Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 17

1

2

3
r;1 4
~ 5
~ 6
~ 7 8
'* 9
~· 10 11

~ 12

-~ 13 14

'J\ 15

~ 16

~
':S

17

~ 18

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

DANIEL HALDANE, WENDEL JOHNf>fi
TIMOTHY MARTIN, and LEESHAwti'-
REDIC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

CV-1810
No. CLASS ACTION

vs.
G. STEVEN HAMMOND, M.D., Chief Medical Officer of the Washington Department of Corrections, and DAN PACHOLKE, Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections, in their official capacities,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Defendants.

20

21

I. INTRODUCTION

22

This lawsuit challenges the Washington Department of Corrections' ("DOC's") regular

23 practice of withholding necessary medical care from patients with serious and painful medical

24 conditions.

25

DOC denies patient-prisoners access to constitutionally adequate medical care by

COMPLAINT- Page 1

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 981 04 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 17

utilizing a healthcare preapproval system that regularly results in arbitrary and medically
1
2 unsound decisions. DOC's inadequate preapproval system denies medically necessary treatment
3 to Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, by allowing a committee of clinicians and

4 administrators who have little familiarity with the patient to override the clinical

5 recommendations of the patient's treating DOC practitioner and outside specialists. Under this

6 preapproval system, DOC regularly disregards evidence that a patient's condition is causing

7 chronic and substantial pain and functional limitations. The Defendants' failure to properly
8 review medical cases and their denials of necessary care expose Plaintiffs, and those similarly
9
situated, to a substantial risk of ongoing and unnecessary pain, functional limitations, and other
10
serious harm, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
11
The named Plaintiffs are prisoners in the custody of the DOC and are subject to DOC's
12
policies governing the provision of medical care. Plaintiffs suffer from various medical
13 14 conditions that result in chronic and substantial pain or other conditions that warrant medical
15 treatment or evaluation that DOC has refused to provide. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
16 injunctive relief for themselves and for the proposed class they seek to represent.

17

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE

18

1. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. §

19 1343(a)(4). Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.

20

2. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because at least

21 one Defendant resides in the Western District of Washington and because a substantial part of
22
the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in this District.
23

24

25

COMPLAINT- Page 2

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 17

III. PARTIES 1

2 Plaintiffs

3

3. Daniel Haldane is 49 years old and currently incarcerated at Monroe

4 Correctional Complex ("MCC") in Monroe, Washington. Mr. Haldane has stage-3 kidney failure

5 and an undiagnosed condition that causes him to regularly pass large kidney stones. This

6 condition causes him chronic and substantial pain that interferes with his ability to eat and sleep.

7 Defendants refuse to provide Mr. Haldane with necessary diagnosis and treatment for this

8 condition.

9

4. Wendel Johnson is 61 years old and currently incarcerated at Airway Heights

10 Corrections Center ("AHCC") in Airway Heights, Washington. Mr. Johnson suffers from a

11
condition that causes him chronic and substantial pain and a tingling, cold sensation in his right 12
hand and wrist. The pain limits his ability to write, lift objects, and sleep. Defendants refuse to 13

14 provide him with necessary medical care for this condition.

15

5. Timothy Martin is 47 years old and currently incarcerated at MCC. Mr. Martin

16 suffers from chronic and substantial pain following a February 2013 hernia surgery. The pain

17 limits Mr. Martin's ability to work, eat, and sleep. Defendants refuse to provide Mr. Martin with

18 necessary medical care for this condition.

19

6. LeeShawn Redic is 34 years old and currently incarcerated at Stafford Creek

20 Corrections Center ("SCCC") in Aberdeen, Washington. Mr. Redic was diagnosed with a hernia

21 in 2009. Although the hernia causes him chronic and substantial pain that limits his ability to
22 work and eat, Defendants refuse to provide him with the necessary medical care to treat the
23
condition.
24

25 COMPLAINT- Page 3

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 4 of 17

Defendants
1

2

7. G. Steven Hammond, M.D., is the Chief Medical Officer for DOC. In that role,

3 he has a duty to ensure that DOC provides constitutionally-adequate medical care to prisoners in

4 its custody. He has authority to approve or deny medical treatment for DOC prisoners. At all

5 times relevant to this action, Dr. Hammond was acting under color of state law. Dr. Hammond is

6 sued in his official capacity.

7

8. Dan Pacholke is the Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections. In

8 that capacity, he is required to exercise all powers and perform all duties prescribed by law with

9
respect to the administration of Washington prisons, including adopting, implementing, and
10
enforcing policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners in DOC's custody receive
11
constitutionally adequate medical care. He has the authority to direct the activities of subordinate
12
13 officers and other DOC employees. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Pacholke was acting

14 under color of state law. Mr. Pacholke is sued in his official capacity.

15

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

16 A. Inadequate Medical Decision-Making Process in the Washington Department of
Corrections
17
9. Medical care for Washington prisoners is provided according to the terms of a
18
DOC-created Offender Health Plan ("OHP").
19

20

10. The OHP defines what types of medical care the Department considers

21 "medically necessary" and authorizes DOC healthcare providers to administer only limited,

22 specified services to patients under their care without prior approval.

23

11. If a patient needs medical care that is not specifically listed as "medically

24 necessary" in the OHP, the DOC healthcare provider may not provide the treatment unless she

25 obtains preapproval.

COMPLAINT- Page 4

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 5 of 17

1

12. If a DOC medical provider is unable to diagnose or adequately treat a patient's

2 condition, he may not refer the patient to an outside specialist capable of doing so without

3 obtaining prior approval.

4

13. Most medical provider requests for approval to treat or refer their patients are

5 decided by an internal utilization review body known as the DOC Care Review Committee

6 ("CRC"). The CRC consists of DOC physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners
7 from across the state who participate in a weekly conference call where they vote to approve or
8 deny medical care for patients in DOC custody.
9
14. The CRC reviews requests for medical care across a vast spectrum of specialties 10
including orthopedics, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, neurosurgery, audiology,
11
cardiology, dermatology, endocrinology otolaryngology, gastroenterology, infectious diseases,
12 13 internal medicine, ophthalmology, oncology, optometry, oral surgery, pain management,
14 prosthetics and orthotics, pulmonology, radiology, rheumatology, surgery and urology. However,

15 the CRC members voting on these cases do not necessarily have expertise in the area of concern.

16

15. Each CRC session lasts approximately one-and-a-half to two hours. During this

17 time, the committee addresses, on average, about fifteen to twenty cases, and sometimes many

18 more. On at least one occasion there were over sixty cases scheduled for presentation on a CRC

19 call.

20

16. Whether a patient will receive the care recommended by his or her treating

21 provider is determined by a majority vote of the CRC members present on the call.
22
17. The CRC members vote after hearing only a brief case. summary presented by the
23
treating medical provider.
24

25

18. CRC members typically do not examine a patient or even review his or her

COMPLAINT- Page 5

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 6 of 17

1 medical records before voting to approve or deny the care being recommended by the treating
2 medical provider.

3

19. The OHP recognizes "intractable pain" as a condition justifying medical

4 intervention. Yet, the CRC often disregards patients' complaints of chronic and substantial pain
5 described in the case summary. As a result, the CRC regularly denies treatment to relieve 6 patients' pain.

7

20. CRC decisions are based on committee members' interpretation of the OHP, not

8 on the application of standardized medical criteria or objective clinical protocols.

9

10

21. CRC decisions are often arbitrary, resulting in patients being denied proposed

11 care even when their medical records indicate that the care is medically necessary according to

the OHP.
12

13

22. Upon information and belief, the CRC rejects approximately sixty percent of the

14 requests and recommendations submitted by patients' treating medical providers.

15

23. Numerous patients in DOC custody, including the named Plaintiffs, have suffered

16 -and continue to suffer- chronic and substantial pain, functional limitations, and other

17 symptoms due to the CRC's pattern and practice of denying care recommended by patients'

18 treating medical providers.

19

24. A patient who is denied medical care by the CRC may appeal the decision

20 through the normal DOC grievance process. However, DOC rarely reverses the decisions made 21 by the CRC.

22

23

25. Defendants are aware of these patterns and practices that deny needed medical

24 care to prisoners in their care, but refuse to take steps to remedy the problem.

25

COMPLAINT- Page 6

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 981 04
(206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 7 of 17

1 B. Harm to Plaintiffs Caused by the Inadequate CRC System 2 The CRC is withholding needed medical carefrom Daniel Haldane.

3

26. Mr. Haldane has stage-3 kidney disease and an undiagnosed medical condition

4 that results in calcium deposits throughout his body. Mr. Haldane has experienced many of the

5 common symptoms of kidney disease, which include nausea and vomiting, weakness and

6 fatigue, decreased mental sharpness, chest pain, shortness of breath, high blood pressure and

7 sleep problems.

8

27. Mr. Haldane also has an undiagnosed medical condition that causes him to pass

9
large kidney stones on a regular basis. Kidney stones are hard mineral deposits that form inside
10
the kidneys. Even small ones can be painful to pass out of the body. Symptoms include severe
11
pain in the side and back, pain below the ribs, pain that spreads to the lower abdomen and groin,
12

13 pain that comes in waves and fluctuates in intensity, pain on urination, pink, red or brown urine,

14 cloudy or foul-smelling urine, nausea and vomiting, persistent need to urinate, urinating more

15 often than usual, and fever and chills if an infection is present.

16

28. When Mr. Haldane is passing kidney stones he experiences severe pain that goes

17 as high as 10 out of 10. On those occasions he cannot get out of bed or eat. The pain forced him

18 to quit his job as a dog handler in the prison's dog training program.

19

29. Mr. Haldane passes approximately one kidney stone per month, and has

20 approximately three to four kidney-stone-related symptoms every sixty days.

21

30. Mr. Haldane has experienced kidney problems since at least 2006, when housed a

22
Monroe Correctional Complex. At that time he received treatment for pain control, including

23
being sent to the hospital for a CT scan and medications.
24

31. In 2006 or 2007, DOC medical staff performed a CT scan on Mr. Haldane that
25

COMPLAINT- Page 7

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 8 of 17

1 revealed seven stones on one side and three or four on the other. Medical staff told him to let the

2 stones pass naturally.

3

32. In 2011, Mr. Haldane was seen by an outside urologist. The urologist found a

4 number of sizable stones in his kidneys.

5

33. On one occasion, while the prison was on lockdown, Mr. Haldane had a kidney-

6 stone episode. His body temperature rose significantly and he began urinating blood. Mr.

7 Haldane declared an emergency and was taken to the hospital.

8

34. In 2013, while at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, Mr. Haldane was taken to

9 Kadlec Hospital in Kennewick, Washington. Medical staff there discovered two large masses on
10 his kidneys - one measuring 14 mm on his right kidney and one measuring 6-7 mm on his left 11 12 side. The doctors at Kadlec told him he needed to see a urologist and found that Mr. Haldane 13 produces large amounts of calcium, resulting in calcium deposits on his elbows, feet, and other

parts of his body.
14

15

35. In August 2014, DOC transferred Mr. Haldane back to MCC.

16

36. DOC denied Mr. Haldane's requests x-rays and CT scans to monitor his

17 condition. Instead, DOC offered to prescribe Torodol to Mr. Haldane to treat his pain. He did not

18 take the Torodol, based on the recommendation of the outside urologist he saw in 2011.

19 According to PubMed Health, Torodol should not be taken by a patient with advanced kidney

20 disease.

21

37. DOC has provided conservative treatment to treat Mr. Haldane's kidney

22 problems, including various pain medications that have not been effective at reducing his pain or
23
the production of kidney stones.

24

25

38. Currently, Mr. Haldane is not receiving any treatment for his kidney problems

besides a medication to make it easier to urinate.

COMPLAINT- Page 8

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 9 of 17

39. Mr. Haldane filed a grievance about the refusal of treatment, which was denied. 1
2 He appealed the denial to the highest level possible, but the appeals were also denied.

3

40. Mr. Haldane continues to suffer chronic and substantial pain due to his regular

4 passage of large kidney stones. He continues to have trouble eating and sleeping, which affects

5 his mental health.

6

41. As a result of Defendants' refusal to properly treat his condition, Mr. Haldane is

7 likely to continue suffering severe pain and limitations on basic daily activities.

8 The CRC is withholding needed medical carefrom Wendel Johnson.

9

42. Wendel Johnson was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome before coming to

10 DOC. He has pain in his right wrist and hand, which has existed since at least 2007.

11 43. Carpal tunnel syndrome is a condition that causes numbness, tingling or pain and
12

other symptoms in the hand and wrist. Left untreated, it can lead to permanent nerve and muscle 13

damage. 14

15

44. Mr. Johnson experiences a number of symptoms related to his carpal tunnel

16 syndrome, including constant, severe pain in his right hand and wrist, and a tingling, cold feeling

17 in the hand that exacerbates the pain. Mr. Johnson has rated his pain level as high as 8 out of 10.

18

45. The pain caused by Mr. Johnson's carpal tunnel syndrome significantly limits his

19 ability to write and lift. This is especially problematic for Mr. Johnson because he is right-hand-

20 dominant. He recently fell while attempting to climb into his top bunk because his hand "gave

21 out."
22
46.
23 pam.
24
47.
25

Mr. Johnson generally gets only four to five hours of sleep per night due to the Mr. Johnson has notified DOC medical staff repeatedly over the past several year

COMPLAINT- Page 9

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 10 of 17

1 about the significant pain in his right hand and wrist and has requested appropriate treatment.

2

48. Mr. Johnson's medical providers have tried several conservative measures to treat

3 the pain in his hand, including different pain medications and allowing him to wear two gloves t

4 address the cold sensation in his hand.

5

49. None of the treatment DOC has provided has been effective in reducing the

6 chronic pain in Mr. Johnson's right hand. In fact, he has notified staff that his condition has

7 worsened. His hand also remains freezing cold, particularly during the winter.

