Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MOISES MORALES; MONTREAL THOMAS; and JOAQUIN ROCHA on behalf themselves and all similarly situated individuals
Plaintiffs,
v.
ADAM MONREAL, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board; S.A. GODINEZ in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections; and PAT QUINN, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Case No. 13CV7572 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs MOISES MORALES, MONTREAL THOMAS AND JOAQUIN ROCHA

individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, file this complaint against ADAM

MONREAL, Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, S.A. GODINEZ, Director of the

Department of Corrections, and PAT QUINN, Governor of the State of Illinois, and allege as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights class action complaint filed on behalf of the men and women

who are in the custody of or under the supervision of the Illinois Department of Corrections

(hereinafter, the DOC) and who are at risk of imprisonment without adequate due process as a

result of the unconstitutional practices and procedures of both the DOC and the Illinois Prisoner

Review Board (hereinafter, the PRB) with respect to parole revocation proceedings. The

Defendants have developed a fundamentally unfair and procedurally flawed parole revocation

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:2
process that violates the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as set forth in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) and related cases. This court should declare those procedures unlawful and it should enjoin them.
2. In direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Defendants unilaterally refuse to provide attorneys to parolees at any point in the parole revocation process. This is true even if a parolee has a colorable claim that he did not commit an alleged violation, has mitigating evidence explaining why revocation is inappropriate and/or the parolee cannot speak for him or herself. Consequently, parole revocation hearings in Illinois are a sham. The hearing officer (who adjudicates the preliminary parole hearing) and PRB member(s) (who adjudicate the final revocation hearing) preside over faux-hearings that have few of the trappings of due process required before an individual can be imprisoned or otherwise deprived of their liberty. In most instances, the hearing officer and the PRB members merely rubber stamp parole violation reports.
3. The Defendants conduct over 10,000 of these unlawful hearings each year. The Defendants have, in effect, created a procedural vortex from which people on parole cannot escape. As a result of the Defendants’ policies and procedures, the Plaintiffs are continually rotated in and out of the prison system—often as a result of non-criminal technical parole violations, and often based merely on an unsubstantiated accusation that the parolee committed a new criminal offense. The vast majority of parolees in the State of Illinois need and are entitled to appointed counsel to help them navigate these arcane proceedings. Yet, as a matter of practice and procedure, the Defendants systematically deny parolees their right to counsel. They fail to consider whether parolees qualify for the appointment of counsel, at cost to the State, and they fail to appoint counsel to those parolees who do qualify, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
2

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of the Plaintiffs rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 5. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this complaint occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 6. Moises Morales is a parolee who is currently in the custody of the DOC. He is facing parole revocation because he was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence. Even though all criminal charges against him have been dismissed, the PRB hearing officer found probable cause at his preliminary parole hearing. Mr. Morales is currently awaiting his final revocation hearing. He has a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violation, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance presenting this evidence. Even so, the Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Mr. Morales is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings. 7. Montreal Thomas is a parolee who is currently in the custody of the DOC. He is facing parole revocation because he was arrested on suspicion of possession of marijuana. Even though all criminal charges against him have been dismissed, the PRB hearing officer found probable cause at his preliminary parole hearing. Mr. Thomas is currently awaiting his final revocation hearing. He has a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violation, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance presenting
3

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:4
this evidence. Even so, the Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Mr. Morales is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
8. Jaoquin Rocha is a parolee who is currently in the custody of the DOC. The PRB violated his parole based on allegations that Mr. Rocha committed the violation of Battery and Criminal Trespass. He has a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violation, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance presenting this evidence. Even so, the Defendants failed to ensure that Mr. Rocha was represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
9. Defendant Adam Monreal is the Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, the State agency that administers parole revocation proceedings. Mr. Monreal supervises the activities of the PRB, and is responsible for implementing the rules, regulations, procedures, and standards governing the parole revocation process in the State of Illinois.
10. Defendant S.A. Godinez is the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, the state agency that is responsible for providing supervision to parolees and for issuing parole violation reports and warrants based on such reports. Until a parolee is discharged from parole, he or she remains in the legal custody of the DOC. When an individual’s parole is revoked, that individual is re-imprisoned in the DOC. Mr. Godinez is responsible for implementing the rules, regulations, procedures and standard governing DOC’s role in the parole revocation process in the State of Illinois.
11. Defendant Pat Quinn is the Governor of the State of Illinois and Chief Executive of the state government. As such, Quinn is responsible for the enforcement of State policies by which the rights of the plaintiff class are being violated, as alleged herein. Quinn appointed Mr.
4

