Defendants' motion seeking dismissal of the damages claims against Washington and the Department of Corrections should be granted.

D. SUMMARY OF REMAINING ISSUES
Plaintiff states that her remaining claims are that Officers Glasco and Joy "violated her Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment when they shackled her during labor and immediately postpartum on April 15 and 16, 2007." Dkt. 42.
Defendants move for dismissal of Plaintiff's remaining claim, arguing that Plaintiff did not suffer any constitutional infringement, even if she did, her rights were not clearly established and so Officers Glasco and Joy are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkts. 34, and 44. Defendants also argue that her claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") and the doctrine of laches bars Plaintiff's claims. Id.
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment against Officer Glasco, arguing that shackling her during labor and immediately postpartum violated her Eighth Amendment rights, and those rights were clearly established at the time. Dkts. 27 and 42. Plaintiff argues that because she was out of prison when she filed her complaint, she did not need to exhaust under the PLRA. Dkt. 42, at 5 (citing Talamantes v. Leyva, 575 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir.2009)). Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to plead laches in their answer, thereby waiving the defense. Dkt. 42, at 6. Plaintiff argues that even if Defendants did not waive the defense, Plaintiff filed her case within the statute of limitations and there is no basis to shorten the time allowed by law to file her claim. Dkt. 42, at 6.
Defendants move to strike Exhibits 3 and Exhibits 20-24 to the Declaration of Michael Wampold. Dkt. 44. Defendants move to strike any evidence related to actions or activities after 6:00 a.m. on April 16, 2007. Dkt. 44. Defendants move to 1216*1216 strike the unsupported "opinions" of Dr. Thomas Easterling. Dkt. 44. Defendants also move to strike exhibits 2 and 3 of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' motion (Dkt. 43, at 7-36). Dkt. 46.
This opinion will first address the motion to strike, then the issues of PLRA exhaustion and laches. This opinion will lastly address the core issue of qualified immunity.
II. DISCUSSION
A. MOTION TO STRIKE
Defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. 44) should be denied, in part, and granted, in part. Defendants move to strike Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Michael Wampold. Dkt. 44. Exhibit 3 purports to be a "custody review" sheets. Dkt. 30-2, at 20. These pleadings (Dkt. 30-2, at 20-22) should be stricken as no foundation has been laid for the document's authenticity. Fed. R. Ev. 602.
Defendants' motion to strike Exhibit 20 to the Declaration of Michael Wampold should be granted. Exhibit 20 is a June 2007 letter from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist stating it opposes shackling inmates in labor. Dkt. 30-4, at 16. Consideration of that document was not necessary to decide these motions.
Defendants' motion to strike Exhibit 21-24 to the Declaration of Michael Wampold should be granted. These pleadings are articles from various sources opposing shackling inmates in labor. They also are unnecessary and are of limited relevance.
Defendants' motion to strike any evidence related to actions or activities after 6:00 a.m. on April 16, 2007, should be denied to the extent that this evidence provides background facts. Dkt. 44.

For the purposes of this motion alone, Defendants motion to strike the opinions of Dr. Thomas Easterling should be denied. Dkt. 44. Some of Defendants' discussion of his opinion was well taken, but that evidence was not necessary to decide this motion.
Defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. 46) should be granted. Exhibits 2 and 3 of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' motion, (Dkt. 43, at 7-36), complaints purportedly filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. These pleadings are of limited relevance and were not considered.
B. PLRA EXHAUSTION and LACHES
1. PLRA
A person not incarcerated or detained at the time an action is filed is not a "prisoner" for purposes of the PLRA, and therefore, not subject to the exhaustion requirement. Talamantes v. Leyva, 575 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir.2009). It is undisputed that Plaintiff was not "incarcerated or detained" at the time the Complaint was filed. Defendants' motion to summarily dismiss Plaintiff's claims based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies under the PLRA should be denied.
2. Laches
"The doctrine of laches is a creature of equity and is grounded upon the principles of equitable estoppel." Rutter v. Rutter's Estate, 59 Wash.2d 781, 784, 370 P.2d 862 (1962). Laches does not bar an action short of the applicable statute of limitations "unless it is made to appear that, by reason of the delay in asserting a claim, the other party has altered his position or has been otherwise injured by the delay." Id.
To the extent Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief through the doctrine of laches, this opinion 1217*1217 has already held that those claims should be dismissed and so the motion is moot. To the extent that Defendants use the doctrine to defend against her other claims, the motion should be denied. It is undisputed that Plaintiff filed this action within the applicable statute of limitations. Defendants make no showing that by reason of the delay Plaintiff has altered their position. Defendants make no showing that they have been "otherwise injured by the delay." Defendants motion to summarily dismiss Plaintiff's claims on the doctrine of laches should be denied.
3. Conclusion
Plaintiff was not required to exhaust her administrative remedies under the PLRA. The doctrine of laches does not bar Plaintiff's claim for damages, attorney's fees, and costs. This opinion will now turn to the core of the case, whether the officers here are entitled to summary judgment on their qualified immunity defense.
C. SUMMARY JUDGMENT—STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim in the case on which the nonmoving party has the

burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). There is no genuine issue of fact for trial where the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (nonmoving party must present specific, significant probative evidence, not simply "some metaphysical doubt."); See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Conversely, a genuine dispute over a material fact exists if there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute, requiring a judge or jury to resolve the differing versions of the truth. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 253, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).
The determination of the existence of a material fact is often a close question. The court must consider the substantive evidentiary burden that the nonmoving party must meet at trial—e.g., a preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254, 106 S.Ct. 2505; T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d at 630. The court must resolve any factual issues of controversy in favor of the nonmoving party only when the facts specifically attested by that party contradict facts specifically attested by the moving party. The nonmoving party may not merely state that it will discredit the moving party's evidence at trial, in the hopes that evidence can be developed at trial to support the claim. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d at 630 (relying on Anderson, supra). Conclusory, non specific statements in affidavits are not sufficient, and missing facts will not be presumed. Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888-89, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990).
D. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
"[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 1218*1218 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). "Through application of the qualified immunity doctrine, public servants avoid the general costs of subjecting officials to the costs of trial—distraction of officials from their governmental duties, inhibition of discretionary action, and deterrence of able people from public service." V-1 Oil Co. v. Smith, 114 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir.1997) (internal citations omitted). The immunity is "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).
The Supreme Court established a two-part analysis in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against a public official for an alleged violation of a constitutional right. Boyd v. Benton County, 374 F.3d 773, 778 (9th Cir.2004), citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). Although no longer mandatory, the Supreme Court has recently held that it may be "beneficial" for a court required to rule upon qualified immunity to examine the Saucier factors: (1) whether the official violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights on the facts alleged and (2) if there was a violation, whether the constitutional rights were clearly established. Pearson v. Callahan, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (holding that the Saucier two-part analysis was no longer mandatory). Application of the factors is beneficial here, so this opinion will first turn to whether Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights were violated, and then if they were violated, whether they were clearly established in April of 2007.
1. Violation of Constitutional Rights?
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the use of "cruel and unusual punishment." The Eighth Amendment is applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 296-97, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). The "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment." Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) (some internal quotation marks omitted). "Among unnecessary and wanton inflictions of pain are those that are totally without penological