8

50. On October 10, 2013, Mr. Johnson's DOC medical provider requested that the

9
CRC approve surgical treatment for Mr. Johnson's right hand and wrist to treat his pain.
10
51. On October 23, 2013, the CRC denied the provider's request for surgery on the
11
grounds that it was "not medically necessary" under the Offender Health Plan. It did not
12

recommend alternative treatment. Mr. Johnson filed a grievance about the CRC's decision,
13

14 which was denied. He appealed the denial to the highest level possible. His appeals were denied.

15

52. Mr. Johnson's symptoms have not resolved. The pain in his right wrist remains

16 severe, he continues to have problems sleeping at night, and he has significant limitations on his

17 ability to write and lift.

18

53. Currently, DOC is not providing Mr. Johnson with any treatment for the pain in

19 his right hand and wrist.

20

54. As a result of Defendants' refusal to properly treat his condition, Mr. Johnson is

21 likely to continue suffering severe pain and limitations on basic daily activities.
22
The CRC is withholding needed medical care from Timothy Martin.
23
55. In 2013, while in DOC custody, Mr. Martin underwent surgery to repair a left
24
inguinal hernia. The surgery did not improve his condition.
25

COMPLAINT- Page 10

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 11 of 17

1

56. Since the surgery, Mr. Martin continues to experience a number of symptoms,

2 including chronic and substantial left inguinal pain radiating to his left testicle. At times, the pain

3 goes as high as 7-9 on a scale of 10. He can walk and climb stairs, but the pain is exacerbated by

4 certain activities such as running or certain movements, such as sitting or elevation of his left leg

5 He has also missed several meals and work, and has difficulty sleeping due to the pain.

6

57. Mr. Martin has reported his severe pain to DOC staff on multiple occasions and

7 has reported his frustration with DOC's failure to address his pain. He was told by his doctor that

8 he would have to "live with the pain" and that the focus was on the level of function rather than
9
pain control and that he was able to perform his activities of daily living and get along quite well
10
on the tier.
11
58. DOC has provided Mr. Martin with conservative treatment for his condition,
12
including various prescription and over-the-counter medications. This treatment has not
13
14 improved his condition.

15

59. On July 16, 2014, the Care Review Committee denied Mr. Martin's provider's

16 request for an abdominal/pelvic CT scan and use of intermittent opioids for his pain. It did not

17 suggest alternative treatment. DOC referred Mr. Martin to the doctor who performed the original

18 surgery on his left inguinal hernia. On August 12, 2014, the surgeon opined that the pain could
19 be a possible postoperative recurrence of the hernia; neurogenic pain from the illoguinal nerve;
20 or be due to pressure by mesh or suture. He performed an ilioinguinal nerve injection with
21 ultrasound guidance. He also recommended aCT of Mr. Martin's pelvis and a repeat illoguinal
22 nerve injection with ultrasound guidance. He asked Mr. Martin to return after the CT was
23
obtained. On August 20, 2014, the CRC again denied Mr. Martin's provider's request for a
24
pelvic CT scan.
25

COMPLAINT- Page 11

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 981 04 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 12 of 17

1

60. The ilioinguinal nerve injection provided some mild relief for Mr. Martin. On

2 November 5, 2014, the Care Review Committee denied Mr. Martin's provider's request for a

3 repeat ultrasound-guided inguinal nerve injection.

4

61. Mr. Martin filed a grievance about the CRC's refusal to treat his medical

5 condition, which was denied. He appealed the decision to the highest level possible, but these

6 appeals were also denied.

7

62. As a result of Defendants' denial of the treatment necessary to properly treat his

8 condition, Mr. Martin is likely to continue suffering severe pain and limitations on basic daily 9
activities.

10
The CRC is withholding needed medical care from LeeShawn Redic.
11

12

63. In 2009, DOC medical staff diagnosed LeeShawn Redic with an umbilical hernia.

13 An umbilical hernia occurs when part of the intestine protrudes through the umbilical opening in

14 the abdominal muscles. An umbilical hernia can be painful.

15

64. Mr. Redic's hernia causes him chronic and substantial pain, sometimes as high as

16 6 or 7 on a scale of 10.

17

65. At times, Mr. Redic experiences so much pain and discomfort that he is unable to

18 work or eat. Due to the pain from the hernia, he was incapacitated for two entire days during

19 Thanksgiving time 2014 and was unable to attend DOC's holiday dinner.

20

66. The only way Mr. Redic can reduce the hernia and its accompanying pain is by

21 lying down. Some days he must lie in bed all day to relieve the pain. Though lying down
22
provides some relief to Mr. Redic, it is temporary and the pain returns when he stands.
23
67. Mr. Redic has notified DOC medical staff about his pain on several occasions and
24
25 has requested that DOC repair his hernia. However, the only treatment DOC has offered him is

COMPLAINT- Page 12

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 981 04
(206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 13 of 17

1 pain medication and directions to remain recumbent so that the hernia will reduce. DOC also
2 issued a Health Status Report, allowing Mr. Redic to remain on a lower bunk.

3

68. In 2009 and again in 2014, Mr. Redic's DOC medical provider requested

4 permission to refer him to a surgeon for hernia repair. In both instances the CRC voted to deny

5 the treating provider's request.

6

69. Mr. Redic filed a grievance about the CRC's refusal of treatment to repair his

7 hernia, which was denied. He appealed the decision to the highest level possible, but these

8 appeals were also denied.
9
70. Mr. Redic's hernia continues to cause him chronic and substantial pain and
10
interferes with activities such as eating, working, and the ability to leave his cell.
11
71. As a result of Defendants' refusal to properly treat his condition, Mr. Redic is
12
likely to continue suffering severe pain and limitations on basic daily activities.
13
14 Impact of Inadequate CRC System on Plaintiff Class

15

72. Each of the above-named Plaintiffs has been, and continues to be, significantly

16 harmed by DOC's policies and practices that have resulted in the denial of treatment or testing

17 for their serious medical conditions. Their cases are not isolated or uncommon. Rather, they

18 reflect a system-wide problem that results in a substantial and ongoing risk of serious harm for

19 all DOC prisoners with serious medical needs.

20

v. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

21

73. The named Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of the

22
following proposed class:

23

All current and future prisoners, incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the

24

Washington Department of Corrections, whose access to necessary medical care

has been denied, or will be subject to denial, under the Department's policies and

25

practices governing access to health care requiring prior approval.

COMPLAINT- Page 13

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 14 of 17

1

Numerosity: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(l)

2

74. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. As of June

3 30,2015, there were approximately 16,700 prisoners confined in DOC prisons, all ofwhom rely

4 on Defendants for their medical care. Due to Defendants' policies and practices, thousands of

5 prisoners are denied or at risk of denial of adequate treatment for serious medical needs while

6 confined in DOC prisons.

7

75. The proposed class includes future prisoners, which makes joinder not just

8 impracticable, but impossible.

9
76. The Plaintiff class members are identifiable using records maintained in the

10
ordinary course of business by DOC.

11

Commonality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)
12

13

77. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the class,

14 including:

15

(a) Whether Defendants' policies and practices governing the approval of

16

proposed medical care expose the class to a substantial risk of serious harm

17

and lead to arbitrary, unsound, and counter-therapeutic clinical decisions;

18

(b) Whether CRC members exercise appropriate medical judgment when they

19

vote to approve or deny proposed care without examining the patient and

20

without reviewing his or her medical records;

21

(c) Whether Defendants regularly disregard patients' reports of chronic and

22
substantial pain when considering whether or not to approve medical care; an

23
(d) Whether prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they limit a
24

patient's medical care to conservative, relatively-low-cost treatment options,
25

COMPLAINT- Page 14

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 15 of 17

1

denying access to more costly treatment when the conservative measures fail

2

and the patient remains in chronic or substantial pain.

3

Typicality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)

4

78. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Plaintiff class. They arise

5 from Defendants' application of the same policies and practices, and are based on the same legal

6 theories as the claims of the class.

7

Adequacy of Representation: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)

8

79. Plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the class

9
because Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to the class. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the
10
unlawful acts and omissions of the Defendants, which harm the class as well as themselves.
11
Finally, Plaintiffs are represented by a team of counsel experienced in civil rights litigation,
12
prisoners' rights litigation, and complex class action litigation.
13

14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

15

80. This action is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

16 because Defendants' policies and practices that form the basis of the Complaint are common to,

17 and apply generally to, all members of the class. Furthermore, Defendants have acted or refuse to

18 act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making class-wide injunctive and

19 declaratory relief appropriate.

20

VI. CLAIM FOR RELIEF

21

VIOLATION OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT

22

81. The Defendants have acted, and continue to act, with deliberate indifference to th

23 serious medical needs of the Plaintiffs and the proposed class.

24

82. By their actions and omissions, taken under color of state law, Defendants have

25 violated, and continue to violate, the rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class

COMPLAINT-Page 15

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 16 of 17

to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, guaranteed to them by the Eighth Amendment to
1
2 the United States Constitution. Defendants' constitutional violations are actionable under 42
3 u.s.c. § 1983.

4

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

5

Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the following relief:

6

83. Certification ofthe class defined above;

7

84. A declaration that Defendants' policies and practices governing the prior approval

8 of medical care requested by DOC medical providers and care by specialists not employed by

9
DOC violate the Eighth Amendment;

10
85. Preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining Defendants from denying,

11
without reasonable medical justification, necessary care for the Plaintiffs' and class members'
12

serious medical needs;
13

14

86. An award of Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs under 42

15 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable statute or court rule;

16

87. Leave to conform the pleadings to the evidence presented at trial; and

17

88. Such other and further relief as justice may require.

18

DATED this 17th day ofNovember, 2015.

19 20 21
22
23 24 25
COMPLAINT-Page 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
Is/ MERF E. EHMAN
MERF E. EHMAN, WSBA #29231 Attorney for Plaintiffs Merf.Ehman@Columbialegal.org
Is/ NICHOLAS B. ALLEN
NICHOLAS B. ALLEN, WSBA #42990 Attorney for Plaintiffs Nick.Allen@Columbialegal.org
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 17 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
COMPLAINT- Page 17

Is/ MELISSA R. LEE MELISSA R. LEE, WSBA #38808
Attorney for Plaintiffs Melissa.Lee@Columbialegal.org
Columbia Legal Services Institutions Project 101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-5933 -phone (206) 382-3386- fax
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW GROUP, PLLC
Is/ HANK L. BALSON HANK L. BALSON, WSBA #29250
hbalson@pilg.org Attorney for Plaintiffs
Public Interest Law Group, PLLC 705 2nd Avenue, Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 838-1800
MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
Is/DAVID J. WHEDBEE DAVID J. WHEDBEE, WSBA #35977 davidw@mhb.com Attorney for Plaintiffs
Is/ JESSE A. WING
JESSE A. WING, WSBA #27751 jessew@mhb.com Attorney for Plaintiffs
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 2nd Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 981 04 (206) 464-0838

 
 Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 125 Filed 09/18/17 Page 1 of 10

1

DISTRICT JUDGE RICHARD A. JONES

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE 9

10 DANIEL HALDANE, WENDEL 11 JOHNSON, TIMOTHY MARTIN, and
LEESHAWN REDIC,

12 Plaintiffs,

13

vs.

No. 15-CV-1810 ORDER

14 G. STEVEN HAMMOND, M.D., Chief Medical Officer of the Washington State
15 Department of Corrections, and DAN PACHOLKE, Secretary of the Washington
16 State Department of Corrections, in their
17 official capacities,

18

Defendants.

19

20

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification 21
and Appointment of Class Counsel. Dkt. ## 47, 81. Defendants oppose the Motion. 22
Dkt. # 90. Having considered the parties’ briefs and balance of the record, the Court

23

ORDER-1

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 125 Filed 09/18/17 Page 2 of 10

1 finds oral argument unnecessary. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES
2 Plaintiffs’ Motion.

3

II. BACKGROUND

4

Plaintiffs are prisoners in the custody of the Washington Department of

5 Corrections (DOC). Dkt. # 1 (Complaint). DOC’s healthcare services are subject to the
6 Offender Health Plan (OHP). Id. at ¶ 9. The OHP defines what types of medical care are “medically necessary.” Id. at ¶ 10; see also Dkt. # 47-1 at 11-12 (defining “medical
7 necessity”). The OHP segregates care into three Levels: Level 1 care is considered
8 medically necessary such that a practitioner may authorize treatment; Level 2 care
9 constitutes care that may be medically necessary but requires authorization by the Care

10 Review Committee (CRC); Level 3 care is not medically necessary and therefore a

11 practitioner may not authorize treatment. Dkt. ## 47-1 at 13, 47-2 at 1.

12

The CRC is composed of physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners.

Dkt. ## 1 (Complaint) at ¶ 13, 47-2 at 2-5 (describing the CRC Review Procedure). The 13
committee meets every week for a teleconference that lasts up to two hours. Dkt. # 1 14
(Complaint) at ¶ 15. The committee decides whether Level 2 care should be
15 authorized—thereby raising it to Level 1 status—or denied—demoting it to Level 3.

16

Plaintiffs each have ailments for which their providers submitted requests to the

17 CRC for specific treatment. See generally Dkt. # 1 (Complaint) at ¶¶ 26-71. The CRC

18 denied treatment, and Plaintiffs claim that the refusals lead to their continued suffering

19 from severe pain and limitations on daily living. Id. at ¶¶ 41, 54, 62, 71. Plaintiffs argue

that the CRC is unreasonably denying care not just to the named plaintiffs but to an entire 20
class of inmates. Accordingly, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against DOC and its 21
Chief Medical Officer and Secretary.