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:5
Godinez as Director of the Department of Corrections and Mr. Monreal as Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 12. The Plaintiffs bring this suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all parolees in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections who currently or will in the future face parole revocation proceedings. 13. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. There are approximately 30,000 individuals currently on parole under the supervision of the DOC and the PRB conducted over 10,000 revocation hearings last year. The class also includes many future members whose names are not known, since new people are released from prison and placed on parole each day and the Defendants initiate the parole revocation process frequently in a given week. There are questions of law and fact common to all class members, including but not limited to whether the Defendants’ policy and practice of systematically denying appointed counsel to parolees under the supervision of the DOC violates the U.S. Constitution. Because the practices and procedures challenged in this Complaint apply with equal force to the named Plaintiffs and the other members of the class, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class in general. 14. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. They each possess a strong personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and are represented by experienced counsel with expertise in civil rights litigation. Counsel have the legal knowledge and resources to fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members in this action.
5

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:6
15. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class: their policies, procedures, practices, acts, and omissions have affected all class members. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT Systematic Due Process Violations 16. Approximately 40% of the population incarcerated in Illinois prisons in 2012 was imprisoned for violating the conditions of their parole. That is, almost half of the prisoners in this State were put behind bars after being charged with violations of the terms and conditions of their parole and subjected to revocation proceedings in which their liberty was rescinded. Because the Defendants fail to implement any system by which parolees may request and obtain counsel at cost to the State, the vast majority of parolees are and continue to be subjected to these proceedings without the assistance of counsel to which many are constitutionally entitled. 17. Parole revocation proceedings are complex. Fairly conducted, they should involve the presentation of documentary evidence and mitigating circumstances, the cross-examination of witnesses, and oral advocacy. The Defendants lack any mechanism by which a parolee can request an appointed attorney to help him navigate these proceedings. The State categorically denies any request for appointed counsel because no system or funds are in place to secure such an appointment. 18. The Defendants’ policies and practices in this regard directly violate the requirements of due process established in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, which held that counsel should be provided in parole revocation cases where, after being informed of his right to request counsel, the parolee makes such a request, “based on a timely and colorable claim (i) that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that,
6

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:7
even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.” 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973). The Court further held that, in “passing on a request for the appointment of counsel, the responsible agency also should consider, especially in doubtful cases, whether the probationer appears to be capable of speaking effectively for himself.” Id. at 790–91. Thus, Gagnon affirmed that the right to counsel was “presumptive” in these three categories of cases—where there is a colorable claim the parolee did not commit the violation; where there is substantial evidence in mitigation of the violation, making revocation inappropriate; and where the parolee is incapable of speaking effectively for himself.
19. A significant percentage of parolees fall within one or more of the Gagnon categories. Yet, none receive consideration as to whether they have the right to an attorney and none are appointed counsel in cases that obviously meet the Gagnon criteria. The lack of counsel hinders parolees from effectively defending themselves in parole revocation proceedings.
20. The Defendants have admitted that the state of Illinois has no process through which the state appoints counsel to parolees for whom appointment of counsel is constitutionally required. In an October 2012 response to an Illinois Freedom of Information Act Request (“FOIA”), Defendant PRB’s FOIA officer wrote “The Prisoner Review Board does not appoint attorney's (sic) to represent adult inmates or juveniles who are being violated on parole.” See Oct. 12, 2012 email from K. Tupy to S. Bedi (attached as Exhibit A). Representatives of the PRB and DOC testified under oath at recent depositions that neither agency appoints counsel to
7

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:8
parolees in their revocation proceedings.1 See Excerpt from Shunique Joiner Dep. (attached as Exhibit B); Excerpt from Sharon Shipinski Dep. (attached as Exhibit C).
21. From beginning to end the parole revocation process is byzantine and complex. The parole revocation process is initiated when a DOC employees serves a parolee with a copy of a Parole Revocation Report. At the point of service, a parolee must make two critical decisions: (1) whether to waive, postpone or proceed with a scheduled preliminary revocation hearing, and (2) whether to provide the DOC with a list of witnesses who could testify, either on his behalf or as an adverse witness for purposes of cross-examination, at the preliminary hearing. The forms provided to parolees that are intended to give notice of the charges leveled against them are dense and incomprehensible—the form’s complex language and confusing design far exceed the comprehension of the average parolee. If a parolee does not have contact information for witnesses at the precise moment he is served with a parole violation report, or does not immediately grasp the nature of the proceedings and the charges against him, the parolee loses the opportunity to provide witness information to the Defendants. Generally, parolees have fewer than three minutes in which to make the decisions described above. And they must do so without the advice of counsel and without any guidance from the Defendants or their agents.
22. If a parolee opts to have a preliminary hearing, he or she will face a hearing officer who has access to police reports describing the alleged violations and a number of computerized databases that include information about a parolee’s prior arrests, court dates and parole compliance. The Defendants do not provide parolees with either access to the police reports or the information contained in the computerized databases. For the vast majority of parolees, a DOC employee (hereinafter, referred to as a “King investigator,” see fn. 1) serves as a quasi-prosecutor
1 These depositions were taken in King v. Walker, No. 06 C 204 (N.D. Ill), litigation concerning the due process rights of parolees during preliminary parole revocation hearings.
8