justification." Id. (internal citations omitted). In making this determination in the context of prison conditions, the court must "ascertain whether the officials involved acted with `deliberate indifference' to the inmates' health or safety." Id., at 738, 122 S.Ct. 2508 (internal citations omitted).
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment also imposes duties on prison officials, "who must provide humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (internal citations omitted). "Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners" constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).
There is no Ninth Circuit case addressing whether the shackling of inmates during labor and delivery of infants violates the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff here argues that she is making a essentially a "hybrid" claim. Dkt. 27, at 19. She states:
One aspect of her serious medical need—to deliver her baby—was met by prison officials, who took her to the hospital 1219*1219 (eventually) for assistance with childbirth. Yet, in shackling Ms. Brawley throughout labor, corrections officers interfered with her serious medical needs by putting her health and her pregnancy risk. The presence of the shackles also inflicted both physical and psychological pain. While either serves as an independent basis for finding a sufficiently serious deprivation, their coexistence is significant because that is precisely what renders the shackling of laboring women so obviously inhumane.
Dkt. 27, at 19.
There are two parts in the test that the Ninth Circuit uses to determine "deliberate indifference" in the context of cases alleging a failure to treat a serous medical need. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006). "First, the plaintiff must show a serious medical need," and "[s]econd, the plaintiff must show the defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent." Id. (internal citations omitted).
a. Substantial Risk to Health or Safety, or Serious Medical Need
At the first step here then, the question under the Eighth Amendment is whether prison officials exposed Plaintiff to a sufficiently substantial "risk of serious damage" to her future health, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842-843, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (internal citation omitted), and/or whether she had a serious medical need, Jett, 1096. The first step is judged from an objective point of view.
There is sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that Plaintiff endured unnecessary pain, was exposed to a sufficiently serious risk of harm, and had a serious medical need when she was shackled to the hospital bed on April 15, 2010 and April 16, 2010. Common sense, and the DOC's own policy, tells us that it is not good practice to shackle women to a hospital bed while they are in labor. Defendants acknowledge that there are issues of fact as to whether Plaintiff was in labor. Dkt. 44. The record, viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, indicates that she was experiencing strong contractions, some that she felt in her back, as early as when she presented to the WCCW clinic at 6:00 p.m. on April 15, 2007. Dkts. 30-2, at 25, 30-3, at 6, and 28, at 5. There is evidence in the record that she continued to have more and more painful contractions until she received her epidural in the hospital several hours later. Dkts. 28-7, at 6; 30-2, at 35.
There is evidence in the record that Plaintiff endured unnecessary pain due to being chained to her bed. Thomas R. Easterling, M.D. testified on behalf of Plaintiff. Dkt. 30-3, at 25. Dr. Easterling is a board

certified obstetrician-gynecologist. Dkt. 29, at 1. Dr. Easterling testified that "[t]he ability to move and change positions is integral to a woman trying to cope with pain, and so [Plaintiff's] ability to deal with pain by changing positions is severely impaired." Dkt. 30-3, at 26.
Further, there is evidence that Plaintiff was exposed to a sufficiently serious risk of harm and had a serious medical need— being in labor—when she was shackled on April 15 and 16, 2007. Dr. Easterling testified that it is important for women who are in labor to be able to move around to avoid venocaval occlusion, hypertension, and fetal compromise. Dkt. 30-3, at 26. Defendants offer no evidence to counter this opinion.
Moreover, there is no evidence in the record which indicated that shackling Plaintiff was justified by any legitimate penological concern. There is no evidence that Plaintiff was dangerous to herself or others. There is no evidence that she posed a flight risk. The evidence shows that on April 15, 2007, when Officers Glasco 1220*1220 and Joy took her to the hospital, at a minimum, she was a pregnant woman at or near full term, was running a fever, was in pain, and was moving slowly. Dkt. 23-3, at 43-45.
Plaintiff has shown that there is sufficient evidence in the record, from an objective standpoint, that she had a serious medical need and was exposed to an unnecessary risk of harm. The inquiry does not end here, however. To prevail on her motion, Plaintiff must show that Officer Glasco was deliberately indifferent to that need or risk of harm. Jett, at 1096.
b. Deliberate Indifference
The "second prong-defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent-is satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference." Jett, at 1096. (internal citations omitted). "Under this standard, the prison official must not only be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, but that person must also draw the inference." Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, (9th Cir.2004). Existence of this subjective state of mind may be inferred from the fact that the risk of harm is obvious. Hope, at 738, 122 S.Ct. 2508.
Although they testify that they know that it was against DOC policy to shackle a woman in labor, there are issues of fact as to whether Officers Glasco and Joy were aware that Plaintiff was in labor when they took her to the hospital on April 15, 2007, and when Officer Glasco remained with her there until the birth of Plaintiff's son. Officer Glasco denied that she was told that Plaintiff was having contractions. Dkt. 30-3, at 16. She testified that when she asked Plaintiff, Plaintiff denied having contractions on the ride to the hospital. Dkt. 30-3, at 16. Officer Glasco testified that in the four hours prior to Plaintiff's admission to the hospital, while in the examination room, Plaintiff did not seem to be having contractions. Dkt. 30-3, at 20. Although it strains the imagination, Officer Glasco maintains that she did not think Plaintiff was in labor even after the hospital staff gave Plaintiff an epidural which Officer Glasco acknowledges she knew was for pain and so Plaintiff could attempt a vaginal birth. These are the kinds of credibility decisions left to the fact finder. There are issues of fact as to whether Officers Glasco and Joy were deliberately indifferent to the risks of harm to Plaintiff and her serious medical needs when they shackled her. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the liability of Officer Glasco, then must be denied at this stage. (Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment did not address the liability of Officer Joy.)
The inquiry does not end here, however, regarding Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The next question that must be determined is: even if Plaintiff is able to show that her constitutional rights were violated, in order to overcome Defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show that her rights were clearly established at the time.
2. Constitutional Rights Clearly Established?