22

III. LEGAL STANDARD

23

The Court’s decision to certify a class is discretionary. Vinole v. Countrywide

ORDER-2

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 125 Filed 09/18/17 Page 3 of 10

1 Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 944 (9th Cir. 2009). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
2 (“Rule 23”) guides the Court’s exercise of discretion. A plaintiff “bears the burden of

3 demonstrating that he has met each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least

4 one of the [three alternative] requirements of Rule 23(b).” Lozano v. AT&T Wireless

5 Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 724 (9th Cir. 2007). Rule 23(a) requires a plaintiff to

6 demonstrate that the proposed class is sufficiently numerous, that it presents common
issues of fact or law, that it will be led by one or more class representatives with claims 7
typical of the class, and that the class representative will adequately represent the class.
8 Gen. Tel. Co. of the S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

9

If a plaintiff satisfies the Rule 23(a) requirements, he must also show that the

10 proposed class action meets one of the three requirements of Rule 23(b). Zinser v.

11 Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiffs move

12 for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) requires that “the party
opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, 13
so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting 14
the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) is met where “a single 15 injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class.”
16 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 360 (2011).

17

In considering Rule 23’s requirements, the Court must engage in a “rigorous

18 analysis,” but a “rigorous analysis does not always result in a lengthy explanation or in
19 depth review of the record.” Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Falcon, 457 U.S. at 161). The Court is neither permitted nor required to
20 conduct a “preliminary inquiry into the merits” of the plaintiff’s claims. Blackie v.
21 Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901 (9th Cir. 1975) (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417
22 U.S. 156, 177 (1974)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory committee’s note (2003)

23 (“[A]n evaluation of the probable outcome on the merits is not properly part of the

certification decision.”); but see Dukes, 564 U.S. at 351 (suggesting that Rule 23 analysis

ORDER-3

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 125 Filed 09/18/17 Page 4 of 10

1 may be inextricable from some judgments on the merits in a particular case). The Court
2 may assume the truth of a plaintiff’s substantive allegations, but may require more than

3 bare allegations to determine whether a plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule

4 23. See, e.g., Blackie, 524 F.2d at 901, n.17; Clark v. Watchie, 513 F.2d 994, 1000 (9th

5 Cir. 1975) (“If the trial judge has made findings as to the provisions of the Rule and their

6 application to the case, his determination of class status should be considered within his
discretion.”). 7
IV. DISCUSSION
8 Plaintiffs propose that the Court certify the following class:

9

All current and future prisoners, incarcerated under the

10

jurisdiction of the Washington Department of Corrections,

11

whose access to necessary medical care has been denied, or

12

will be subject to denial, under the Department’s policies and

practices governing access to health care requiring prior 13
approval. 14
Dkt. # 1 (Complaint) at ¶ 73. The Court takes issue with Plaintiffs’ ability to satisfy Rule
15 23(a)’s commonality requirement and will therefore limit its analysis to this core

16 requirement of Rule 23(a).

17

A. Commonality

18

Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a). Plaintiffs rely

19 on Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014), to show that their allegations satisfy

Rule 23 and to urge this Court to grant class certification. Though the Court agrees that 20
Parsons is on point in this matter, the Court disagrees that Parsons aids the Plaintiffs in 21
their arguments.

22

In Parsons, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s order granting class

23 certification. There, the plaintiffs’ 74-page complaint detailed the Arizona Department of

Correction’s (ADC) mass deficiencies, going so far as to outline fifteen specific, uniform,

ORDER-4

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 125 Filed 09/18/17 Page 5 of 10

1 statewide policies and practices that exposed all ADC’s inmates to a substantial risk of
2 harm. Id. at 664. The complaint included graphic examples in which medical staff gave

3 prisoners expired medication, caused prisoners to reuse catheters, and delayed care when

4 outside contracts were cancelled. Id. at 664-666 n.5-7. Additional examples included

5 correctional officers standing by while a prisoner bled to death after a suicide attempt and

6 failing to perform CPR on a patient who collapsed from a heart attack. Id. The plaintiffs
argued that the defendants’ policies and practices violated the Eighth Amendment 7
because they were deliberately indifferent to inmates’ health and safety and exposed
8 inmates to a substantial risk of serious harm.

9

The plaintiffs supported their motion for class certification in Parsons with ample

10 evidence collected through the discovery process. Some of the more pertinent documents

11 included communications between the ADC and its health services provider in which

12 ADC “identified serious and systemic deficiencies in [the health services provider’s]
provision of health care to ADC inmates.” Id. at 668. The health services provider 13
responded by “condemn[ing] the low quality of ADC’s preexisting programs.” Id. Other 14
documents obtained through discovery uncovered practitioners’ warnings of “abysmal 15 staffing” that was “‘grossly insufficient’ and ‘so limited that patient safety and orderly
16 operation of ADC facilities may be significantly compromised.’” Id. (docket citations

17 omitted).

18

The plaintiffs further supported their motion in Parsons with unrebutted expert

19 reports that validated the practitioners’ criticisms. Id. at 669-671. The reports were
detailed and included observations that there were system-wide defects and deficiencies 20
that “placed prisoners at serious risk of harm, and in some cases, death.” Id. at 669. The 21
plaintiffs also included declarations by the named plaintiffs describing their experiences
22 with ADC policies. Id. at 672.

23

ORDER-5

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 125 Filed 09/18/17 Page 6 of 10

1 Having reviewed the evidence and the lower court’s conclusions, the Ninth Circuit
2 agreed that the plaintiffs had satisfied the elements of Rule 23(a). 1 As to the 3 commonality requirement, the court found that all ADC inmates were exposed to

4 “specified statewide ADC policies and practices that govern the overall conditions of

5 health care services and confinement,” and this exposure resulted in “a substantial risk of

6 serious future harm to which the defendants are deliberately indifferent.” Id. at 678. The
court found that the identified policies and practices were “the ‘glue’ that holds together 7
the putative class . . . either each of the policies and practices is unlawful as to every
8 inmate or it is not.” Id.

9

Plaintiffs in this case attempt to bring what they believe are similar claims against

10 DOC. Like in Parsons, Plaintiffs’ claims are grounded in the Eighth Amendment.

11 Though the Court does not expressly analyze the merits of the claims at this stage in

12 litigation, it must briefly consider the nature of the underlying claims to properly analyze

whether the claims meet Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement. Accordingly, the Court 13
reiterates that Plaintiffs’ carry the burden to prove that Defendants were “deliberately 14
indifferent to policies and practices that expose inmates to a substantial risk of serious
15 harm.” Id. at 677.

16

In contrast to the plaintiffs in Parsons, Plaintiffs in this case have not adequately

17 identified common policies and practices to show that Defendants were deliberately

18 indifferent to inmates’ needs. Without proving a common set of policies and practices
19 exist, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden under Rule 23(a)(2). Plaintiffs specifically identify four questions of law and fact that they claim are common to the
20 class. Dkt. # 1 (Complaint) at ¶ 77. These questions have their own common theme:
21 whether the CRC systematically and unreasonably denies Level 2 claims. In their
22 Complaint, Plaintiffs outline the CRC meetings in which members spend one to two
23
1 Parsons is an extreme case. Parsons, 754 F.3d at 683 (“Here, however, the plaintiffs have met, and indeed far exceeded, that requirement.”). By no means is Parsons the floor Plaintiffs must surpass to succeed on their Motion.

ORDER-6

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 125 Filed 09/18/17 Page 7 of 10

1 hours reviewing dozens of cases. Id. at ¶ 15. Plaintiffs explain that many CRC members
2 are not as familiar with the areas of medicine as the patients’ treating physicians and on 3 many occasions have not had the opportunity to physically examine the patient. Id. at ¶¶

4 14, 18. Plaintiffs claim that these faults are evidence of deliberate indifference.

5

To support their motion, Plaintiffs include various declarations, deposition

excerpts, and an expert report2 attempting to illustrate that the care afforded to DOC 6

prisoners is subpar. By way of example, Plaintiffs include an exchange between DOC 7
physicians in which one physician remarks that DOC physicians “walk a fine line
8 between medical necessity in the OHP and what would be a charge of medical

9 malpractice on the outside.” Dkt. # 47-11 at 18. Plaintiffs’ expert, Todd Wilcox, opined

10 on the inadequacy of the CRC to make educated judgments as to medical necessity for

11 many of the treatment regimens proposed by prisoners’ treating physicians. Dkt. # 47-11

12 at 3-7. Dr. Wilcox targeted the CRC’s lack of specialized care and failure to defer to
treating physicians as a deviation from the standard of care in healthcare. Id. at 4. 13
CRC members explained in depositions that meetings often turned on how the 14
committee could “justify a no” when considering treatment. Dkt. # 47-5 at 36. Some 15 members strategized ways to obtain necessary care for their patients, sometimes by
16 asking for more care than necessary so that a concession would result in the correct

17 amount of care. Dkt. # 72 at 8. But none of these members admitted that a perceived

18 culture of “no” affected their own behavior or caused them to vote against their
19 judgment. CRC members opined on whether some mid-level medical staff were less “independent,” but no CRC members affirmatively answered that another member had
20 been swayed by non-medical reasons.
21 Though Plaintiffs’ evidence is certainly concerning and could evidence poor
22 performance—or even malpractice—on the part of DOC practitioners, it does not
23
2 Unlike the expert reports described in Parsons, Dr. Wilcox’s report is full of generalities. Dkt. # 47-11 at 1-14. The Court would not expect Defendants to expend resources submitting a rebuttal to this particular report.

ORDER-7

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 125 Filed 09/18/17 Page 8 of 10

1 evidence a common policy or practice by the CRC to systematically and unreasonably
2 deny care. In opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants provided declarations from

3 treating doctors explaining why they proposed certain treatment regimens and the reasons

4 the CRC may have denied those suggestions. See, e.g., Dkt. # 93 at 1-14. Plaintiffs

5 submitted medical records that corroborated the doctors’ declarations, oftentimes
6 evidencing a concerted and prolonged effort to treat and care for the inmates. For example, an inmate, L.G., submitted a declaration alleging that the CRC’s initial denials
7 of a colonoscopy led to a late finding of colon cancer. Dkt. # 58 at 1-7. But L.G.’s
8 medical records show that a single request for a colonoscopy was made to the CRC,
9 which the CRC granted. Dkt. # 58-2 at 3. L.G’s treating physician, Dr. Mary Colter,

10 stated that the clinic began treating L.G. in December 2010 with a computed tomography

11 scan, followed by more than sixteen follow-up visits in 2011, twenty visits in 2012, and

12 eight visits in 2013. Dkt. # 93 at 4. In September 2014, L.G. reported that she had had
rectal bleeding at some point prior but failed to report to the clinic. Id. L.G.’s case was 13
presented only once to the CRC—in December 2014—at which point the CRC approved 14
the requested colonoscopy. Id. at 5. Said differently, the CRC was not involved in 15 L.G.’s case prior to December 2014 and therefore could not have acted indifferently
16 toward her until it was presented with her file. And, when presented with L.G.’s case, the

17 CRC approved the recommended course of treatment.

18

Plaintiffs target the CRC in their lawsuit, but the evidence they present to the

19 Court does not validate their claims. Rather, the parties’ evidence shows disagreements
about which treatment options are more appropriate for each patient. See, e.g., Dkt. ## 20
47-5 at 25 (a physician’s assistant (PA) explains that it is “not uncommon for [inmates] to 21
be tapered off of gabapentin to try other modalities” even though the PA, herself, may
22 disagree with this treatment decision), 94-1 at 7-8 (explaining different ways a surgeon

23 could approach a hernia repair that would be within the definition of “medical

necessity”). But disagreements between physicians do not amount to Eighth Amendment

ORDER-8

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 125 Filed 09/18/17 Page 9 of 10

1 violations. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976) (“But the question whether an X-
2 ray or additional diagnostic techniques or forms of treatment is indicated is a classic

3 example of a matter for medical judgment. A medical decision not to order an X-ray, or

4 like measures, does not represent cruel and unusual punishment. At most it is medical

5 malpractice, and as such the proper forum is the state court . . . .”); see also Jackson v.
6 McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (“To prevail under these principles, [the plaintiff] must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically
7 unacceptable under the circumstances, and the plaintiff must show that they chose this
8 course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff's health.”) (internal citations
9 omitted). Neither does “every claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate

10 medical treatment state[] a violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at

11 291. To be clear, the common question presented for class certification is whether the

12 CRC’s policies and practices have resulted in Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the

proposed class such that the class is exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm. But, as 13

pled and argued, the Court does not find common policies and practices that amount to
14 deliberate indifference.

15

Plaintiffs’ Reply includes a declaration from a new expert, Dr. Straley. Dkt. ##

16 105, 108. Dr. Straley appears to address the deficiencies in the OHP. The OHP,

17 generally, is not before the Court for consideration. Much of Plaintiffs’ Reply

18 improperly includes arguments and evidence that were absent from both Plaintiffs’
19 Complaint and their motion for class certification, both of which focus solely on the CRC and are supported primarily by Dr. Wilcox’s report. By raising new arguments on Reply
20 that are not present in their Complaint, Plaintiffs have failed to put Defendants on notice
21 to the claims against which they must defend and denied them the opportunity to respond
22 to the arguments in responsive briefs. The Court will not consider the new arguments

23 and evidence raised for the first time in Plaintiffs’ Reply. See Bridgham-Morrison v.

ORDER-9

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 125 Filed 09/18/17 Page 10 of 10

1 Nat'l Gen. Assurance Co., No. C15-927RAJ, 2015 WL 12712762, at *2 (W.D. Wash.
2 Nov. 16, 2015); see also U.S. v. Patterson, 230 F.3d 1168, 1172 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000).

3

The Plaintiffs specifically request that the Court certify a class action based upon

4 the policies and procedures of the CRC, but they have failed to meet their burden under

5 Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement. Accordingly, the Court need not analyze Rule
6 23(a)’s other requirements. V. CONCLUSION
7 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for class
8 certification. Dkt. ## 47, 81. This Order renders Mr. Wilton’s motion to intervene
9 MOOT. Dkt. # 114. The Court further DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike portions

10 of Plaintiffs’ reply. Dkt. # 112.