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:9
during the preliminary hearing, presenting a summary of the written report of the arresting officer or supervising parole agent, who do not ever appear at the actual hearing (and are thus not subject to cross-examination). King investigators also investigate alleged offenses that are not contained in the parolee’s original parole violation report and frequently bring these offenses to the attention of the hearing officer, even though the parolee does not have notice of these new charges or the evidence upon which they are based. These preliminary hearings are very brief—the average hearing lasts less than five minutes—and they are generally route affairs during which probable cause is almost always found. An examination of 344 representative cases from October 2012 to July 2013 uncovered only 15 instances (4% of all cases examined) where probable cause was not found. Counsel are never appointed to represent the parolee at the preliminary hearing, regardless of individual circumstances.
23. Once probable cause is found, parolees proceed to a final revocation hearing before one or more members of the PRB. The final revocation hearing is often held only after the parolee has been imprisoned for months as a result of the finding of probable cause in the preliminary hearing. These final hearings are generally a retread of what occurs at the preliminary hearing—cursory proceedings during which no witnesses are called and no evidence is presented beyond the written parole violation notice. Again, counsel is never appointed to represent the parolee, regardless of individual circumstances. As a result, the PRB almost always ratifies the decision of the hearing officer and keeps parolees imprisoned for a length of time that can vary from a few additional months to years.
24. Parolees must defend themselves within this shadowy and complex revocation system without the assistance of counsel, despite the fact that many parolees meet the requirements set forth in Gagnon, which entitle them to such assistance.
9

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:10
25. First, many parolees have, at the very least, a colorable claim that they did not commit the alleged parole violation. Parolees frequently are accused of violating parole merely because they have been arrested on suspicion of committing a new criminal offense. Sometimes the arrests themselves are unlawful. More often, these criminal charges are dismissed in a court of law as unfounded. The Defendants policies and procedures allow parolees to be violated and reimprisoned based solely on the fact that the parolee was subject to arrest—regardless of the merits of the case against him.
26. Similarly, a high percentage of parolees are accused of violating parole on the basis of their parole agent’s allegations that they committed a non-criminal technical violation, such as failing to check in with their parole officer. However, the evidence supporting these technical violations is often unreliable. Many of the supervisory functions of the parole system are outsourced to private companies, with insufficient oversight by the DOC or PRB. Further, the computer program that parole agents use to track parolees’ compliance with the terms of parole is rife with errors. In addition, parolees have no access to any of this information, and no way to challenge its reliability. The PRB routinely re-imprisons parolees based solely on parole agents’ statements that parolees have not complied with the terms of parole.
27. Because the Defendants do not provide parolees with appointed counsel, Plaintiffs are constructively prevented from presenting evidence, either at their preliminary or final parole revocation proceedings, that they did not commit the alleged violation. Without counsel, parolees are denied the opportunity to: (1) have meaningful notice of the charges leveled against them; (2) present evidence, including witnesses, on their own behalf and (3) confront their accusers.
28. Second, even in cases where the alleged violation is uncontested, many parolees have substantial reasons mitigating the violation, which, because of the complexity of developing
10

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:11
such evidence, they are incapable of presenting on their own. Parolees are unable to present witnesses who can testify to facts that either justify or mitigate against revocation, or present documentary evidence in their favor. Moreover, they have difficulty developing such evidence in the first place, while they are subject to the conditions of almost constant lock-down in the Northern Reception Center, the maximum security prison where most parolee detainees are initially incarcerated.
29. Technical violations in particular can often be remediated by an adjustment of the parolee’s conditions of parole, without full-scale revocation. Yet, without counsel to aid in the presentation of such mitigation evidence, the hearing officer and PRB systematically fail to take it into consideration.
30. Third, many parolees are unable to speak on their own behalf. Parolees who are under the supervision of the DOC have significantly higher levels of cognitive impairment, educational disabilities, illiteracy, mental health issues and other impairments than is found in the general public, and which make it difficult for such parolees to speak on their own behalf. The mostly recently available DOC data concludes that 38% percent of parolees in Illinois have a sixth grade reading level and that nearly 48% of parolees have not graduated from high school. National data suggests that 36% percent of people held behind bars live with mental illness. As a consequence, these class members are unable to prepare for or effectively defend themselves at their parole hearings without the assistance of counsel.
31. The systematic and on-going violations described in the preceding paragraphs result in the arbitrary imprisonment of thousands of people in Illinois prisons. People are consistently subjected to months of unreviewable incarceration without process or remedy. As a result of the Defendants’ practices and procedures, the members of the Plaintiff class have
11