In analyzing the second part of the Saucier test, the issue is "whether the plaintiff's constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the injury." Boyd at 780. "For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Id. at 780-781. "In other words, an official who makes a reasonable mistake as to what the law requires under a given set of circumstances is entitled to the immunity defense." Id. The Constitution, decisions of the United 1221*1221 States Supreme Court, and decisions of lower federal courts may provide notice of established constitutional rights. Hope, at 741-42, 122 S.Ct. 2508.
Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that by April of 2007 shackling inmates while they are in labor was clearly established as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Defendants admit that Washington Department of Correction's own policy prohibited it. Although not binding authority, the Eight Circuit recently held that a female inmate's "protections from being shackled during labor had... been clearly established by decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts before September 2003." Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services, 583 F.3d 522, 533 (8th Cir.2009). The Nelson court noted that as early as 1994, a federal district court in the District of Columbia held that shackling an inmate in labor was a violation of female prisoner's constitutional rights. Women Prisoners of D.C. Dept. of Corrections v. District of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634 (D.D.C.1994), modified in part on other grounds, 899 F.Supp. 659 (D.D.C.1995). The Nelson court also reviewed the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002). In Hope, the Supreme Court held that under the circumstances presented in the case, handcuffing an inmate to a hitching post was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Hope court held that the prison officials had acted with deliberate indifference to Hope's health and safety in "violation of the Eighth Amendment by restraining him `[d]espite the clear lack of an emergency situation' in a manner `that created a risk of particular discomfort and humiliation.'" Nelson, at 532 (quoting Hope, at 737-38, 122 S.Ct. 2508). The Nelson court concluded that the Supreme Court holding in Hope regarding shackling an inmate to a hitching post, and the holdings from the D.C. district courts was sufficient to show that the right not to be shackled during labor and delivery of an infant was clearly established. The Nelson court also examined the Arkansas Department of Corrections regulations and found that they, too, discouraged the shackling of the inmate in that case. Id., at 533. The Nelson court's reasoning is persuasive.
As in Nelson, a reasonable factfinder could determine from the record in this case that the Defendants were not facing an emergency situation but nevertheless "subjected [the Plaintiff] to a substantial risk of physical harm, to the unnecessary pain caused by the [shackles] and the restricted position of confinement ... [and] created a risk of particular discomfort and humiliation," such that qualified immunity should be denied. Nelson, at 532.
3. Conclusion on Qualified Immunity
There are issues of fact as to whether Officers Glasco and Joy violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Officer Glasco should be denied. Defendants' motion for summary dismissal of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds should be denied. Plaintiff has shown evidence, if believed, that would demonstrate a violation of her clearly established rights, barring the qualified immunity defense.
III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby, ORDERED that:
• Defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. 44) is GRANTED, IN PART, and DENIED, IN PART, as stated above;
• Defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. 46) is GRANTED;

1222*1222 • Defendants' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 22 refiled as Dkt. 34) is
• DENIED AS MOOT to the extent Defendants seek dismissal of parties already dismissed by stipulation, • DENIED as to dismissal based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust or laches, • DENIED as to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claim, • GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief, and • GRANTED as to Plaintiff's damages claims against the State of Washington and the Washington State Department of Corrections;
• Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 27) is DENIED,
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.

 
 Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 1 of 12

1

Honorable Robert J. Bryan

2

3

4

5

6

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT TACOMA

9 CASANDRA BRAWLEY, an individual,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12 STATE OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
13 HAROLD CLARKE, former Secretary, Washington State Department of Corrections,
14 in his individual and official capacity; ELDON VAIL, Secretary, Washington State
15 Department of Corrections, in his indiyidual and official capacity; RUBEN CEDENO,
16 Deputy Secretary, Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacity; ALICE
17 PAYNE, Prisons Administrator, in her individual and official capacity; DOUGLAS
18 COLE, Superintendent of Washington Corrections Center for Women, in his
19 individual and official capacity; BRYDEE GLASCO, Correctional Officer, Washington
20 Corrections Center for Women, in her indiviqual and official capacity; HERBERT
21 JOY, Correctional Officer, Washington Corrections Center for Women, in his
22 individual and official capacity; LEAH EASON, Correctional Officer, Washington
23 Corrections Center for Women, in her individual and official capacity,
24 Defendants.
25

NO. C09-5382
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

26

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 1

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAX: (206) 682-1415

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 2 of 12

1

Plaintiff Casandra Brawley alleges as follows:

2

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3

1.1 This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States,

4 specifically the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

5

1.2 This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(4). Further,

6 this Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202.

7 This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Washington State claims under 28 U.S.c. §

8 1367(a).

9

1.3 Venue is proper in the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. §

10 1391(b) because the plaintiff resides in Kitsap County, Washington; some of the defendants

11 reside in or are located in Thurston County, Washington; and the events underlying this

12 action occurred in Pierce County, Washington.

13

II. PARTIES

14

2.1 Plaintiff Casandra Brawley is an individual residing in Kitsap County. Ms.

15 Brawley was incarcerated at the Washington Corrections Center for Women ("WCCW")

16 from approximately December 16, 2006, until May 10, 2007.

17

2.2 Defendant Washington State Department of Corrections ("DOC") IS an

18 agency of the State of Washington.