11

Dated this 18th day of September, 2017.

12

13

A

14

The Honorable Richard A. Jones

15

United States District Judge

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

ORDER-10

 
 Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 20

1

Hon. Richard A. Jones

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10
DANIEL HALDANE, TIMOTHY

11 MARTIN, and LEESHAWN REDIC, on No. 15cv-1810-RAJ-MAT

behalf of themselves and all others
12 similarly situated,

CLASS ACTION

13

Plaintiffs,

14

vs.

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION

15

K. GABRIELLE GASPAR, M.D., Chief

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY

16 Medical Officer of the Washington

RELIEF

Department of Corrections, and STEPHEN

17 SINCLAIR, Secretary of the Washington

Department of Corrections, in their official

18 capacities,

19

Defendants.

20

I. INTRODUCTION

21

This lawsuit challenges the Washington Department of Corrections’ (“DOC’s”) regular

22 practice of withholding necessary medical care from patients with serious and painful medical
23
conditions.
24
DOC denies patient-prisoners access to constitutionally adequate medical care by
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 1 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 2 of 20

1 utilizing a healthcare preapproval system that regularly results in arbitrary and medically 2 unsound decisions. DOC’s inadequate preapproval system denies medically necessary treatment 3 to Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, by allowing a committee of clinicians and

4 administrators who have little familiarity with the patient to override the clinical

5 recommendations of the patient’s treating DOC practitioner and outside specialists. Under this

6 preapproval system, DOC regularly disregards evidence that a patient’s condition is causing

7 chronic and substantial pain and functional limitations. The Defendants’ failure to properly
8 review medical cases and their denials of necessary care expose Plaintiffs, and those similarly
9
situated, to a substantial risk of ongoing and unnecessary pain, functional limitations, and other
10
serious harm, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
11
The named Plaintiffs are prisoners in the custody of the DOC and are subject to DOC’s
12
policies governing the provision of medical care. Plaintiffs suffer from various medical
13 14 conditions that result in chronic and substantial pain or other conditions that warrant medical
15 treatment or evaluation that DOC has refused to provide. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
16 injunctive relief for themselves and for the proposed class they seek to represent.

17

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE

18

1. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. §

19 1343(a)(4). Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 – 2202.

20

2. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because at least

21 one Defendant resides in the Western District of Washington and because a substantial part of

22
the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.

23
24
Plaintiffs
25

III. PARTIES

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 2 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 3 of 20

1

3. Daniel Haldane is 49 years old and currently incarcerated at Monroe

2 Correctional Complex (“MCC”) in Monroe, Washington. Mr. Haldane has stage-3 kidney failure

3 and an undiagnosed condition that causes him to regularly pass large kidney stones. This

4 condition causes him chronic and substantial pain that interferes with his ability to eat and sleep.

5 Defendants refuse to provide Mr. Haldane with necessary diagnosis and treatment for this

6 condition.

7

4. Wendel Johnson is 61 years old and was, at all material times, incarcerated at

8 Airway Heights Corrections Center (“AHCC”) in Airway Heights, Washington. Mr. Johnson
9
suffers from a condition that causes him chronic and substantial pain and a tingling, cold
10
sensation in his right hand and wrist. The pain limits his ability to write, lift objects, and sleep.
11
Defendants refuse to provide him with necessary medical care for this condition.
12
5. Timothy Martin is 47 years old and currently incarcerated at MCC. Mr. Martin
13
14 suffers from chronic and substantial pain following a February 2013 hernia surgery. The pain

15 limits Mr. Martin’s ability to work, eat, and sleep. Defendants refuse to provide Mr. Martin with

16 necessary medical care for this condition.

17

6. LeeShawn Redic is 34 years old and currently incarcerated at Stafford Creek

18 Corrections Center (“SCCC”) in Aberdeen, Washington. Mr. Redic was diagnosed with a hernia

19 in 2009. Although the hernia causes him chronic and substantial pain that limits his ability to
20 work and eat, Defendants refuse to provide him with the necessary medical care to treat the
21 condition.
22
Defendants
23
7. K. Gabrielle Gaspar, M.D., is the Chief Medical Officer for DOC. In that role,
24
she has a duty to ensure that DOC provides constitutionally-adequate medical care to prisoners in
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 3 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 4 of 20

1 its custody. She has authority to approve or deny medical treatment for DOC prisoners. At all 2 times relevant to this action, Dr. Gaspar was acting under color of state law. Dr. Gaspar is sued 3 in her official capacity.

4

8. Stephen Sinclair is the Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections.

5 In that capacity, he is required to exercise all powers and perform all duties prescribed by law

6 with respect to the administration of Washington prisons, including adopting, implementing, and

7 enforcing policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners in DOC’s custody receive

8 constitutionally adequate medical care. He has the authority to direct the activities of subordinate

9
officers and other DOC employees. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Sinclair was acting

10
under color of state law. Mr. Sinclair is sued in his official capacity.

11

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12

A. Inadequate Medical Decision-Making Process in the Washington Department of

13

Corrections

14

9. Medical care for Washington prisoners is provided according to the terms of a

15 DOC-created Offender Health Plan (“OHP”).

16
10. The OHP defines what types of medical care the Department considers

17
“medically necessary” and authorizes DOC healthcare providers to administer only limited,
18

specified services to patients under their care without prior approval.
19

20

11. If a patient needs medical care that is not specifically listed as “medically

21 necessary” in the OHP, the DOC healthcare provider may not provide the treatment unless she

22 obtains preapproval.

23

12. If a DOC medical provider is unable to diagnose or adequately treat a patient’s

24 condition, he may not refer the patient to an outside specialist capable of doing so without

25 obtaining prior approval.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 4 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 5 of 20

1

13. Most medical provider requests for approval to treat or refer their patients are

2 decided by an internal utilization review body known as the DOC Care Review Committee

3 (“CRC”). The CRC consists of DOC physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners

4 from across the state who participate in a weekly conference call where they vote to approve or

5 deny medical care for patients in DOC custody.

6

14. The CRC reviews requests for medical care across a vast spectrum of specialties

7 including orthopedics, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, neurosurgery, audiology,
8 cardiology, dermatology, endocrinology otolaryngology, gastroenterology, infectious diseases,
9
internal medicine, ophthalmology, oncology, optometry, oral surgery, pain management,
10
prosthetics and orthotics, pulmonology, radiology, rheumatology, surgery and urology. However,
11
the CRC members voting on these cases do not necessarily have expertise in the area of concern.
12
15. Each CRC session lasts approximately one-and-a-half to two hours. During this
13 14 time, the committee addresses, on average, about fifteen to twenty cases, and sometimes many
15 more. On at least one occasion there were over sixty cases scheduled for presentation on a CRC
16 call.

17

16. Whether a patient will receive the care recommended by his or her treating

18 provider is determined by a majority vote of the CRC members present on the call.

19

17. The CRC members vote after hearing only a brief case summary presented by the

20 treating medical provider.

21

18. CRC members typically do not examine a patient or even review his or her

22
medical records before voting to approve or deny the care being recommended by the treating

23
medical provider.
24

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 5 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 6 of 20

1

19. The OHP recognizes “intractable pain” as a condition justifying medical

2 intervention. Yet, the CRC often disregards patients’ complaints of chronic and substantial pain

3 described in the case summary. As a result, the CRC regularly denies treatment to relieve

4 patients’ pain.

5

20. CRC decisions are based on committee members’ interpretation of the OHP, not

6 on the application of standardized medical criteria or objective clinical protocols.

7

21. CRC decisions are often arbitrary, resulting in patients being denied proposed

8 care even when their medical records indicate that the care is medically necessary according to
9
the OHP.
10
22. Upon information and belief, the CRC rejects approximately sixty percent of the
11
requests and recommendations submitted by patients’ treating medical providers.
12
23. Numerous patients in DOC custody, including the named Plaintiffs, have suffered
13
14 – and continue to suffer – chronic and substantial pain, functional limitations, and other

15 symptoms due to the CRC’s pattern and practice of denying care recommended by patients’

16 treating medical providers.

17

24. A patient who is denied medical care by the CRC may appeal the decision

18 through the normal DOC grievance process. However, DOC rarely reverses the decisions made

19 by the CRC.

20

25. Defendants are aware of these patterns and practices that deny needed medical

21 care to prisoners in their care, but refuse to take steps to remedy the problem. 22

23

24

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 6 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 7 of 20

1 B. Harm to Plaintiffs Caused by the Inadequate CRC System

2 The CRC is withholding needed medical care from Daniel Haldane.

3

26. Mr. Haldane has stage-3 kidney disease and an undiagnosed medical condition

4 that results in calcium deposits throughout his body. Mr. Haldane has experienced many of the

5 common symptoms of kidney disease, which include nausea and vomiting, weakness and

6 fatigue, decreased mental sharpness, chest pain, shortness of breath, high blood pressure and

7 sleep problems.

8

27. Mr. Haldane also has an undiagnosed medical condition that causes him to pass

9
large kidney stones on a regular basis. Kidney stones are hard mineral deposits that form inside

10
the kidneys. Even small ones can be painful to pass out of the body. Symptoms include severe
11
pain in the side and back, pain below the ribs, pain that spreads to the lower abdomen and groin,
12
pain that comes in waves and fluctuates in intensity, pain on urination, pink, red or brown urine,
13

14 cloudy or foul-smelling urine, nausea and vomiting, persistent need to urinate, urinating more

15 often than usual, and fever and chills if an infection is present.

16

28. When Mr. Haldane is passing kidney stones he experiences severe pain that goes

17 as high as 10 out of 10. On those occasions he cannot get out of bed or eat. The pain forced him

18 to quit his job as a dog handler in the prison’s dog training program.

19

29. Mr. Haldane passes approximately one kidney stone per month, and has

20 approximately three to four kidney-stone-related symptoms every sixty days.

21

30. Mr. Haldane has experienced kidney problems since at least 2006, when housed at

22
Monroe Correctional Complex. At that time he received treatment for pain control, including

23
being sent to the hospital for a CT scan and medications.
24
31. In 2006 or 2007, DOC medical staff performed a CT scan on Mr. Haldane that
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 7 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 8 of 20

1 revealed seven stones on one side and three or four on the other. Medical staff told him to let the

2 stones pass naturally.

3

32. In 2011, Mr. Haldane was seen by an outside urologist. The urologist found a

4 number of sizable stones in his kidneys.

5

33. On one occasion, while the prison was on lockdown, Mr. Haldane had a kidney-

6 stone episode. His body temperature rose significantly and he began urinating blood. Mr.

7 Haldane declared an emergency and was taken to the hospital.

8

34. On September 1, 2010, Mary Keppler, ARNP at the Monroe Correctional Center

9 (MCC), presented to the CRC a request on behalf of Mr. Haldane for “intermittent long-term

10 opioids.” Under the heading “Case Synopsis/Differential or Working Diagnosis” Ms. Keppler

11
wrote:

12

43-year-old male well known to shower frequent small renal lithiasis. Stones have

13

been analyzed, diet has been altered to the best extent possible within DOC. In-

house urologist has directed serial studies, clinic visits and written: 5/5/09 “Pt

14

may not have blood in his urine when he has a stone. It is possible for said stone

to completely obstruct ureter & then no blood will be seen on UA.” Refers to his

15

note of 12/27/07; [“]Oxycodone 10mg q 4 hours pm X 4 days, Flomax 0.4mg qd

16

x 5, Toradol 10mg po q 6 hours x 5 days, Prednisone 20mg qd x 5 days, Procardia XL 30mg po qd x 5 days...” This is an on-going issue > 5 years with objective

17

evidence of recurring stones.”

18

35. The CRC, presided over by Dr. Hammond, approved the request for the proposed

19 intervention. The note accompanying the Care Review Committee Report stated: “The group

20 agreed that intermittent long-term use of opioids is medically necessary.” (underlining in

21 original).

22

36. In 2013 and 2014, Mr. Haldane periodically declared a medical emergency for his

23
kidney stone blockages and the related acute pain that he suffered while passing the stones. The

24
medical staff at Coyote Ridge Correctional Center, where Mr. Haldane had been transferred, did

25

not adhere to the CRC directive from September 2010 authorizing intermittent opioid use as

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 8

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT

Institutions Project 101 Yesler Way, Suite 300

10905.01 lc151401

Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 9 of 20

1 medically necessary. On these occasions, a physician’s assistant, Jonathon Neau, required that

2 Mr. Haldane be admitted for observation and disregarded the 2010 CRC directive.

3

37. On May 24, 2013, while at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, Mr. Haldane

4 was taken to Kadlec Hospital in Kennewick, Washington. Medical staff there discovered two

5 large masses on his kidneys – one measuring 14 mm on his right kidney and one measuring 6-7

6 mm on his left side. The doctors at Kadlec told him he needed to see a urologist and found that

7 Mr. Haldane produces large amounts of calcium, resulting in calcium deposits on his elbows,

8 feet, and other parts of his body. The treating physician at Kadlec recommended that a “CT scan
9
may be helpful.”
10
38. In August 2014, DOC transferred Mr. Haldane back to MCC.
11
39. DOC waited two years, until June 2015, before it authorized the CT scan
12
recommended at Kadlec. An outside provider, Dr. Seth Thaler, noted the size of the stones
13
14 historically, finding that Mr. Haldane “has chronic pain related to the stones and has been treated

15 with narcotics in the past,” and “is likely to produce stones” in the future.

16

40. Despite the documented history of recurrent nephrolithiasis (kidney stones), and

17 the associated acute and chronic pain that DOC treated with intermittent narcotic pain

18 medication, DOC has ceased authorizing any pain treatment through opioids.

19

41. DOC offered to prescribe Torodol to Mr. Haldane to treat his pain. He did not

20 take the Torodol, based on the recommendation of the outside urologist he saw in 2011.