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:12
suffered and continue to suffer well-established violations of their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Individual Plaintiff Allegations Moises Morales
32. An employee of Defendant DOC served Moises Morales with his parole violation report on October 25, 2013. He was alleged to have committed the offense of domestic battery, which was the only parole violation of which he was accused. Upon receiving his Parole Violation Report from the DOC Server, Mr. Morales expressed a great deal of confusion. When he was informed by the DOC server that he needed to decide whether to waive, postpone or proceed with his preliminary hearing, he told her that he could not make a decision because he did not understand the process. The DOC server informed Mr. Morales that he had to make a decision and that she could not help him decide or provide him with any additional information. Mr. Morales repeatedly expressed his confusion and his desire for help to the DOC server. She denied his requests. Eventually, and based on advice from other detainees, Mr. Morales decided to postpone his preliminary hearing until after he went to court for his first appearance on his new charge. Mr. Morales was hopeful that the charge would be dismissed because it was based on an argument he had with his girlfriend. He and his girlfriend had reconciled and she told him that she did not want to press charges against him.
33. Mr. Morales has a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged parole violation. Prior to Mr. Morales October 10, 2013 preliminary parole hearing, he appeared in court on his domestic battery charge and the charge was dismissed. His girlfriend, who was the only complaining witness, requested that the charge be dismissed because she felt that she was to blame for the argument that lead to the Mr. Morales’ arrest. During Mr. Morales’ preliminary
12

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:13
hearing, a King investigator testified based on a conversation she had with the arresting officer, who took a complaint from Mr. Morales’ girlfriend moments after the argument. But the Hearing Officer did not review the girlfriend’s more recent testimony, which had changed significantly. The Hearing Officer was aware that the charges against Mr. Morales were dismissed, yet she still found probable caused based solely on the fact that Mr. Morales had been arrested.
34. Mr. Morales lacked the ability to present any evidence of his innocence at his preliminary hearing because he does not have the capacity to call and question his own witness, to cross-examine the arresting officer or DOC employees, or to present his own testimony. Because the hearing officer found probable cause, Mr. Morales remains imprisoned while awaiting his final parole revocation hearing, which has yet to be scheduled.
35. Mr. Morales also has significant evidence mitigating against revocation. He has made substantial efforts to adhere to the conditions of his parole and become a productive member of society. This one incident is the only time he has been accused of violating the terms of his parole. Indeed, at the time of the alleged violation, Mr. Morales was working two part-time jobs: one at Power Stop, where he was employed as a Quality Control Auditor, and one at Primary Staffing, where he assembled food displays for grocery stores. He received a certificate in advancing youth development from the Chicago Area Project and was in the process of becoming a mentor to at-risk children. He had obtained his GED. This information would demonstrate to PRB members why revocation would be inappropriate in his case. However, without an attorney, Mr. Morales is incapable of presenting this information in a manner that will be fairly considered by the Defendants.
36. Mr. Morales is at imminent risk of having his due process rights violated at his final revocation hearing. Even though he has both a colorable claim that he has not committed
13

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:14
the alleged violation and mitigating evidence suggesting that revocation is inappropriate, the Defendants will not appoint him counsel as required by law. Montreal Thomas
37. Montreal Thomas was arrested on September 7, 2013, after agents of Defendant DOC performed a routine parole compliance check and visited Mr. Thomas at his approved residence, which was his cousin’s home. While searching the residence, the officers found marijuana and, as a result, immediately placed Mr. Thomas in custody.
38. Mr. Thomas has a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged parole violation. Mr. Thomas had a preliminary parole hearing on September 25, 2013. At that time, Mr. Thomas attempted to explain to the Hearing Officer that he did not know that the drugs were in the house, that the Parole Violation Report included a number of errors, and that he believed his criminal charges would be dismissed because he did not have personal possession of the drugs. Mr. Thomas’ hearing took place at the Cook County Jail and he struggled to speak above the chaos and din of the jail. He was constantly interrupted by the King investigator and was unable to present a comprehensible narrative describing his innocence. The PRB Hearing Officer found probable cause at the preliminary hearing based on the King Investigator’s testimony, which pertained only to her interview with the arresting agent and the inaccurate parole violation report.
39. Mr. Thomas also has significant evidence mitigating against revocation. He has made substantial efforts to become a productive member of society. He has been on parole for two years and has complied with all terms of his parole. He has worked consistently in construction and paid child support for his two children. His continued imprisonment imposes a substantial hardship on his children and their mother. Since his preliminary parole hearing, all
14