19

2.3 Defendant Harold Clarke is the former Secretary of the DOC and was

20 Secretary at all times during the events described herein. In that capacity, Mr. Clarke had the

21 ultimate authority and responsibility for the administration of Washington prison facilities,

22 including the WCCW. On information and belief, Mr. Clarke had the authority to direct the

23 activities of subordinate officers and other employees of the WCCW. On information and

24 belief, in his supervisory role, Mr. Clarke directed and had knowledge of the actions of

25 subordinate officers and other employees of the WCCW. On information and belief, he also

26 had the power to create and implement policies and practices related to the use of restraints

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 2

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAX: (206) 682-1415

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 3 of 12

1 on women incarcerated at the WCCW, including pregnant and laboring women. Mr. Clarke

2 is sued in his individual and official capacity.

3

2.4 Defendant Eldon Vail is the Secretary of the DOC. In that capacity, Mr. Vail

4 has the ultimate authority and responsibility for the administration of Washington prison

5 facilities, including the WCCW. On information and belief, Mr. Vail has the authority to

6 direct the activities of subordinate officers and other employees of the WCCW. On

7 information and belief, in his supervisory role, Mr. Vail directs and has knowledge of the

8 actions of subordinate officers and other employees of the WCCW. On information and

9 belief, he also has the power to create and implement policies and practices related to the use

10 of restraints on women incarcerated at the WCCW, including pregnant and laboring women.

11 Mr. Vail is sued in his individual and official capacity.

12

2.5 Defendant Ruben Cedefio is the former Deputy Secretary of the DOC. In that

13 capacity, Mr. Cedefio had responsibility for the administration of Washington pnson

14 facilities, including the WCCW. On information and belief, Mr. Cedefio had the authority to

15 direct the activities of subordinate officers and other employees of Washington prisons. On

16 information and belief, in his supervisory role, Mr. Cedefio directed and had knowledge of

17 the actions of subordinate officers and other employees of the WCCW. On information and

18 belief, he also had the power to create and implement policies and practices related to the use

19 of restraints on women incarcerated at the WCCW, including pregnant and laboring women.

20 Mr. Cedefio is sued in his individual and official capacity.

21

2.6 Defendant Alice Payne is the Prisons Administrator at Prisons Command

22 Central for the DOC. On information and belief, Ms. Payne, in that capacity, is responsible

23 for oversight of all DOC facilities in which women are incarcerated, including the WCCW.

24 On information and belief, Ms. Payne has the authority to direct the activities of subordinate

25 officers and other employees of Washington prisons. On infonnation and belief, in her

26 supervisory role, Ms. Payne directs and has knowledge of the actions of subordinate officers

AMENDEDCO~LMNTFORDAMAGES
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 3

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAX: (206) 682-1415

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 4 of 12

1 and other employees of the WCCW. On information and belief, she also has the power to

2 create and implement policies and practices related to the use of restraints on women

3 incarcerated at the WCCW, including pregnant and laboring women. Ms. Payne is sued in

4 her individual and official capacity.

5

2.7 Defendant Douglas Cole is the Superintendent of WCCW. On information

6 and belief, in that capacity, Mr. Cole has the authority. to direct the activities of subordinate

7 officers and other employees of Washington prisons, including the WCCW. On information

8 and belief, in his supervisory role, Mr. Cole directs and has lmowledge of the actions of

9 subordinate officers and other employees of the WCCW. On information and belief, he also

10 has the power to create and implement policies and practices related to the use of restraints

11 on women incarcerated at the WCCW, including pregnant and laboring women. Mr. Cole is

12 sued in his individual and official capacity.

13

2.8 Defendant Brydee Glasco IS a Correctional Officer at WCCW. On

14 information and belief, in that capacity, Ms. Glasco took part in the transportation of

15 Cassandra Brawley to St. Joseph Hospital. On information and belief, Ms. Glasco shackled

16 Cassandra Brawley, who was nine months pregnant and in labor, with a waist chain attached

17 to hand cuffs for the duration of the transport. On information and belief, Ms. Glasco also

18 shackled Cassandra Brawley to a hospital bed using an ankle restraint attached to her leg

19 while she was in labor. Ms. Glasco is sued in her individual and official capacity.

20

2.9 Defendant Herbert Joy is a Correctional Officer at WCCW. On information

21 and belief, in that capacity, Mr. Joy took part in the transportation of Cassandra Brawley to

22 St. Joseph Hospital. On information and belief, Mr. Joy shackled Cassandra Brawley, who

23 was nine months pregnant and in labor, with a waist chain attached to hand cuffs for the

24 duration of the transport. On information and belief, he also shackled Cassandra Brawley to

25 a hospital bed using an ankle restraint attached to her leg while she was in labor. Mr. Joy is

26 sued in his individual and official capacity.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 4

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101·1609
PHONE: (206) 624·6800 FAX: (206) 682·1415

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 5 of 12

1

2.10 Defendant Leah Eason is a Correctional Officer at WCCW. On infonnation

2 and belief, Ms. Eason shackled Cassandra Brawley to a hospital bed using an ankle restraint

3 attached to her leg while she was in labor and while she was laboring before delivery of her

4 baby. On infonnation and belief, Ms. Eason shackled Cassandra Brawley during her labor

5 until the on-call physician demanded that the shackles be removed. On infonnation and

6 belief, Ms. Eason also shackled Cassandra Brawley immediately after delivery of her baby

7 by caesarean section. Ms. Eason is sued in her individual and official capacity.

8

9

III. FACTS

10

3.1 In April 2007, Casandra Brawley was incarcerated at the Washington

11 Corrections Center for Women near Gig Harbor, Washington. She was serving a fourteen-

12 month sentence for second degree theft-a nonviolent crime.

13

3.2 Ms. Brawley had never been convicted of a violent cnme. She was an

14 exemplary inmate who was never disciplined for any infraction. She was released after less

15 than seven months, without the need for probation, because her crime was non-violent and

16 she was given credit for good time served.

17

3.3 In April 2007, Ms. Brawley was also nine months pregnant.

18

3.4 At 4:00 a.m. on April 13, 2007, Ms. Brawley's amniotic sac ruptured, causing

19 a slow leak. She immediately asked to be taken to the prison clinic. Instead, she was

20 pennitted to talk to a clinic nurse by phone. The nurse told her to go back to bed and report

21 to "sick call" in the morning.