21 According to PubMed Health, Torodol should not be taken by a patient with advanced kidney
22
disease.
23
42. The only pain management DOC has provided during Mr. Haldane’s documented
24
bouts of passing kidney stones is intermittent Tylenol, which has proved ineffective. On May 10,
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 9 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 10 of 20

1 2017, the CRC, chaired by Dr. Hammond, rejected Mr. Haldane’s request to provide opiates 2 during his periodic bouts of intense pain when passing kidney stones. The CRC decided that “no 3 further narcotics,” but that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “NSAIDS” were “OK.” The

4 CRC denied intermittent use of opioid medication, despite its earlier finding that such treatment

5 for Mr. Haldane’s pain was “medically necessary.” It offered no explanation or medical

6 justification for its reversal.

7

43. DOC has provided conservative treatment to treat Mr. Haldane’s kidney

8 problems, including various pain medications that have not been effective at reducing his pain or
9
the production of kidney stones.
10
44. Mr. Haldane filed a grievance about the refusal of treatment, which was denied.
11
He appealed the denial to the highest level possible, but the appeals were also denied.
12
45. Mr. Haldane continues to suffer chronic and substantial pain due to his regular
13
14 passage of large kidney stones. He continues to have trouble eating and sleeping, which affects

15 his mental health.

16

46. As a result of Defendants’ refusal to properly treat his condition, Mr. Haldane is

17 likely to continue suffering severe pain and limitations on basic daily activities.

18

47. The DOC medical staff, including Dr. Hammond, have disregarded Mr. Haldane’s

19 credible complaints of acute and chronic pain related to his bouts of passing kidney stones. DOC
20 medical staff have done so despite the CRC’s finding that Mr. Haldane’s suffers from this 21 chronic and substantial pain and its finding that use of intermittent opioids is medically necessary 22
to treat such pain.
23

24

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 10 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 11 of 20

1 The CRC is withholding needed medical care from Wendel Johnson.

2

48. Wendel Johnson was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome before coming to

3 DOC. He has pain in his right wrist and hand, which has existed since at least 2007.

4

49. Carpal tunnel syndrome is a condition that causes numbness, tingling or pain and

5 other symptoms in the hand and wrist. Left untreated, it can lead to permanent nerve and muscle

6 damage.

7

50. Mr. Johnson experiences a number of symptoms related to his carpal tunnel

8 syndrome, including constant, severe pain in his right hand and wrist, and a tingling, cold feeling
9
in the hand that exacerbates the pain. Mr. Johnson has rated his pain level as high as 8 out of 10.
10
51. The pain caused by Mr. Johnson’s carpal tunnel syndrome significantly limits his
11
ability to write and lift. This is especially problematic for Mr. Johnson because he is right-hand-
12
dominant. He recently fell while attempting to climb into his top bunk because his hand “gave
13
14 out.”

15

52. Mr. Johnson generally gets only four to five hours of sleep per night due to the

16 pain.

17

53. Mr. Johnson has notified DOC medical staff repeatedly over the past several years

18 about the significant pain in his right hand and wrist and has requested appropriate treatment.

19

54. Mr. Johnson’s medical providers have tried several conservative measures to treat

20 the pain in his hand, including different pain medications and allowing him to wear two gloves to

21 address the cold sensation in his hand.
22
55. None of the treatment DOC has provided has been effective in reducing the
23
chronic pain in Mr. Johnson’s right hand. In fact, he has notified staff that his condition has
24
worsened. His hand also remains freezing cold, particularly during the winter.
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 11 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 12 of 20

1

56. On October 10, 2013, Mr. Johnson’s DOC medical provider requested that the

2 CRC approve surgical treatment for Mr. Johnson’s right hand and wrist to treat his pain.

3

57. On October 23, 2013, the CRC denied the provider’s request for surgery on the

4 grounds that it was “not medically necessary” under the Offender Health Plan. It did not

5 recommend alternative treatment. Mr. Johnson filed a grievance about the CRC’s decision,

6 which was denied. He appealed the denial to the highest level possible. His appeals were denied.

7

58. Mr. Johnson’s symptoms have not resolved. The pain in his right wrist remains

8 severe, he continues to have problems sleeping at night, and he has significant limitations on his
9
ability to write and lift.
10
59. Currently, DOC is not providing Mr. Johnson with any treatment for the pain in
11
his right hand and wrist.
12
60. As a result of Defendants’ refusal to properly treat his condition, Mr. Johnson is
13
14 likely to continue suffering severe pain and limitations on basic daily activities.

15 The CRC is withholding needed medical care from Timothy Martin.

16

61. In 2013, while in DOC custody, Mr. Martin underwent surgery to repair a left

17 inguinal hernia. The surgery did not improve his condition.

18

62. Since the surgery, Mr. Martin continues to experience a number of symptoms,

19 including chronic and substantial left inguinal pain radiating to his left testicle. At times, the pain
20 goes as high as 7-9 on a scale of 10. He can walk and climb stairs, but the pain is exacerbated by
21 certain activities such as running or certain movements, such as sitting or elevation of his left leg.
22
He has also missed several meals and work, and has difficulty sleeping due to the pain.
23
63. Mr. Martin has reported his severe pain to DOC staff on multiple occasions and
24
has reported his frustration with DOC’s failure to address his pain. He was told by his doctor that
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 12 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 13 of 20

1 he would have to “live with the pain” and that the focus was on the level of function rather than 2 pain control and that he was able to perform his activities of daily living and get along quite well 3 on the tier.

4

64. DOC has provided Mr. Martin with conservative treatment for his condition,

5 including various prescription and over-the-counter medications. This treatment has not

6 improved his condition.

7

65. On July 16, 2014, the Care Review Committee denied Mr. Martin’s provider’s

8 request for an abdominal/pelvic CT scan and use of intermittent opioids for his pain. It did not
9
suggest alternative treatment. DOC referred Mr. Martin to the doctor who performed the original
10
surgery on his left inguinal hernia. On August 12, 2014, the surgeon opined that the pain could
11
be a possible postoperative recurrence of the hernia; neurogenic pain from the illoguinal nerve;
12
or be due to pressure by mesh or suture. He performed an illoinguinal nerve injection with
13
14 ultrasound guidance. He also recommended a CT of Mr. Martin’s pelvis and a repeat illoguinal

15 nerve injection with ultrasound guidance. He asked Mr. Martin to return after the CT was

16 obtained. On August 20, 2014, the CRC again denied Mr. Martin’s provider’s request for a

17 pelvic CT scan.

18

66. The illoinguinal nerve injection provided some mild relief for Mr. Martin. On

19 November 5, 2014, the Care Review Committee denied Mr. Martin’s provider’s request for a

20 repeat ultrasound-guided inguinal nerve injection.

21

67. One of the few treatments DOC did provide to Mr. Martin to treat the pain

22
associated with this condition was the use of a hot water bottle. DOC first approved an HSR for

23
use of a hot water bottle on September 2013. Renewals of this HSR were regularly provided.
24

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 13 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 14 of 20

1

68. On June 7, 2017, the CRC discontinued issuance of his hot water bottle as not

2 medically necessary.

3

69. Mr. Martin grieved the CRC’s denial of its continued issuance of a hot water

4 bottle to treat his pain in August 2017, administratively exhausted his appeals on this issue,

5 which were all denied by DOC.

6

70. On May 20, 2016, Mr. Martin was seen by his primary care provider due to a

7 lump in his umbilical area that was causing pain and discomfort. He was seen by an outside

8 surgeon for this condition, who on June 9, 2016, diagnosed him with a new epigastric hernia.

9
The surgeon recommended a surgical repair of the hernia.

10
71. On July 27, 2016, Mr. Martin’s case was presented to the CRC for repair of the
11
epigastric hernia. The CRC rejected the surgeon’s recommendation for repair of the hernia as not
12
medically necessary.
13

14

72. Mr. Martin grieved the CRC’s denial of treatment for his epigastric hernia and on

15 November 26, 2016, administratively exhausted his appeals on this issue, which were all denied

16 by DOC.

17

73. Mr. Martin continues to suffer from chronic and substantial pain in his left groin

18 and umbilical areas.

19

74. Mr. Martin filed a grievance about the CRC’s refusal to treat his medical

20 condition, which was denied. He appealed the decision to the highest level possible, but these

21 appeals were also denied.
22
75. As a result of Defendants’ denial of the treatment necessary to properly treat his
23
condition, Mr. Martin is likely to continue suffering severe pain and limitations on basic daily
24
activities.
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 14 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 15 of 20

1 The CRC is withholding needed medical care from LeeShawn Redic.

2

76. In 2009, DOC medical staff diagnosed LeeShawn Redic with an umbilical hernia.

3 An umbilical hernia occurs when part of the intestine protrudes through the umbilical opening in

4 the abdominal muscles. An umbilical hernia can be painful.

5

77. Mr. Redic’s hernia causes him chronic and substantial pain, sometimes as high as

6 6 or 7 on a scale of 10.

7

78. At times, Mr. Redic experiences so much pain and discomfort that he is unable to

8 work or eat. Due to the pain from the hernia, he was incapacitated for two entire days during

9
Thanksgiving time 2014 and was unable to attend DOC’s holiday dinner.

10
79. The only way Mr. Redic can reduce the hernia and its accompanying pain is by
11
lying down. Some days he must lie in bed all day to relieve the pain. Though lying down
12
provides some relief to Mr. Redic, it is temporary and the pain returns when he stands.
13

14

80. Mr. Redic has notified DOC medical staff about his pain on several occasions and

15 has requested that DOC repair his hernia. However, the only treatment DOC has offered him is

16 pain medication and directions to remain recumbent so that the hernia will reduce. DOC also

17 issued a Health Status Report, allowing Mr. Redic to remain on a lower bunk.

18

81. Mr. Redic’s DOC medical provider requested permission to refer him to a

19 surgeon for hernia repair in 2009, 2014, and 2016. In each instance the CRC voted to deny the

20 treating provider’s request.

21

82. Mr. Redic has filed multiple grievances about the CRC’s refusal of treatment to

22
repair his hernia. His grievances were denied. He appealed the decisions to the highest level

23
possible, but his appeals were also denied.
24

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 15 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 16 of 20

1

83. Mr. Redic’s hernia continues to cause him chronic and substantial pain and

2 interferes with activities such as eating, working, and the ability to leave his cell.

3

84. As a result of Defendants’ refusal to properly treat his condition, Mr. Redic is

4 likely to continue suffering severe pain and limitations on basic daily activities.

5 Impact of Inadequate CRC System on Plaintiff Class

6

85. Each of the above-named Plaintiffs has been, and continues to be, significantly

7 harmed by DOC’s policies and practices that have resulted in the denial of treatment or testing

8 for their serious medical conditions. Their cases are not isolated or uncommon. Rather, they
9
reflect a system-wide problem that results in a substantial and ongoing risk of serious harm for
10
all DOC prisoners with serious medical needs.
11
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
12
86. The named Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of the
13
14 following proposed class:

15

All current and future prisoners, incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the Washington Department of Corrections, whose access to necessary medical care

16

has been denied, or will be subject to denial, under the Department’s policies and

practices governing access to health care requiring prior approval.

17
Numerosity: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)
18

87. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. As of June
19

20 30, 2015, there were approximately 16,700 prisoners confined in DOC prisons, all of whom rely

21 on Defendants for their medical care. Due to Defendants’ policies and practices, thousands of

22 prisoners are denied or at risk of denial of adequate treatment for serious medical needs while

23 confined in DOC prisons.

24

88. The proposed class includes future prisoners, which makes joinder not just

25 impracticable, but impossible.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 16 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 17 of 20

1

89. The Plaintiff class members are identifiable using records maintained in the

2 ordinary course of business by DOC.

3

Commonality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)

4

90. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the class,

5 including:

6

(a) Whether Defendants’ policies and practices governing the approval of

7

proposed medical care expose the class to a substantial risk of serious harm

8

and lead to arbitrary, unsound, and counter-therapeutic clinical decisions;

9
(b) Whether CRC members exercise appropriate medical judgment when they

10
vote to approve or deny proposed care without examining the patient and
11
without reviewing his or her medical records;
12
(c) Whether Defendants regularly disregard patients’ reports of chronic and
13

14

substantial pain when considering whether or not to approve medical care; and

15

(d) Whether prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they limit a

16

patient’s medical care to conservative, relatively-low-cost treatment options,

17

denying access to more costly treatment when the conservative measures fail

18

and the patient remains in chronic or substantial pain.

19

20

21

Typicality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)

22
91. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Plaintiff class. They arise

23
from Defendants’ application of the same policies and practices, and are based on the same legal
24
theories as the claims of the class.
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 17 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 18 of 20

1

Adequacy of Representation: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)

2

92. Plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the class

3 because Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to the class. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the

4 unlawful acts and omissions of the Defendants, which harm the class as well as themselves.

5 Finally, Plaintiffs are represented by a team of counsel experienced in civil rights litigation,

6 prisoners’ rights litigation, and complex class action litigation.

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

8

93. This action is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

9
because Defendants’ policies and practices that form the basis of the Complaint are common to,

10
and apply generally to, all members of the class. Furthermore, Defendants have acted or refuse to
11
act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making class-wide injunctive and
12
declaratory relief appropriate.
13

14

VI. CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15

A. VIOLATION OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT

16

94. The Defendants have acted, and continue to act, with deliberate indifference to the

17 serious medical needs of the Plaintiffs and the proposed class.