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:15
criminal charges against Mr. Thomas were dismissed. Yet, he is still imprisoned while awaiting his final parole revocation hearing, which has yet to be scheduled.
40. Mr. Thomas is at imminent risk of having his due process rights violated at his final revocation hearing. Even though he has both a colorable claim that he has not committed the alleged violation and mitigating evidence suggesting that revocation is inappropriate, the Defendants will not appoint him counsel as required by law. Joaquin Rocha
41. Joaquin Rocha was arrested on July 21, 2013, as a result of an argument with his neighbors. Shortly after the argument ended, the neighbor flagged down the police and told them that Mr. Rocha threatened his child. Based solely on this unsubstantiated allegation, Mr. Rocha was arrested and charged with Battery and Criminal Trespass. Towards the end of July 2013, as a result of this arrest, a DOC server provided Mr. Rocha with a parole violation report. At that time, Mr. Rocha chose to postpone his preliminary parole hearing so he could await the outcome of his first court appearance. Mr. Rocha anticipated that the criminal charges against him would be dismissed.
42. Mr. Rocha has a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged parole violation. Mr. Rocha’s preliminary hearing was scheduled for August 7, 2013 at the Cook County Jail. The Hearing Report or record prepared by the PRB Hearing Officer lists a number of documents that were presented at the hearing and states that probable cause was found in court on his criminal charge. All of this information is entirely false, as the preliminary hearing did not actually occur. The hearing report from that day indicates that there was “no pass for the offender.” Thus, Mr. Rocha’s scheduled preliminary hearing was postponed without his consent, apparently because the Defendants could not locate Mr. Rocha, who was imprisoned in the Cook
15

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:16
County Jail. In addition, contrary to what was written on the Hearing Report, Mr. Rocha’s criminal charges had actually been dismissed by the court.
43. Mr. Rocha finally had his preliminary hearing on August 15, 2013. He tried to explain to the PRB Hearing Officer that his charges had been dismissed. The King investigator called him a liar and informed the hearing officer that Mr. Rocha had additional pending charges related to a traffic violation that were not listed in the parole violation report. The PRB Hearing Officer would not let Mr. Rocha explain his case and he was unable to access the computerized databases the Hearing Officer and the King investigator were using to gather information about his alleged violations. Despite the fact that Mr. Rocha’s underlying criminal charges were dismissed, the hearing officer found probable cause.
44. On Friday, September 20, 2013, Mr. Rocha appeared before the PRB for his final revocation hearing. The PRB member told Mr. Rocha that if he consented to be violated, Mr. Rocha would only have to serve another week and then he would be released from prison and from parole. Mr. Rocha was reluctant to agree to the Board member’s suggestion. Mr. Rocha knew he had a defense to the alleged violation and he did not want to be violated for an offense he did not commit, but he also knew that he was unable to effectively present a defense or speak on his own behalf before the PRB member. After the PRB member repeatedly urged that he request to be violated, Mr. Rocha did so, on the understanding that he would soon be released from both prison and parole supervision.
45. The day before Mr. Rocha was set to be released from prison, the DOC served him with paperwork informing him that he would not, in fact, be released, either from prison or parole. Instead, he was to serve an additional 18 months in DOC custody for violating the conditions of his parole. Mr. Rocha remains imprisoned and has never received an explanation
16

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:17
for this outcome. Even though Mr. Rocha’s case was procedurally complicated and even though he had a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violation, the Defendants denied him access to appointed counsel. As a result, Mr. Rocha has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
Allegations of a Putative Class Member 46. G.V. is a parolee who is currently in the custody of the DOC. He takes Risperdal and Trazadone for serious mental illness and he has a difficult time reading documents and comprehending what he has read. He is also unable to communicate in a coherent, intelligible fashion. On June 23, 2013, G.V. was arrested for allegedly pointing a BB gun at an acquaintance in his neighborhood. The police arrested G.V. based solely on the unsubstantiated accusations of this acquaintance. 47. On July 28, 2013, a DOC sever provided G.V. with a copy of his parole violation report, which alleged that G.V. had violated parole by committing an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (as a result of the incident with the BB gun) and because he had not made himself available to his parole agent for supervision. G.V. could not understand this paperwork. He tried to read it but it made no sense to him. 48. G.V. had a colorable claim that he did not commit his alleged criminal violation, which is bolstered by the fact that his criminal charges against him were dismissed on July 5, 2013. Additionally, G.V. has spent much of this parole term in and out of mental health treatment centers. He has hospital records to prove this, which illustrate that his repeated hospitalizations have made it difficult to maintain contact with his parole agent since he could not access the phone while hospitalized. Regardless, at his July 11, 2013, preliminary parole hearing, the PRB Hearing Officer found probable cause that G.V. committed the alleged violation.
17