22

3.5 At "sick call" three and a half hours later, the clinic nurse tested Ms. Brawley

23 to determine whether she was in labor, and decided to send her to St. Joseph Hospital in

24 Tacoma, Washington. During her transportation to St. Joseph, DOC agents kept Ms.

25 Brawley shackled with a chain around her belly (lmown as a "waist chain") attached to hand

26 cuffs. At the hospital, a certified nurse midwife asked a DOC agent to remove Ms.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 5

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAX: (206) 682-1415

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 6 of 12

1 Brawley's waist chain and handcuffs for the examination. The DOC agent agreed and

2 removed the restraints, but chained Ms. Brawley to a hospital bed by a metal chain ankle

3 restraint, where she remained throughout the examination. After examining her, the certified

4 nurse midwife discharged Ms. Brawley with instructions to return if she had significant water

5 leakage, excessive bleeding, or quick contractions. Ms. Brawley was again restrained with

6 the waist chain and handcuffs and transported back to WCCW.

7

3.6 Because she continued to experience water leakage and believed she was in

8 labor, Ms. Brawley returned to the prison clinic on Saturday, April 14,2007, where she was

9 allowed to stay overnight-at her insistence-for observation. At 3:00 a.m. on April 14,

10 2007, Ms. Brawley began to have contractions in her lower back and abdomen every eight

11 minutes. She was told - repeatedly and without explanation that these were the "wrong"

12 kind of contractions. She was released seven hours later.

13

3.7 At 4:00 p.m. on April 15, 2007, Ms. Brawley's contractions were five minutes

14 apart. Because she feared that her reports of her labor would be treated dismissively once

15 again, she waited an hour and a half, then reported her contractions to a corrections officer

16 and asked to be taken to the clinic. She was taken to the clinic and monitored by clinic

17 personnel. After being subjected to what she was told was a routine strip search,

.18 Correctional Officers Glasco and Joy shackled her with a waist chain attached to hand cuffs

19 and transported her to the hospital.

20

3.8 When she arrived at St. Joseph Hospital, Correctional Officers Glasco and Joy

21 shackled Ms. Brawley to the hospital bed by one leg, using a metal anlde restraint attached to

22 a metal chain and in direct violation of DOC policy. During this time, Ms. Brawley was

23 having painful and frequent labor contractions. At some point during her labor, Correctional

24 Officer Eason relieved Correction Officers Glasco and/or Joy. After five hours oflaboring-

25 in shackles the entire time-Ms. Brawley was given an epidural. Correctional Officer Eason

26 continued to keep Ms. Brawley shackled throughout that medical procedure. After the

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 6

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAX: (206) 682-1415

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 7 of 12

1 epidural, Ms. Brawley's temperature was elevated above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. She was

2 given antibiotics, Tylenol and cold compresses, which failed to reduce her temperature.

3 Eventually she was given oxygen. During this process, Correctional Officer Eason failed to

4 free Ms. Brawley of the leg shackle that restrained her to her hospital bed.

5

3.9 A physician then attempted to induce labor by breaking the amniotic sac, but

6 found the sac empty. Left leaking and untreated for two days, her uterus had become

7 infected. The fetal heartbeat was dangerously accelerated, as well. During this process,

8 Correctional Officer Eason kept Ms. Brawley shackled to a hospital bed in direct violation of

9 DOC policy.

10

3.10 At 1:30 a.m. on April 16, 2007, an on-call physician detennined that a

11 caesarean section was necessary for the health of both mother and child, and Ms. Brawley

12 consented. It was only then that Correctional Officer Eason and/or other DOC agents freed

13 her from the restraints, because the physician insisted that her restraints be removed before

14 she would perform the surgery. ·Once the surgery was completed and the baby was delivered,

15 Correctional Officer Eason and/or other DOC agents shackled Ms. Brawley to the bed once

16 again by the metal leg restraint.

17

3.11 Ms. Brawley remained in the hospital for an additional three days, to recover

18 from her c-section surgery and to undergo antibiotic treatment for the infection in her uterus.

19 During her entire hospitalization - even though walking is extremely difficult in the first few

20 days after a caesarean section - Correctional Officer Eason and other DOC corrections

21 officers kept Ms. Brawley shackled to a hospital bed by the metal leg restraint and guarded

22 her 24 hours per day. Her baby, a boy, was also treated with antibiotics in the neo-natal

23 intensive care unit for seven days. Ms. Brawley was able to see him periodically. When she

24 needed to hold her baby or respond to his cries, she had to request that Correctional Officer

25 Eason and/or other DOC corrections officers release her restraints. If she needed to use the

26 bathroom or take slow walks as was recommended by her physician for appropriate recovery

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 7

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624·6800 FAX: (206) 682-1415

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 8 of 12

1 from a caesarean section, Correctional Officer Eason and/or other DOC officers shackled her

2 ankles together by an ankle chain. Other than those brief periods, Correctional Officer Eason

3 and other DOC officers kept her shackled to a hospital bed throughout her hospital stay.

4

3.12 Ms. Brawley was released from the WCCW on May 10,2007. She currently

5 lives with her son, his father, and their new baby born in November of2008.

6

3.13 Washington State Department of Corrections policy states: "a female offender

7 shall not be restrained during labor or delivery of an infant." 1

8

3.14 This policy is in apparent recognition that is it dangerous and unnecessary to

9 shackle laboring incarcerated women. The American College of Obstetricians and

10 Gynecologists (ACOG) is the foremost national professional association for physicians

11 practicing obstetrical care. ACOG states: "Physical restraints have interfered with the ability

12 of physicians to safely practice medicine by reducing their ability to assess and evaluate the

13 physical condition of the mother and the fetus, and have similarly made the labor and

14 delivery process more difficult than it needs to be; thus, overall putting the health and lives of

15 the women and unborn children at risk. .. [t]he practice of shackling an incarcerated woman

16 in labor may not only compromise her health care but is demeaning and unnecessary. Most

17 women in correctional facilities are incarcerated for non-violent crimes and are accompanied

18 by guards when they are cared for in medical facilities. Testimonials from incarcerated

19 women who went through labor with shackles confirm the emotional distress and the

20 physical pain caused by the restraints. Women describe the inability to move to allay the

21 pains oflabor, the bruising caused by chain belts across the abdomen, and the deeply felt loss 22 of dignity.,,2

23

24

1Amnesty International, State by State Survey of Policies and Practices in the United States, citing Wash. Dep't of Corrections, Policy on "Use of Restraints," 420.250 (page 5,D),

25

available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/custody/states/washington.pdf. 2 Ralph Hale, M.D., Executive Vice President, American College of Obstetricians and

26

Gynecologists, Letter supportingfederallegislation to prohibit shackling incarcerated pregnant women in labor, June 12,2007, available at

http://www.acog.org/departments/deptnotice.cfin?recno=18&bulletin=4631.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 8

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE. SUITE 2800 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAX: (206) 682-1415

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 9 of 12

1

3.15 Similarly, the American Public Health Association has declared that "women

2 must never be shackled during labor and delivery.,,3

3

IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

4

First Claim for Relief-Violation of the United States Constitution

5

The allegations of paragraphs 2.1 through 3.15 above are incorporated herein.