18

95. By their actions and omissions, taken under color of state law, Defendants have

19 violated, and continue to violate, the rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class
20 to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, guaranteed to them by the Eighth Amendment to
21 the United States Constitution. Defendants’ constitutional violations are actionable under 42
22
U.S.C. § 1983.
23
VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
24
Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the following relief:
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 18 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 19 of 20

1

96. Certification of the class defined above;

2

97. A declaration that Defendants’ policies and practices governing the prior approval

3 of medical care requested by DOC medical providers and care by specialists not employed by

4 DOC violate the Eighth Amendment;

5

98. Preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining Defendants from denying,

6 without reasonable medical justification, necessary care for the Plaintiffs’ and class members’

7 serious medical needs;

8

99. An award of Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs under 42

9
U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable statute or court rule;
10
100. Leave to conform the pleadings to the evidence presented at trial; and
11
101. Such other and further relief as justice may require.
12
DATED this _____day of March, 2018.
13

14

15

16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

17

/s/ KIMBERLEE GUNNING

KIMBERLEE GUNNING, WSBA #35366

18

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Kim.Gunning@Columbialegal.org
19

20

/s/ NICHOLAS B. ALLEN NICHOLAS B. ALLEN, WSBA #42990

21

Attorney for Plaintiffs Nick.Allen@Columbialegal.org

22
/s/ NICHOLAS B. STRALEY

23

NICHOLAS B. STRALEY, WSBA #25963

Attorney for Plaintiffs

24

Nick.Straley@Columbialegal.org

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 19 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

Case 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ Document 141 Filed 03/21/18 Page 20 of 20

1

Columbia Legal Services Institutions Project

2

101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104

3

(206) 464-5933 – phone

(206) 382-3386 – fax

4

5

PUBLIC INTEREST LAW GROUP, PLLC

6

/s/ HANK L. BALSON

HANK L. BALSON, WSBA #29250

7

hbalson@pilg.org

Attorney for Plaintiffs
8

Public Interest Law Group, PLLC

9

705 2nd Avenue, Suite 1000

10

Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 838-1800

11
MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

12

/s/ DAVID J. WHEDBEE

13

DAVID J. WHEDBEE, WSBA #35977

davidw@mhb.com

14

Attorney for Plaintiffs

15

/s/ JESSE A. WING

16

JESSE A. WING, WSBA #27751 jessew@mhb.com

17

Attorney for Plaintiffs

18

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless

705 2nd Avenue, Suite 1500

19

Seattle, WA 98104-1745

(206) 622-1604

20

21

22

23

24

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT– Page 20 No. 15-cv-1810-RAJ-MAT
10905.01 lc151401

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Institutions Project
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

 
 U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ

Haldane et al v. Hammond, MD et al Assigned to: Judge Richard A. Jones Case in other court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 17-
80197 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 11/17/2015 Date Terminated: 03/27/2019 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Daniel Haldane on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 06/14/2018

represented by David J Whedbee MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 SECOND AVE STE 1500 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1745 206-622-1604 Email: davidw@mhb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hank L Balson PUBLIC INTEREST LAW GROUP 705 SECOND AVE STE 1000 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-838-1800 Fax: 206-838-3330 Email: hank@budgeandheipt.com TERMINATED: 07/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jesse Andrew Wing MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 SECOND AVE STE 1500 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1745 206-622-1604 Fax: 206-343-3961 Email: jessew@mhb.com LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa R Lee RONALD A PETERSON LAW CLINIC SEATTLE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 1112 E COLUMBIA STREET SEATTLE, WA 98122 206-398-4394 Email: leeme@seattleu.edu TERMINATED: 10/05/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Merf Emerson Ehman COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (SEA) 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-464-5933 Email: merf.ehman@columbialegal.org TERMINATED: 01/30/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicholas Brian Allen COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (SEA) 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-287-9660 Email: nick.allen@columbialegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberlee L Gunning COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (SEA) 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-464-0838 Fax: 206-382-3386

Plaintiff
Wendel Johnson on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 01/14/2019

Email: Kim.Gunning@columbialegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Broten Straley COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (SEA) 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-464-5933 Fax: 425-259-3421 Email: nick.straley@columbialegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rhona Taylor COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (SEA) 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-287-8613 Email: rhona.taylor@columbialegal.org TERMINATED: 10/13/2017
represented by David J Whedbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hank L Balson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jesse Andrew Wing (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa R Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2016

Plaintiff
Timothy Martin on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

LEAD ATTORNEY
Merf Emerson Ehman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicholas Brian Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Broten Straley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberlee L Gunning (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David J Whedbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hank L Balson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jesse Andrew Wing (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa R Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Merf Emerson Ehman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
Leeshawn Redic on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 01/14/2019

Nicholas Brian Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Broten Straley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberlee L Gunning (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David J Whedbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hank L Balson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jesse Andrew Wing (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa R Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Merf Emerson Ehman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicholas Brian Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant G Steven Hammond Chief Medical Officer of the Washington Department of Corrections, in their official capacities TERMINATED: 03/21/2018
Defendant

Nicholas Broten Straley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberlee L Gunning (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Michael Williams ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40116- OLY) PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445 Email: aaronw@atg.wa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Candie M Dibble ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (SPOKANE-CORRECTIONS) CORRECTIONS DIVISION 1116 WEST RIVERSIDE AVENUE SPOKANE, WA 99201-1194 509-456-3123 Fax: 509-458-3548 Email: Candie.Dibble@atg.wa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40116-OLY) PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445 Fax: 360-664-8716 Email: timothyl@atg.wa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dan Pacholke Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections, in their official capacities TERMINATED: 03/21/2018
Defendant M.D. K. Gabrielle Gaspar Chief Medical Officer
Defendant Mr. Stephen Sinclair Secretary, Washington Dept. of Corrections
Intervenor Reginald Wayne Wilton TERMINATED: 09/22/2017

represented by Aaron Michael Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Candie M Dibble (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Michael Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Candie M Dibble (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Michael Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Candie M Dibble (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Reginald Wayne Wilton 940598 STAFFORD CREEK CORRECTIONS CENTER

191 CONSTANTINE WAY ABERDEEN, WA 98520 PRO SE

Dat

e File

# Docket Text

d

11/1 1 1983 PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against defendant(s) G Steven

7/20 Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke, filed by Leeshawn Redic, Wendel Johnson, Daniel

15

Haldane, Timothy Martin. (Summons(es) issued) (Receipt # SEA074804)

(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Email from Filer)(ST) (Entered:

11/18/2015)

11/1 5 CASE ASSIGNMENT LETTER (ST) (Entered: 11/18/2015) 7/20 15

11/1 Summons Issued as to defendant(s) G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke.

7/20 Summons sent to Columbia Legal Services via U.S. Mail. (ST) (Entered:

15

11/18/2015)

11/3 6 DECLARATION of Service of Summons & Class Action Complaint upon

0/20 Defendant G. Steven Hammond by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson,

15

Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic (Lee, Melissa) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

11/3 7 DECLARATION of Service of Summons & Class Action Complaint upon

0/20 Defendant Dan Pacholke by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy

15

Martin, Leeshawn Redic (Lee, Melissa) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

12/0 8 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Timothy Norman Lang on behalf of

4/20 Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke. (Lang, Timothy) (Entered:

15

12/04/2015)

12/0 Attorneys Candie M Dibble and Aaron Michael Williams for dfts added; 7/20 per 8 Notice of Appearance. (RS) (Entered: 12/07/2015) 15

12/2 9 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, with JURY DEMAND by G Steven Hammond, MD, 1/20 Dan Pacholke.(Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 12/21/2015) 15

12/3 1 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS 0/20 0 REPORT. FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 1/13/2016, Initial Disclosure Deadline 15

is 1/20/2016, Joint Status Report due by 1/27/2016, by Judge Richard A. Jones. (VE) (Entered: 12/30/2015)

01/2 1 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 20. (Balson, 7/20 1 Hank) (Entered: 01/27/2016) 16

02/0 1 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Richard A. Jones. Deadline for joining

1/20 2 additional parties is 4/5/2016, Deadline to complete discovery on class certification

16

(not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery) is 5/5/2016, Deadline for

Plaintiffs to file Motion for Class Certification is 6/9/2016, Deadline for Defendant

to file Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is 7/15/2016,

Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply re: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion is

8/5/2016. The Court will set further case scheduling deadlines after ruling on the

motion for class certification. Plaintiffs' counsel shall inform the court immediately

should Plaintiffs at any time determine not to seek class certification. (VE)

(Entered: 02/01/2016)

02/2 1 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Agreement regarding discovery of 9/20 3 ESI by parties (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 02/29/2016) 16

03/1 1 AGREEMENT AND ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF

6/20 4 ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION by Judge Richard A. Jones.

16

(VE) (Entered: 03/16/2016)

04/0 1 Stipulated MOTION to Continue Class Certification Deadlines by Plaintiffs Daniel

5/20 5 Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic. Noting Date

16

4/5/2016, (Balson, Hank) (Entered: 04/05/2016)

04/0 1 DECLARATION of Hank Balson filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel

5/20 6 Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic re 15 Stipulated MOTION to Continue

16

Class Certification Deadlines (Balson, Hank) (Entered: 04/05/2016)

04/0 Pursuant to the parties' 15 Stipulated MOTION to Continue Class Certification

7/20 Deadlines, the following deadlines are reset: Deadline for joining additional parties

16

is 7/4/2016, Deadline to complete discovery on class certification is 8/3/2016,

Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion for Class Certification is 10/6/2016, Deadline

for Defendant to file Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is

11/11/2016, Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply re: Plaintiffs' Class Certification

Motion is 12/2/2016. (VE) (Entered: 04/07/2016)

05/0 1 MOTION for Protective Order by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan

5/20 7 Pacholke. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/20/2016, (Lang,

16

Timothy) (Entered: 05/05/2016)

05/0 1 DECLARATION of Candie M. Dibble filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond,

5/20 8 MD, Dan Pacholke re 17 MOTION for Protective Order (Lang, Timothy) (Entered:

16

05/05/2016)

05/1 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint upon

2/20 9 Defendant G. Steven Hammond by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson,

16

Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic on 11/24/15 (Lee, Melissa) (Entered:

05/12/2016)

05/1 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint upon

2/20 0 Defendant Dan Pacholke by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy

16

Martin, Leeshawn Redic on 11/24/15 (Lee, Melissa) (Entered: 05/12/2016)

05/1 2 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin,

8/20 1 Leeshawn Redic, to 17 MOTION for Protective Order . (Balson, Hank) (Entered:

16

05/18/2016)

05/1 2 DECLARATION of Hank Balson filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel

8/20 2 Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic re 17 MOTION for Protective

16

Order (Balson, Hank) (Entered: 05/18/2016)

05/1 2 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Comply with Rule 34 Request to Conduct

9/20 3 Inspection of Care Review Committee by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel

16

Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic. Oral Argument Requested.

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/3/2016, (Wing, Jesse) (Entered:

05/19/2016)

05/1 2 DECLARATION of Jesse Wing filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel

9/20 4 Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic re 23 MOTION to Compel Defendants

16

to Comply with Rule 34 Request to Conduct Inspection of Care Review

Committee (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/19/2016)

05/2 2 REPLY, filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke, TO

0/20 5 RESPONSE to 17 MOTION for Protective Order (Williams, Aaron) (Entered:

16

05/20/2016)

05/2 2 NOTICE by non party Ricky Patu re filing a motion for protective order (RS) 5/20 6 (Entered: 05/26/2016) 16

05/2 2 NOTICE/Motion by non party Etienne L. Chognette to stop release of medical 7/20 7 records from D.O.C. (AD) (Entered: 05/27/2016) 16

05/3 2 RESPONSE, by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke,

1/20 8 to 23 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Comply with Rule 34 Request to Conduct

16

Inspection of Care Review Committee. (Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 05/31/2016)

05/3 2 DECLARATION of Kevin Bovenkamp filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond,

1/20 9 MD, Dan Pacholke re 23 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Comply with Rule 34

16

Request to Conduct Inspection of Care Review Committee (Lang, Timothy)

(Entered: 05/31/2016)

05/3 3 DECLARATION of G. Steven Hammond, M.D. filed by Defendants G Steven

1/20 0 Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke re 23 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Comply

16

with Rule 34 Request to Conduct Inspection of Care Review

Committee (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 7-54)(Lang, Timothy) (Entered:

05/31/2016)

05/3 3 DECLARATION of Tim Lang filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan

1/20 1 Pacholke re 23 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Comply with Rule 34 Request to

16

Conduct Inspection of Care Review Committee (Lang, Timothy) (Entered:

05/31/2016)

06/0 3 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin,

3/20 2 Leeshawn Redic, TO RESPONSE to 23 MOTION to Compel Defendants to

16

Comply with Rule 34 Request to Conduct Inspection of Care Review

Committee (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/03/2016)

06/0 3 DECLARATION of Hank Balson filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel

3/20 3 Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic re 23 MOTION to Compel Defendants

16

to Comply with Rule 34 Request to Conduct Inspection of Care Review

Committee (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/03/2016)

06/2 3 Stipulated MOTION and (Proposed) Order to Continue Class Certification

3/20 4 Deadlines by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke. Noting Date

16

6/23/2016, (Dibble, Candie) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/2 3 DECLARATION of Candie M. Dibble filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond,

3/20 5 MD, Dan Pacholke re 34 Stipulated MOTION and (Proposed) Order to Continue

16

Class Certification Deadlines (Dibble, Candie) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

07/0 Pursuant to the parties' 34 Stipulated MOTION to Continue Class Certification

5/20 Deadlines, the following deadlines are reset: Deadline to complete all written

16

discovery on class certification is 9/1/2016, Deadline to complete all remaining

discovery on class certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery) is

10/14/2016, Deadline for the parties to participate in mediation is 11/3/2016,

Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion for Class Certification is 12/2/2016 (motion to

be noted for 2/17/2017), Deadline for Defendants to file Opposition to Plaintiffs'

Motion for Class Certification is 1/31/2017, Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply re:

Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is 2/17/2017. (VE) (Entered: 07/05/2016)

07/2 3 ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones denying Defendants' 17 Motion for Protective

9/20 6 Order. Parties are directed to submit a stipulated protective order to the Court by

16

August 12, 2016 that ensures inmates will not gain access to employees' personal

contact information. Plaintiff's 23 Motion to Compel is denied. (PM) (Entered: 07/29/2016)

07/2 3 MISCELLANEOUS LETTER from Donald Lee. (ST) (Entered: 08/02/2016) 9/20 7 16

08/1 3 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER for Protective Order by parties

1/20 8 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Dibble, Candie) (Entered:

16

08/11/2016)

08/1 3 ORDER denying 38 Stipulation for protective order by Judge Richard A Jones. 2/20 9 (RS) (Entered: 08/12/2016) 16

08/1 4 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER by parties re 39 Order (Attachments: 7/20 0 # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A)(Dibble, Candie) (Entered: 08/17/2016) 16

08/1 4 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. (AD) (Entered: 08/19/2016) 9/20 1 16

10/0 4 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Melissa R Lee for

5/20 2 Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic.