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:18
49. At his preliminary parole hearing. G.V. did not understand what was happening and, as a result of his mental health issues, he was unable to speak for himself or describe the evidence he had to prove that he did not commit the alleged violations. During his hearing, the King investigator recited the facts from his parole violation report. G.V. did not have the capacity to subject her to cross-examination. Nor did G.V. have the ability to gather the documents related to his hospitalizations to submit to the PRB hearing officer.
50. During his final revocation hearing, a PRB member told G.V. he was violated and that he would have to remain imprisoned for the remainder of his parole term. G.V. did not understand that he was attending a final revocation hearing or that he had the right to present evidence on his own behalf during this hearing. Even if he had understood these rights, it would not have affected the outcome of his parolee proceedings. As a result of his mental illness, G.V. lacks the capacity to speak for himself.
51. Even though G.V. clearly lacked the capacity to effectively speak for and defend himself on the alleged parole violations, the Defendants denied him access to appointed counsel. As a result, G.V. suffers and will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
52. For as long as each named Plaintiff and putative class members remains on parole in Illinois, they will face an ongoing imminent risk of being subjected to the Defendants’ unconstitutional parole procedures.
COUNT I 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Right to Due Process 53. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth in this Count. 54. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief against all Defendants to prevent the continued violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the class they represent.
18

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:19
55. By continuing to conduct parole revocation proceedings in the manner alleged in this Complaint, and specifically, by both failing to consider whether parolees qualify for the appointment of counsel, at cost to the State, and failing to appoint counsel to those parolees who so qualify, Defendants are in continuous violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of the members of the class under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class they represent respectfully pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in the following manner: 1. Enter an Order certifying a class of all parolees in the State of Illinois who currently or will in the future face parole revocation proceedings. 2. Adjudge and declare that the policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint are in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the class they represent under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 3. Preliminary and permanently enjoin the Defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons under their control from subjecting Plaintiffs and the class they represent from the unlawful policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint. 4. Retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as the Defendants have fully complied with all orders of the Court, and there is reasonable assurance that the Defendants will continue to comply in the future with these orders. 5. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 6. Award Plaintiffs and the class they represent such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
19

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:20
Respectfully submitted, MOISES MORALES, MONTREAL THOMAS, and JOAQUIN ROCHA, individually, and on behalf of the class of parolees who face parole revocation proceedings in the State of Illinois. By: /s/ Alexa Van Brunt
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Alexa Van Brunt Sheila A. Bedi (Pro hac vice motion to be filed) Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law 357 E. Chicago Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 503-1336 Alan Mills Uptown People's Law Center 4413 North Sheridan Chicago, Illinois 60640 (773)769-1411
20

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that she served the foregoing document via the Court’s CM/ECF system on October 22, 2013.
/s/ Alexa Van Brunt

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:22
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Tupy, Ken [mailto:Ken.Tupy@Illinois.gov] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:44 PM To: Sheila A Bedi Subject: RE: FOIA request October 12, 2012
Sheila A. Bedi Associate Clinical Professor Macarthur Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law 375 E. Chicago Ave., 8th Floor Chicago, IL 60611 Dear Sheila Bedi:
Thank you for writing to the Prisoner Review Board with your request for information pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.
On October 5, 2012, you requested the following documents: (1) policies and procedures through which an juvenile or adult can request assistance of an attorney prior to a parole revocation; (2) documents to show the number of attorney's appointed; (3) Documents to show the percentage of the Prisoner Review Board Budget that is used to pay for the appointment of an attorney and (4) all policies and procedures concerning the parole revocation process, including the ability to subpoena witnesses.
In response to your request in (1) policies and procedures through which an juvenile or adult can request assistance of an attorney prior to a parole revocation. Pursuant to Title 20 Section 1610.30, the inmate may retain an attorney to represent him or her in their parole revocation case. (2) documents to show the number of attorney's appointed. The Prisoner Review Board does not appoint attorney's to represent adult inmates or juveniles who are being violated on parole. (3) Documents to show the percentage of the Prisoner Review Board Budget that is used to pay for the appointment of an attorney. The Prisoner Review Board does not have any budget to appoint attorneys to represent parole violators. (4) all policies and procedures concerning the parole revocation process, including the ability to subpoena witnesses. Please find enclosed a copy of the Prisoner Review Board's laws and regulations regarding revocation of parole.
1