6

4.1 The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and

7 unusual punishment. This prohibition is extended to state actors by the Due Process Clause

8 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

9

4.2 Defendants Glasco, Joy, and Eason shackled Plaintiff Casandra Brawley in

10 her ninth month of pregnancy, while she was in labor, while she was laboring before delivery

11 of her baby, and immediately after delivery of her baby by caesarean section.

12

4.3 Defendant Department of Corrections' own policy against shackling pregnant

13 women in labor and delivery demonstrates that the DOC and the other named Defendants

14 understood the dangers inherent in shackling pregnant women in labor and childbirth and,

15 either through negligent training, supervision, enforcement, failure to follow that policy, or

16 all of the above, showed deliberate indifference for the safety and health of Casandra

17 Brawley and her child.

18

4.4 The Defendants' actions toward Casandra Brawley constitute cruel and

19 unusual punishment, prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

20 States Constitution.

21

4.5 Casandra Brawley suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' violation of

22 her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

23

Second Claim for Relief- Violation of Washington State Constitution

24

The allegations of paragraphs 2.1 through 3.15 above are incorporated herein.

25

4.6 The Defendants inflicted cruel punishment on Casandra Brawley in violation

26 3APHA Standards for Health Services in Correctional Institutions, 3rd, 108 (2003).

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 9

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101·1609
PHONE: (206) 624·6800 FAX: (206) 682·1415

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 10 of 12

1 of Article 1, Section 14 ofthe Washington State Constitution.

2

4.7 Casandra Brawley suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' infliction

3 of cruel punishment. 4

v. JURY DEMAND

5

5.1 Plaintiff hereby demands that this matter be tried to a jury.

6

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7

6.1 A declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the Defendants violated

8 Casandra Brawley's rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

9 States Constitution.

10

6.2 A declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the Defendants violated

11 Casandra Brawley's right under Article 1, Section 14 of the Washington State Constitution to

12 be free of cruel punishment;

13

6.3 Damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

14

6.4 Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

15

6.5 And for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

16

DATED this 29th day of October, 2009.

17

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA

18

snvlichaelS. Wampold

19

Michael S. Wampold, WSBANo. 26053

20

Ann H. Rosato, WSBA No. 32888

AnaM. Popp, WSBANo. 39614

21

Peterson Young Putra

1501 4th Avenue, Suite 2800

22

Seattle, WA 98101

Ph. 206-624-3800

23

Email: wanlpold@pypfirm.com

24

Email: rosato@pypfirnl.com

Email: popp@pypfirm.com

25

26

AMENDEDCOMPLAmTFORDAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -10

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAX: (206) 682-1415

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 11 of 12

1

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Cooperating Counsel for Legal Voice
2

3

LEGAL VOICE

4 s/Sara Ainsworth

5

Sara Ainsworth, WSBA No. 26656

Legal Voice

6

907 Pine Street, Suite 500

Seattle, WA 98101

7

Ph. 206-682-9552

8

Email: sainsworth@LegaIVoice.org

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 11

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAX: (206) 682-1415

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 12 Filed 10/30/09 Page 12 of 12

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I hereby certify that on the date shown below I electronically filed the foregoing to the
following e-mail address: 3

4

Sara Ainsworth: sainsworth@LegaIVoice.org

5

Gary Andrews: GaryA@ATG.WA.GOV

6

7 Dated: October 30, 2009.
8

9

s/Elizabeth Chandler

10

Elizabeth Chandler Peterson Young Putra

11

Paralegal

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 12

PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA
1501 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2800 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1609
PHONE: (206) 624-6800 FAX: (206) 682-1415

 
 Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 50 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5 The Honorable Robert J. Bryan
6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT TACOMA

9 CASANDRA BRAWLEY, an individual,

NO. C09-5382

10

Plaintiff,

v.

11

STATE OF WASHINGTON;

12 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO ALL CLAIMS AND ALL REMAINING DEFENDANTS
NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: MAY 7, 2010

15

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between plaintiff, Casandra

16 Brawley, acting by and through her counsel, Michael Wampold and Sara Ainsworth, and the

17 defendants, State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, and Herbert Joy, acting by and through

18 Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, and Gary E. Andrews, Assistant Attorney General,

19 that the above-entitled action as to all claims and all defendants may be dismissed with

20 prejudice and without costs, this matter having been fully settled and compromised between

21 the plaintiff and defendant State of Washington.

22

DATED this 7th day of May 2010.

23

ROBERT M. MCKENNA

Attorney General 24

/s/ Gary E. Andrews

25

GARY ANDREWS, WSBA No. 9518

Assistant Attorney General

26

/s/ Michael Wampold

NO. C09-5382

1

ERROR! AUTOTEXT ENTRY NOT DEFINED.

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF

DISMISSAL AS TO ALL CLAIMS AND

ALL REMAINING DEFENDANTS

Case 3:09-cv-05382-RJB Document 50 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 2

1

MICHAEL WAMPOLD, WSBA No. 26053

Attorney at Law

2

3

/s/ Sara Ainsworth

SARA AINSWORTH, WSBA No. 26656

4

Attorney at Law

5

6

ORDER

7

THIS MATTER having come before the undersigned judge of the above-entitled Court,

8 based on the foregoing stipulation, now, therefore,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter, including all claims and all remaining

10 defendants, shall be dismissed from the above-entitled action with prejudice and without costs

11 or interest to any party.

12

DONE IN OPEN COURT this 7th day of May 2010.

13 14

A

15

ROBERT J. BRYAN

16

United States District Judge

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

NO. C09-5382

2

ERROR! AUTOTEXT ENTRY NOT DEFINED.