16

(Lee, Melissa) (Entered: 10/05/2016)

10/2 4 Stipulated MOTION to Modify Scheduling Order and Request Appointment of

6/20 3 Mediator by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting

16

Date 10/26/2016, (Whedbee, David) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

11/0 4 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 43 Stipulated MOTION to Modify

2/20 4 Scheduling Order and Request Appointment of Mediator by Judge Richard A.

16

Jones. (VE) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

11/2 4 Stipulated MOTION for Leave to File Over-Length Briefs by Plaintiffs Daniel

8/20 5 Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic. Noting Date

16

11/28/2016, (Balson, Hank) (Entered: 11/28/2016)

11/2 4 MINUTE ORDER entered upon the authority of Judge Richard A.

9/20 6 Jones. 45 Stipulated MOTION for Leave to File Over-Length Briefs is GRANTED

16

IN PART. The page limits for the parties' briefs pertaining to class certification are

modified as follows: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall not exceed 30

pages; Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion shall not exceed 30 pages;

Plaintiffs reply, if any, shall not exceed 15 pages. (VE) (Entered: 11/29/2016)

12/0 4 SEALED MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane. Oral Argument

2/20 7 Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix part 1, # 2 Appendix part 2, # 3 Appendix

16

part 3, # 4 Appendix part 4, # 5 Appendix part 5, # 6 Appendix part 6,

# 7 Appendix part 7, # 8 Appendix part 8, # 9 Appendix part 9, # 10 Appendix part

10, # 11 Appendix part 11, # 12 Ehman decl, # 13 Balson decl) Noting Date

2/17/2017, (Straley, Nicholas) Modified on 12/5/2016 restrict image/redacted

motion to be filed (RS). (Entered: 12/02/2016)

12/0 4 DECLARATION of A.A. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 8 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 4 DECLARATION of T.A. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to

3/20 9 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered:

16

12/03/2016)

12/0 5 DECLARATION of C.B. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 0 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 5 DECLARATION of David J. Whedbee re: S.B. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane

3/20 1 re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4,

16

# 4 part 5)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 5 DECLARATION of R.C. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 2 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 5 DECLARATION of E.C. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 3 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 5 DECLARATION of F.C. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to

3/20 4 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4, # 4 part 5, # 5 part 6,

16

# 6 part 7, # 7 part 8, # 8 part 9, # 9 part 10)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered:

12/03/2016)

12/0 5 DECLARATION of M.E. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to

3/20 5 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4, # 4 part 5, # 5 part 6,

16

# 6 part 7, # 7 part 8, # 8 part 9, # 9 part 10, # 10 part 11, # 11 part 12, # 12 part 13,

# 13 part 14, # 14 part 15, # 15 part 16)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 5 DECLARATION of C.F. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 6 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 5 DECLARATION of J.F. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to

3/20 7 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4)(Straley, Nicholas)

16

(Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 5 DECLARATION of L.G. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to

3/20 8 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4)(Straley, Nicholas)

16

(Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 5 DECLARATION of C.H. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 9 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 6 DECLARATION of D.H. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 0 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 6 DECLARATION of Plaintiff Wendel Johnson filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane

3/20 1 re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4,

16

# 4 part 5)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 6 DECLARATION of S.L. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 2 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 6 DECLARATION of T.L. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to

3/20 3 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4, # 4 part 5, # 5 part 6,

16

# 6 part 7, # 7 part 8)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 6 DECLARATION of R.M. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 4 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 6 DECLARATION of Plaintiff Timothy Martin filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane

3/20 5 re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4,

16

# 4 part 5, # 5 part 6)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 6 DECLARATION of J.R.M. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 6 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 6 DECLARATION of T.M. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to

3/20 7 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4, # 4 part 5)(Straley,

16

Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 6 DECLARATION of J.M. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 8 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4, # 4 part 5, # 5 part 6, 16

# 6 part 7, # 7 part 8, # 8 part 9, # 9 part 10, # 10 part 11, # 11 part 12, # 12 part 13, # 13 part 14)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 6 DECLARATION of M.M. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 9 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 7 DECLARATION of R.P. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to

3/20 0 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4)(Straley, Nicholas)

16

(Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 7 DECLARATION of Y.P. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to

3/20 1 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4)(Straley, Nicholas)

16

(Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 7 DECLARATION of Glenn Silver, PA filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane 3/20 2 re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 7 DECLARATION of J.S. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to

3/20 3 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4, # 4 part 5)(Straley,

16

Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016)

12/0 7 DECLARATION of D.T. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to

3/20 4 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4, # 4 part 5, # 5 part 6,

16

# 6 part 7, # 7 part 8, # 8 part 9, # 9 part 10)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered:

12/03/2016)

12/0 7 DECLARATION of P.T. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 5 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 7 DECLARATION of M.V. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 6 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 7 DECLARATION of A.W. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 7 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 7 DECLARATION of M.W. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 8 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 7 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Straley, 3/20 9 Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION to 3/20 0 Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/03/2016) 16

12/0 NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 47 MOTION to Certify Class : Motion 5/20 sealed per request of filer. Redacted version to follow. (RS) (Entered: 12/05/2016) 16

12/0 8 Redacted MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane. Oral Argument 5/20 1 Requested. Noting Date 2/17/2017, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/05/2016) 16

01/0 8 PRAECIPE to attach document

6/20 2 (declarations) re 55 Declaration, 77 Declaration, 56 Declaration, 53 Declaration, 76

17

Declaration, 70 Declaration, 50 Declaration, 57 Declaration, 65 Declaration, 62 De

claration, 59 Declaration, 63 Declaration, 54 Declaration, 47 MOTION to Certify

Class by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn

Redic (Attachments: # 1 revised redacted signature page, # 2 revised redacted

declaration signature page, # 3 revised redacted exhibit page, # 4 revised redacted

exhibit page, # 5 revised redacted exhibit page, # 6 revised redacted exhibit page,

# 7 revised redacted exhibit page, # 8 revised redacted exhibit page, # 9 revised

redacted declaration page, # 10 revised redacted declaration page, # 11 revised

redacted signed declaration, # 12 revised redacted exhibit page, # 13 revised

redacted exhibit page, # 14 revised redacted exhibit page, # 15 revised redacted

exhibit page, # 16 revised redacted exhibit page, # 17 revised redacted signed

declaration, # 18 revised redacted exhibit page)(Ehman, Merf) (Entered:

01/06/2017)

01/2 8 Stipulated MOTION , filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan 0/20 3 Pacholke. Noting Date 1/20/2017, (Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 01/20/2017) 17

01/2 Reset Deadlines: Pursuant to the parties' 83 Stipulated MOTION to Continue Class

0/20 Certification Opposition and Reply Deadlines, Responsive Brief due by 4/17/2017,

17

Reply Brief due by 5/5/2017, Noting Date reset for 5/5/2017. (VE) (Entered:

01/20/2017)

01/3 8 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Merf Emerson Ehman for

0/20 4 Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic.

17

(Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/3 8 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Nicholas Broten Straley on behalf of Plaintiff 1/20 5 Daniel Haldane. (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/31/2017) 17

01/3 Attorney Nicholas Broten Straley for Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn 1/20 Redic added; per 85 Notice of Appearance. (PS) (Entered: 01/31/2017) 17

03/0 8 LETTER from non party Donald Lee with Amicus Curae filing (RS) (Entered: 6/20 6 03/07/2017) 17

03/1 8 LETTER from non party Larry Heggem (RS) (Entered: 03/20/2017) 6/20 8 17

03/1 8 PRAECIPE from non party Donald Lee with Updated Amicus Curae filing 7/20 7 re 86 Letter. (PM) (Entered: 03/17/2017) 17

03/2 8 LETTER from non party Larry Heggem (SWT) (Entered: 03/30/2017) 9/20 9 17

04/1 9 RESPONSE, by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke, 7/20 0 to 47 MOTION to Certify Class . (Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 04/17/2017) 17

04/1 9 DECLARATION of Kevin Bovenkamp filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond,

7/20 1 MD, Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Lang, Timothy) (Entered:

17

04/17/2017)

04/1 9 DECLARATION of Dale N. Caldwell filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond,

7/20 2 MD, Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Lang, Timothy) (Entered:

17

04/17/2017)

04/1 9 DECLARATION of Mary L. Colter, M.D. filed by Defendants G Steven

7/20 3 Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Lang, Timothy)

17

(Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/1 9 DECLARATION of Candie M. Dibble filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond,

7/20 4 MD, Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F,

17

pp. 4-51)(Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/1 9 DECLARATION of Dale Fetroe, M.D. filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond,

7/20 5 MD, Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A,

17

pp. 8-9)(Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/1 9 DECLARATION of Robert Herzog filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD,

7/20 6 Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Lang, Timothy) (Entered:

17

04/17/2017)

04/1 9 DECLARATION of Frank Longano, M.D. filed by Defendants G Steven

7/20 7 Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Lang, Timothy)

17

(Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/1 9 DECLARATION of G. Steven Hammond, M.D. filed by Defendants G Steven

7/20 8 Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments:

17

# 1 Exhibit 1-4, pp.24-145)(Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/1 9 DECLARATION of Nayak Polissar filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD,

7/20 9 Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, pp. 9-

17

24)(Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/1 1 DECLARATION of John Smith, M.D. filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond, 7/20 0 MD, Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 17 0 04/17/2017)

04/1 1 DECLARATION of Andrea Slemp filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, 7/20 0 Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-9, pp. 717 1 115)(Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/1 1 DECLARATION of Sara S. Smith, M.D. filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond, 7/20 0 MD, Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, 17 2 pp. 14-18)(Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/1 1 DECLARATION of Deborah Tonhofer, M.D. filed by Defendants G Steven 7/20 0 Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Lang, Timothy) 17 3 (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/2 1 PRAECIPE re 95 Declaration, 99 Declaration by Defendants G Steven Hammond, 8/20 0 MD, Dan Pacholke (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 & 2, pp. 4-12)(Williams, Aaron) 17 4 (Entered: 04/28/2017)

05/0 1 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane, TO RESPONSE to 47 MOTION to 5/20 0 Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Appendix A)(Whedbee, David) (Entered: 17 5 05/05/2017)

05/0 1 Supplemental DECLARATION of David Whedbee filed by Plaintiff Daniel 5/20 0 Haldane re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 17 6 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7,
# 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12)(Whedbee, David) (Entered: 05/05/2017)

05/0 1 DECLARATION of Jacob Heller filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane re 47 MOTION 5/20 0 to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Whedbee, David) (Entered: 17 7 05/05/2017)
05/0 1 DECLARATION of Hugh Straley, M.D. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane 5/20 0 re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, 17 8 # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Whedbee, David) (Entered:
05/05/2017)
05/0 1 DECLARATION of Todd Wilcox, M.D. filed by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane 5/20 0 re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Whedbee, David) (Entered: 05/05/2017) 17 9
05/0 1 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Rhona Taylor on behalf of Plaintiff Daniel 9/20 1 Haldane. (Taylor, Rhona) (Entered: 05/09/2017) 17 0
05/0 1 NOTICE of Intent to File Surreply re 47 MOTION to Certify Class ; filed by 9/20 1 Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke. (Williams, Aaron) (Entered: 17 1 05/09/2017)
05/1 1 SURREPLY filed by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke 2/20 1 re 47 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lang, 17 2 Timothy) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
05/1 1 DECLARATION of Tim Lang in Support of Defendants' Surreply filed by 2/20 1 Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke re 47 MOTION to Certify 17 3 Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, pp. 4-7)(Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
06/2 1 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Intervenor Reginald Wayne Wilton. (Attachments: 9/20 1 # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration and Application to Proceed In forma Pauperis, 17 4 # 3 Notice of Appearance, # 4 Proposed Complaint in Intervention, # 5 Summons)
Noting Date 7/14/2017, **131 PAGE(S), PRINT NEF ONLY**(SWT) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
07/0 1 RESPONSE, by Defendants G Steven Hammond, MD, Dan Pacholke, 7/20 1 to 114 MOTION to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, pp. 7-15)**PRINT 17 5 ALL**(Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/1 1 NOTICE/LETTER re 1st Clerk's Letter ; filed by Intervenor Reginald Wayne 0/20 1 Wilton. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(SWT) (Entered: 07/10/2017) 17 6

07/1 1 NOTICE/LETTER re 2nd Clerk's Letter ; filed by Intervenor Reginald Wayne 0/20 1 Wilton. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(SWT) (Entered: 07/10/2017) 17 7

07/1 NOTICE TO FILER (Intervenor Reginald Wilton) RE: NON-COMPLIANCE

0/20 WITH PRISONER E-FILING INITIATIVE. The Western District of

17

Washington received documents from you for filing through the U.S. Postal

Service. Pursuant to General Order 06-16, participation in the Prisoner E-Filing

Initiative is mandatory for all prisoner litigants incarcerated at the Stafford Creek

Corrections Center. These documents will be filed by the clerk in this instance, it

is not necessary to refile. Please comply by submitting all future documents to be

filed with this Court to the Law Librarian/designee for electronic filing. **0

PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(SWT) (Entered: 07/10/2017)