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:23
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. My phone number is 217 782‐1610.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth D. Tupy Freedom of Information Officer
Section 1610.140 Revocation Procedure a) Preliminary Hearing. When it is charged that the parolee has violated a condition of his parole agreement, he shall be given a written notice informing him of the conditions of parole which have allegedly been violated and the manner in which they were violated. He shall be informed of the date, time, and place at which he will be called before a hearing officer authorized by the Prisoner Review Board for a preliminary hearing on the alleged violation. b) 1) At the preliminary hearing, the parolee may appear and speak in his own behalf; he may bring letters, documents, or individuals who can give relevant information to the hearing officer. On request of the parolee, persons who have given adverse information on which parole revocation is to be based shall be made available for questioning in his presence. However, if the hearing officer determines that the informant would be subjected to risk or harm if his identity were disclosed, he need not be subjected to confrontation and cross‐examination. The hearing officer shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence. 2) If the officer finds from the information presented at the preliminary hearing that there is reasonable ground to believe that the alleged violation did occur, and that there is probable cause to hold the parolee for a final decision of the Prisoner Review Board on revocation, the parolee shall be returned to the institution or facility from which he was released on parole or to another facility of the Department of Corrections. The officer shall state in writing the reasons for his determination and indicate the basis for the determination. If the officer finds that there is reasonable ground to believe that the alleged violation did not occur, the parolee will be released to continue serving his parole. 3) The preliminary hearing shall be held within 10 days of the parolee's apprehension unless continued by the hearing officer for up to an additional two weeks to permit the production of witnesses or materials relevant to the hearing. c) As per Goldberg vs. Kelly, a parolee shall have the right to retain counsel at both the preliminary and revocation hearing.
2

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:24
d) All witnesses called must be sworn under oath.
e) All parolees have a right to a transcript or proceedings. A court reporter may be provided at the parolee's expense.
f) Subpoenas. The Prisoner Review Board or parolee who has allegedly violated his parole may request by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence relating to any matter under investigation or hearing. The Chairman of the Prisoner Review Board may sign subpoenas when, in his judgment, the relevance of testimony of the witness is substantial. Subpoenas shall be served by any agent or public official authorized by the Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, or by any person lawfully authorized to serve a subpoena under the laws of the State of Illinois. The attendance of witnesses, and the production of documentary evidence, may be required from any place in the state to a hearing location within 150 miles of the place where the violation is alleged to have occurred, and before the Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board or his designated agent or agents or any duly constituted committee or subcommittee of the Board. Witnesses so summoned shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the circuit courts of the state, and witnesses whose depositions are taken and the persons taking those depositions are each entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in actions in the circuit courts of the state. Fees and mileage shall be vouchered for payment when the witness is discharged from further attendance. In cases of disobedience to a subpoena, the Board may petition any circuit court of the state for an order requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of documentary evidence or both. A copy of such petition shall be served by personal service or by registered or certified mail upon the person who has failed to obey the subpoena, and such person shall be advised in writing that a hearing upon the petition will be requested in a court room to be designated in such notice before the judge hearing motions or extraordinary remedies at a specified time, on a specified date, not less than 10 nor more than 15 days after the deposit of the copy of the written notice and petition in the U.S. mails addressed to the person at his last known address or after the personal service of the copy of the notice and petition upon such person. The court upon the filing of such a petition, may order the person refusing to obey the subpoena to appear at an investigation or hearing, or to there produce documentary evidence, if so ordered, or to give evidence relative to the subject matter of the investigation or hearing. Any failure to obey such order of the circuit court may be punished by that court as a contempt of court.
Section 1610.150 Revocation Hearing
a) If a parolee is returned to the institution or facility for an alleged violation of the terms of his parole agreement his name shall be placed on the next regular hearing docket at the institution or facility where he is confined, provided that his return to the institution or facility is at least 30 days prior to the next scheduled meeting of a panel of the Board at the institution or facility.
b) The parolee having received written notice setting forth the alleged violation of his parole agreement which has been charged against him shall be entitled to disclosure of evidence against him, opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence and shall have the right to confront and cross‐examine adverse witnesses (unless the panel member specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation).
c) A hearing on revocation shall be conducted before at least one member of the panel. The member will interview the parolee, any witnesses, and any persons who appear in support of the charge of violation. Each member of the Board shall have the power to administer oaths and to take the testimony of persons under oath.
d) The member will also consider all reports and written affidavits submitted on behalf of the parolee or in support of the charge against him.
3