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF

DISMISSAL AS TO ALL CLAIMS AND

ALL REMAINING DEFENDANTS

 
 Case: 3:09-cv-5382 As of: 04/17/2011 09:38 AM PDT 1 of 7
CLOSED, JURYDEMAND
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09−cv−05382−RJB

Brawley v. State of Washington et al Assigned to: Judge Robert J. Bryan Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement
Plaintiff Casandra Brawley an individual

Date Filed: 06/25/2009 Date Terminated: 05/07/2010 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Michael Simon Wampold PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA 1501 4TH AVE STE 2800 SEATTLE, WA 98101−1609 206−623−1745 Email: wampold@pypfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Ainsworth LEGAL VOICE 907 PINE ST STE 500 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206−682−9552 Fax: 206−682−9556 Email: sainsworth@legalvoice.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ana M. Popp CAIRNCROSS &HEMPELMANN 524 2ND AVE STE 500 SEATTLE, WA 98104−2323 206−587−0700 Email: apopp@cairncross.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ann Heacox Rosato PETERSON YOUNG PUTRA 1501 4TH AVE STE 2800 SEATTLE, WA 98101−1609 (206)624−6800 Fax: (206)682−1415 Email: rosato@pypfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant State of Washington

represented by Gary E Andrews ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40126−OLY) 7141 CLEANWATER DRIVE SW PO BOX 40126 OLYMPIA, WA 98504−0126 360−586−6300

Case: 3:09-cv-5382 As of: 04/17/2011 09:38 AM PDT 2 of 7

Email: garya@atg.wa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Washington State Department of Corrections

represented by Gary E Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Harold Clarke former Secretary, Washington State Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 04/08/2010

represented by Gary E Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Eldon Vail Secretary, Washington State Department of Corrections, in his official capacity

represented by Gary E Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ruben Cedeno Deputy Secretary, Department of Corrections, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 04/08/2010

represented by Gary E Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Alice Payne Prisons Administrator, in her official capacity TERMINATED: 04/08/2010

represented by Gary E Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Douglas Cole Superintendent of Washington Corrections Center for Women, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 03/09/2010

represented by Gary E Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Correctional Officer Brydee Glasco Washington Corrections Center for Women, in her individual and official capacity

represented by Gary E Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Correctional Officer Herbert Joy Washington Corrections Center for Women, in his individual and official capacity

represented by Gary E Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Correctional Officer Leah Eason Washington Corrections Center for Women, in her individual and official capacity TERMINATED: 01/29/2010

represented by Gary E Andrews (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case: 3:09-cv-5382 As of: 04/17/2011 09:38 AM PDT 3 of 7

06/25/2009
06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 07/02/2009 07/15/2009 09/17/2009 09/17/2009 09/21/2009 09/28/2009
10/28/2009 10/29/2009 10/30/2009 11/13/2009 12/07/2009 12/23/2009

1 COMPLAINT against defendants Douglas Cole, State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne (Summons(es) issued)(Receipt # T−5795), filed by Casandra Brawley. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Transmittal email.) (JL) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
2 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS. Authorized by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
3 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT. FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 9/10/2009; Initial Disclosure Deadline is 9/17/2009; Joint Status Report due by 9/24/2009. Authorized by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
JSR due 9/24/2009. (JL) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Gary E Andrews on behalf of Defendants Douglas Cole, State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne. (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
5 ANSWER to Complaint by Douglas Cole, State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne.(Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
6 INITIAL DISCLOSURES Filed by Defendants Douglas Cole, State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne.(Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
7 INITIAL DISCLOSURES Filed by Plaintiff Casandra Brawley.(Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
8 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 5−6. Filed by Plaintiff Casandra Brawley.(Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
9 MINUTE ORDER SETTING TRIAL, PRETRIAL DATES AND ORDERING MEDIATION; Length of Trial: *SIX DAYS*. Jury Trial is set for 6/21/2010 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom A before Judge Robert J. Bryan. Joinder of Parties due by 10/28/2009, Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 12/23/2009, Motions due by 2/1/2010, Discovery completed by 2/22/2010, Dispositive motions due by 3/23/2010, Settlement conference to be held by 4/22/2010, 39.1 mediation to be completed by 5/24/2010, 39.1 Settlement Report due by 6/1/2010, Motions in Limine due by 5/24/2010, Pretrial Order due by 6/4/2010, Pretrial Conference set for 6/11/2010 at 08:30 AM. Trial briefs to be submitted by 6/11/2010, Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 6/11/2010. Authorized by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (DK) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
10 MOTION to Amend Complaint and Add Parties by Plaintiff Casandra Brawley. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/6/2009, (Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
11 ORDER granting 10 Motion to Amend. The parties having so stipulated, IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2009. Plaintiff shall now serve all newly named and individually named Defendants. Counsel is directed to e−file their Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES &DECLARATORY RELIEF against defendant(s) all defendants, filed by Casandra Brawley.(Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
13 ANSWER to 12 Amended Complaint by Douglas Cole, State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne.(Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
14 STIPULATION of Factual Statement by parties. (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
15 DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES Filed by Defendants Douglas Cole, State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Leah Eason, Washington State

Case: 3:09-cv-5382 As of: 04/17/2011 09:38 AM PDT 4 of 7

01/28/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 03/08/2010 03/09/2010 03/11/2010
03/12/2010
03/23/2010
03/23/2010
03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010

Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Curriculum Vita of Theresa Lantz)(Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
16 STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY NONSUIT OF DEFENDANT LEAH EASON by parties. (Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
17 ORDER DISMISSING LEAH EASON. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
Party Leah Eason terminated. (JL) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
18 STIPULATION for Voluntary Nonsuit of Defendant Eldon Vail in his Individual Capacity Only and Defendant Douglas Cole by parties. (Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
19 ORDER ON STIPULATION by Judge Robert J. Bryan. Defendant Eldon Vail, in his official capacity only, and Defendant Douglas Cole should be dismissed from this matter without prejudice and without fees or costs to any party. (DK) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
20 Agreed Stipulated MOTION and Order Re Briefing Schedule for Summary Judgment Motions by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne. Noting Date 3/11/2010, (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
21 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS, granting 20 Stipulated Motion. Motions for Summary Judgment will be filed by March 23, 2010. The motions shall be set for hearing on April 16, 2010. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
22 SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/16/2010, (Andrews, Gary) Modified on 3/29/2010 to seal document (JL). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
23 DECLARATION of Gary E. Andrews filed by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne re 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Att. A, Brawley Dep, # 2 Exhibit Att. B, Glasco Dep, # 3 Exhibit Att. C, McLane Dep, # 4 Exhibit Att. D, Joy Dep, # 5 Exhibit Att. E, Payne Dep, # 6 Exhibit Att. F, Herdener Dep, # 7 Exhibit Att. G, Morgan Dep, # 8 Exhibit Att. H)(Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
24 DECLARATION of Donna Payne−Snyder filed by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne re 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
25 DECLARATION of Kevin Mauss filed by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne re 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
26 DECLARATION of Douglas Cole filed by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne re 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Casandra Brawley. Oral Argument Requested. Noting Date 4/16/2010, (Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
28 DECLARATION of Casandra Brawley filed by Plaintiff Casandra Brawley re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Wampold, Michael) (Entered:

Case: 3:09-cv-5382 As of: 04/17/2011 09:38 AM PDT 5 of 7

03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/25/2010 03/25/2010 03/26/2010
03/26/2010 03/29/2010 03/29/2010
04/01/2010 04/02/2010 04/07/2010 04/08/2010 04/08/2010

03/23/2010)
29 DECLARATION of Dr. Easterling filed by Plaintiff Casandra Brawley re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
30 DECLARATION of Michael S. Wampold filed by Plaintiff Casandra Brawley re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exs. 1−7, # 2 Exhibit Exs. 8−15, # 3 Exhibit Exs. 16−24)(Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
31 Stipulated MOTION to File Amended Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne. Noting Date 3/25/2010, (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
32 DECLARATION of Gary E. Andrews filed by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne re 31 Stipulated MOTION to File Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
33 WRONG DOCUMENT ATTACHED. COUNSEL WILL FILE THE CORRECT AMENDED MOTION. THIS DOCUMENT IS A DUPLICATE TO DOCUMENT 31 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne. Noting Date 4/16/2010, (Andrews, Gary) Modified on 3/29/2010 (VB). (Entered: 03/26/2010)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 33 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment : WRONG DOCUMENT ATTACHED. COUNSEL WILL FILE THE CORRECT AMENDED MOTION. THIS DOCUMENT IS A DUPLICATE TO DOCUMENT 31 . (VB) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
34 PRAECIPE re 33 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne. (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
35 ORDER granting 31 Stipulated Motion. The Defendants shall file an Amended Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support by March 29, 2010. The clerk of the Court shall seal the previously−filed Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and take the necessary steps to render the previously−filed document publicly unavailable. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
36 Stipulated MOTION Re Time for Filing of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) Motion by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne. Noting Date 4/1/2010, (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
37 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER RE TIME FOR FILING OF FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b) MOTION, granting 36 Stipulated Motion. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
38 STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY NONSUIT OF DEFENDANT HAROLD CLARKE, DEFENDANT RUBEN CEDENO AND DEFENDANT ALICE PAYNE by parties. (Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
39 Stipulated MOTION to Authenticity and Limited Release of Restricted Policy by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Eldon Vail, Ruben Cedeno, Alice Payne. Noting Date 4/8/2010, (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
40 MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the Stipulation for Voluntary Nonsuit of Defendant Harold Clarke, Defendant Ruben Cedeno and Defendant Alice Payne (Dkt. 38 ), filed by the parties on April 7, 2010, all claims against Defendants Clarke, Cedeno and Payne are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 04/08/2010)

Case: 3:09-cv-5382 As of: 04/17/2011 09:38 AM PDT 6 of 7

04/08/2010 04/12/2010 04/12/2010 04/12/2010 04/12/2010
04/16/2010 04/20/2010 05/03/2010
05/07/2010 05/07/2010 12/01/2010 12/10/2010 12/17/2010 12/21/2010

41 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AUTHENTICITY AND LIMITED RELEASE OF RESTRICTED POLICY. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/13/2010: # 1 Attachment A) (JL). (Entered: 04/08/2010)
42 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Casandra Brawley, to 33 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
43 DECLARATION of Michael S. Wampold filed by Plaintiff Casandra Brawley re 33 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment (Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
44 RESPONSE, by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Eldon Vail, to 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
45 DECLARATION of Gary E. Andrews filed by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Eldon Vail re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A, # 2 Exhibit Attachment B, # 3 Exhibit Attachment C, # 4 Exhibit Attachment D, # 5 Exhibit Attachment E, # 6 Exhibit Attachment F, # 7 Exhibit Attachment G, # 8 Exhibit Attachment H)(Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
46 SURREPLY filed by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Eldon Vail re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
47 STIPULATION to Mediate Under CR 39.1(c) by parties. (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
48 ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 27 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. It is hereby, ORDERED that: Defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. 44 ) is GRANTED, IN PART, and DENIED, IN PART, as stated above. Defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. 46 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 22 refiled as Dkt. 34 ) is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent Defendants seek dismissal of parties already dismissed by stipulation, DENIED as to dismissal based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust or laches, DENIED as to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claim, GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief, and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's damages claims against the State of Washington and the Washington State Department of Corrections; Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 27 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
49 Stipulated MOTION to Dismiss as to All Claims and All Remaining Defendants by Defendants State of Washington, Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, Washington State Department of Corrections, Eldon Vail. Noting Date 5/7/2010, (Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
50 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO ALL CLAIMS AND ALL REMAINING DEFENDANTS. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
51 MOTION To Publish Order On Motions For Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Casandra Brawley. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/20/2010, (Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
52 RESPONSE, by Defendants Brydee Glasco, Herbert Joy, State of Washington, Eldon Vail, Washington State Department of Corrections, to 51 MOTION To Publish Order On Motions For Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Andrews, Gary) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
53 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Casandra Brawley, TO RESPONSE to 51 MOTION To Publish Order On Motions For Summary Judgment (Wampold, Michael) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
54 ORDER ON MOTION TO PUBLISH ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, finding as moot 51 . Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered:

Case: 3:09-cv-5382 As of: 04/17/2011 09:38 AM PDT 7 of 7 12/21/2010)