07/1 1 SEALED IFP STATUS REPORT by Intervenor Reginald Wayne Wilton 0/20 1 re 114 MOTION to Intervene. Clerk's note: document sealed due to sensitive 17 8 personal identifiers. **1 PAGE(S), PRINT NEF ONLY**(PM) (Entered:
07/10/2017)

07/1 1 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Leeshawn Redic, to 114 MOTION to 2/20 1 Intervene. **PRINT ALL**(Balson, Hank) (Entered: 07/12/2017) 17 9

07/1 1 REPLY, filed by Intervenor Reginald Wayne Wilton, TO RESPONSE 4/20 2 to 114 MOTION to Intervene. **25 PAGE(S), PRINT NEF ONLY**(PM) 17 0 (Entered: 07/18/2017)

07/1 1 NOTICE/LETTER (3rd Clerk's Letter) re 120 Reply to Response to Motion filed 4/20 2 by Intervenor Reginald Wayne Wilton. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT NEF 17 1 ONLY**(PM) (Entered: 07/18/2017)

07/1 1 AMENDED REPLY, filed by Intervenor Reginald Wayne Wilton, TO 4/20 2 RESPONSE/OBJECTION to 114 MOTION to Intervene. **25 PAGE(S), PRINT 17 2 NEF ONLY**(PM) (Entered: 07/18/2017)

07/1 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Intervenor Reginald Wayne Wilton 4/20 2 re 122 Amended Reply to Response to Motion, 121 Notice/Letter (3rd Clerk's 17 3 Letter), **2 PAGE(S), PRINT NEF ONLY**(PM) (Entered: 07/18/2017)

08/2 1 REQUEST by Intervenor Reginald Wayne Wilton for copy of the docket sheet 4/20 2 (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet)**19 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(RS) (Entered: 17 4 08/24/2017)

09/1 1 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 47 , 81 Motion to Certify Class; finding as moot 8/20 2 Intervenor Reginald Wayne Wilton's 114 Motion to Intervene; denying 17 5 Defendants' 112 Surreply/Motion to Strike Portions Plaintiffs' Reply, signed by
Judge Richard A Jones.**10 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(SWT) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
09/2 1 MINUTE ORDER entered upon the authority of Judge Richard A. Jones. Updated 2/20 2 Joint Status Report due by 10/2/2017. (VE) (Entered: 09/22/2017) 17 6

10/0 1 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 20. (Lang, 2/20 2 Timothy) (Entered: 10/02/2017) 17 7

10/0 1 NOTICE OF CASE NUMBER/ PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL 3/20 2 UNDER 23(f) (17-80197) from 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (CDA) (Entered: 17 8 10/03/2017)

10/0 The Court acknowledges it has received and reviewed the parties' 127 Revised Joint

6/20 Status Report, but finds good cause to defer entry of a case schedule pending the

17

Ninth Circuit's determination on the Petition for Permission to Appeal this Court's

ruling on the Motion for Class Certification. (VE) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/1 1 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Kimberlee L Gunning on behalf of Plaintiffs 3/20 2 Wendel Johnson, Daniel Haldane, Timothy Martin, and Leeshawn Redic. 17 9 (Gunning, Kimberlee) Modified on 10/17/2017 to correctly reflect parties
represented by counsel (KB). (Entered: 10/13/2017)

10/1 1 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Rhona Taylor for 3/20 3 Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic. 17 0 (Taylor, Rhona) (Entered: 10/13/2017)

10/1 NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 129 Notice of Appearance : Modified on

3/20 10/17/2017 to correctly reflect parties represented by counsel. (KB) (Entered:

17

10/17/2017)

12/2 1 ORDER OF USCA (17-80197) re 128 NOTICE OF CASE NUMBER/ PETITION 1/20 3 FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL UNDER 23(f). The motion to file a reply in 17 1 support of the petition for permission to appeal (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted.
The reply has been filed.The court, in its discretion, denies the petition for permission to appeal the district courts September 18, 2017 order denying class action certification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f); Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005). (CDA) (Entered: 12/21/2017)

01/0 1 MINUTE ORDER entered upon the authority of Judge Richard A. Jones. Updated 2/20 3 Joint Status Report due by 1/10/2018. (VE) (Entered: 01/02/2018) 18 2

01/1 1 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 6-8. (Dibble, 0/20 3 Candie) (Entered: 01/10/2018) 18 3

01/1 1 ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES. Length of Trial: 6-8 6/20 3 days. JURY BENCH TRIAL is set for 9/24/2018 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 13106 18 4 before Judge Richard A. Jones. Joinder of Parties due by 1/31/2018, Amended
Pleadings due by 3/28/2018, Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 3/28/2018, Discovery completed by 5/29/2018, Dispositive motions due by 6/26/2018, Motions in Limine due by 8/27/2018, Pretrial Order due by 9/10/2018, Trial briefs, proposed jury instructions, proposed voir dire, agreed neutral statement of the case, deposition designations, and trial exhibits to be submitted by 9/17/2018, by Judge Richard A. Jones. (VE) Modified on 1/25/2018 to modify from jury trial to bench trial and to strike deadlines related to a jury trial pursuant to the parties' 135 STIPULATION REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF JURY DEMAND. (VE) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
01/2 1 STIPULATION REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF JURY DEMAND by parties 3/20 3 (Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 01/23/2018) 18 5

01/2 ***Deadlines terminated: Pursuant to the

5/20 parties' 135 STIPULATION REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF JURY DEMAND,

18

the deadlines for submitting proposed jury instructions, proposed voir dire, and

agreed neutral statement of the case are stricken. This matter will proceed as a

bench trial. (VE) (Entered: 01/25/2018)

03/0 1 MOTION to Amend Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel 8/20 3 Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, 18 6 # 2 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/23/2018, (Allen, Nicholas) (Entered:
03/08/2018)
03/0 1 DECLARATION of Nicholas B. Allen filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel 8/20 3 Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic re 136 MOTION to 18 7 Amend Complaint (Allen, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/1 1 NOTICE to Withdraw Pending Motion re 136 MOTION to Amend Complaint ; by 6/20 3 Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic. 18 8 (Allen, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/2 1 STIPULATION on Amendment of Complaint by parties (Attachments: 0/20 3 # 1 Amended Complaint)(Allen, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/20/2018) 18 9

03/2 1 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 139 Stipulation on Amendment of 0/20 4 Complaint (Allen, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/20/2018) 18 0

03/2 Pursuant to the parties' 139 STIPULATION on Amendment of Complaint, Plaintiffs

0/20 may file their First Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and

18

Declaratory Relief in the form attached as Exhibit A to the parties' Stipulation no

later than 4/3/2018. (VE) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/2 1 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Wendel Johnson, 1/20 4 Leeshawn Redic, Daniel Haldane, Timothy Martin.(Allen, Nicholas) (Entered: 18 1 03/21/2018)

03/2 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, 1/20 4 Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic re 141 Amended Complaint (Allen, Nicholas) 18 2 (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/2 Party G Steven Hammond, MD and Wendel Johnson terminated. 1/20 (See 141 Amended Complaint) (SWT) (Entered: 03/22/2018) 18
03/2 1 DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES Filed by Defendants K. Gabrielle 8/20 4 Gaspar, Stephen Sinclair.(Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 03/28/2018) 18

3

04/0 1 MOTION to Dismiss and/or to Strike Allegations Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6), 12(f) 4/20 4 and 23(d)(1)(D), filed by Defendants K. Gabrielle Gaspar, Stephen Sinclair. 18 4 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/27/2018,
(Williams, Aaron) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
04/0 1 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Aaron Michael Williams on behalf of 5/20 4 Defendants K. Gabrielle Gaspar, Stephen Sinclair. (Williams, Aaron) (Entered: 18 5 04/05/2018)

04/0 Attorney Timothy Norman Lang,Candie M Dibble for K. Gabrielle Gaspar,Timothy

5/20 Norman Lang,Candie M Dibble for Stephen Sinclair added; per 145 Notice of

18

Appearance. (TH) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

04/2 1 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, 3/20 4 Leeshawn Redic, to 144 MOTION to Dismiss and/or to Strike Allegations 18 6 Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6), 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D). (Gunning, Kimberlee) (Entered:
04/23/2018)

04/2 1 DECLARATION of Kimberlee L. Gunning filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, 3/20 4 Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic re 144 MOTION to 18 7 Dismiss and/or to Strike Allegations Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6), 12(f) and
23(d)(1)(D) (Gunning, Kimberlee) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/2 1 DECLARATION of David Whedbee filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel 3/20 4 Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic re 144 MOTION to Dismiss and/or to 18 8 Strike Allegations Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6), 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D) (Gunning,
Kimberlee) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/2 1 PRAECIPE re 146 Response to Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Allegations 4/20 4 Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6), 12(f), and 23(d)(1)(D) by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, 18 9 Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic (Attachments: # 1 Amended
Version, Docket 146)(Gunning, Kimberlee) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

04/2 1 REPLY, filed by Defendants K. Gabrielle Gaspar, Stephen Sinclair, TO 7/20 5 RESPONSE to 144 MOTION to Dismiss and/or to Strike Allegations Pursuant to 18 0 Rules 12(b)(6), 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D) (Williams, Aaron) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

05/2 1 Stipulated MOTION and (Proposed) Order on Extension of Discovery Deadline, 5/20 5 filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn 18 1 Redic. Noting Date 5/25/2018, (Allen, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/2 Reset Deadline: Pursuant to the parties' 151 Stipulated MOTION on Extension of

5/20 Discovery Deadline, the deadline to complete discovery is extended to 6/15/2018.

18

The trial date and all other pretrial deadlines remain unchanged. (VE) (Entered:

05/25/2018)

06/0 1 Stipulated MOTION To Dismiss Under FRCP 41, filed by Plaintiff Daniel 7/20 5 Haldane. Noting Date 6/7/2018, (Whedbee, David) (Entered: 06/07/2018) 18 2

06/1 1 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER to Stay Deadlines by parties (Dibble, 2/20 5 Candie) (Entered: 06/12/2018) 18 3

06/1 ***Motion terminated: 152 Stipulated MOTION To Dismiss Under FRCP 41 filed

2/20 by Daniel Haldane. Motion is terminated without prejudice to refiling after

18

deficiencies are corrected as noted by court staff in communication with counsel.

(VE) (Entered: 06/12/2018)

06/1 1 Stipulated MOTION Revised Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP 41, filed 3/20 5 by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane. Noting Date 6/13/2018, (Whedbee, David) (Entered: 18 4 06/13/2018)

06/1 Pursuant to the parties' 154 Stipulated MOTION Revised Stipulated Motion to

4/20 Dismiss Under FRCP 41, the claims by Plaintiff Daniel Haldane in this action are

18

dismissed without prejudice, and no award of costs or attorneys' fees shall be made

to either party. (VE) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

06/1 1 MINUTE ORDER entered upon the authority of Judge Richard A. Jones on the 4/20 5 parties' 153 Stipulated MOTION to Stay Deadlines. The Court declines to stay this 18 5 matter. Instead, the Court VACATES the trial date and all remaining pretrial
deadlines. No later than 12/10/2018, counsel shall file a Joint Status Report, updating the Court on the status of the case. (VE) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

07/3 1 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Hank L Balson for 0/20 5 Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic. 18 6 (Balson, Hank) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

08/1 ***Motion terminated: 144 MOTION to Dismiss and/or to Strike Allegations

0/20 Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6), 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D) filed by K. Gabrielle Gaspar,

18

Stephen Sinclair is terminated pursuant to the parties' agreement to hold this case in

abeyance while the parties attempt to resolve this matter, to be reinstated should the

case proceed forward. The parties also agree to stay the deadline for Defendants to

file an Answer to the Amended Complaint. (VE) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

12/0 1 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 1-2. (Dibble, 7/20 5 Candie) (Entered: 12/07/2018) 18 7

12/2 1 ORDER SETTING AMENDED TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES. Length 7/20 5 of Trial: 2 days. Having considered the parties' 157 Joint Status Report, and taking 18 8 into account the parties and the Court's schedules, the Court sets the following trial
date and pretrial deadlines: BENCH TRIAL is set for 9/3/2019 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 13106 before Judge Richard A. Jones. Discovery completed by 5/6/2019, Dispositive motions due by 6/5/2019, Motions in Limine due by 8/6/2019, Pretrial Order due by 8/20/2019, Trial briefs, deposition designations, and trial exhibits to be submitted by 8/27/2019, by Judge Richard A. Jones. (VE) (Entered: 12/27/2018)

01/1 1 Stipulated MOTION & Proposed Order to Dismiss Plaintiffs Leeshawn Redic and 4/20 5 Wendel Johnson Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Haldane, 19 9 Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic. Noting Date 1/14/2019,
(Allen, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

01/1 Terminate Parties: Plaintiffs Leeshawn Redic and Wendel Johnson are terminated

4/20 pursuant to the parties' 159 Stipulated MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs Leeshawn

19

Redic and Wendel Johnson Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. (VE) (Entered:

01/14/2019)

03/2 1 Stipulated MOTION to Dismiss Party Timothy Martin, filed by Plaintiffs Daniel 5/20 6 Haldane, Wendel Johnson, Timothy Martin, Leeshawn Redic. Noting Date 19 0 3/25/2019, (Allen, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/25/2019)

03/2 ***Civil Case Terminated. Pursuant to the parties' 160 Stipulated MOTION to

7/20 Dismiss Party Timothy Martin and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii),

19

the claims of Plaintiff Timothy Martin are dismissed without prejudice and without

an award of attorneys' fees to either party. As Mr. Martin is the last remaining

plaintiff in this matter, this case is now closed. (VE) (Entered: 03/27/2019)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:

12/01/2019 14:46:35

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Chen
2:15-cv01810-RAJ

Billable Pages:

18

Cost:

1.80