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:25
e) The member shall make a record of the hearing including a summary of the statements of the parolee and any persons who appear at the hearing. The member shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence in conducting the hearing.
f) The members of the panel will decide in closed conference the cases of any persons alleged to have violated their parole agreements. The action of a panel will be the action of the Board.
g) The Board may revoke parole for violation of a condition occurring before the expiration of the parole term even though a determination of the alleged violation cannot be reasonably made until after the expiration of the parole term.
h) The issuance of a warrant for an alleged violation of the conditions of parole shall toll the running of the term of parole until the final determination of the charge, but if parole is not revoked, that period shall be credited as time served on parole.
i) If a panel determines that the parolee has violated any of the terms and conditions of parole, it shall issue a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking parole. The parolee shall receive a copy of this statement.
Section 1610.35 Juvenile Parole
a) Juveniles serving felony sentences shall be docketed as prescribed in Section 1610.30.
1) Alleged juvenile parole violators returned to the custody of the Department of Corrections shall be docketed and heard at the next scheduled hearing for that institution following the compilation of all documentation related to the alleged parole violation.
2) Persons committed to the Department of Corrections as delinquents shall be presented to the Board for parole consideration before 11 months of the commitment have expired.
Chapter 730. Corrections Act 5. Unified Code of Corrections (Refs & Annos) Chapter III. Department of Corrections Article 3. Parole and Pardon Board (Refs & Annos) 5/3‐3‐9. Violations; changes of conditions; preliminary hearing; revocation of parole or mandatory supervised release; revocation hearing
§ 3‐3‐9. Violations; changes of conditions; preliminary hearing; revocation of parole or mandatory supervised release; revocation hearing.
(a) If prior to expiration or termination of the term of parole or mandatory supervised release, a person violates a condition set by the Prisoner Review Board or a condition of parole or mandatory supervised release under Section 3‐3‐7 of this Code to govern that term, the Board may:
(1) continue the existing term, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; or
(2) parole or release the person to a half‐way house; or
(3) revoke the parole or mandatory supervised release and reconfine the person for a term computed in the following manner:
(i)(A) For those sentenced under the law in effect prior to this amendatory Act of 1977, the recommitment shall be for any portion of the imposed maximum term of imprisonment or confinement which had not been served at the time of parole and the parole term, less the time elapsed between the parole of the person and the commission of the violation for which parole was revoked;
4

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:26
(B) Except as set forth in paragraph (C), for those subject to mandatory supervised release under paragraph (d) of Section 5‐8‐1 of this Code, the recommitment shall be for the total mandatory supervised release term, less the time elapsed between the release of the person and the commission of the violation for which mandatory supervised release is revoked. The Board may also order that a prisoner serve up to one year of the sentence imposed by the court which was not served due to the accumulation of sentence credit;
(C) For those subject to sex offender supervision under clause (d)(4) of Section 5‐8‐1 of this Code, the reconfinement period for violations of clauses (a)(3) through (b‐1)(15) of Section 3‐3‐7 shall not exceed 2 years from the date of reconfinement.
(ii) the person shall be given credit against the term of reimprisonment or reconfinement for time spent in custody since he was paroled or released which has not been credited against another sentence or period of confinement;
(iii) persons committed under the Juvenile Court Act or the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 may be continued under the existing term of parole with or without modifying the conditions of parole, paroled or released to a group home or other residential facility, or recommitted until the age of 21 unless sooner terminated;
(iv) this Section is subject to the release under supervision and the reparole and rerelease provisions of Section 3‐3‐10.
(b) The Board may revoke parole or mandatory supervised release for violation of a condition for the duration of the term and for any further period which is reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising before its expiration. The issuance of a warrant of arrest for an alleged violation of the conditions of parole or mandatory supervised release shall toll the running of the term until the final determination of the charge. When parole or mandatory supervised release is not revoked that period shall be credited to the term, unless a community‐based sanction is imposed as an alternative to revocation and reincarceration, including a diversion established by the Illinois Department of Corrections Parole Services Unit prior to the holding of a preliminary parole revocation hearing. Parolees who are diverted to a community‐based sanction shall serve the entire term of parole or mandatory supervised release, if otherwise appropriate.
(b‐5) The Board shall revoke parole or mandatory supervised release for violation of the conditions prescribed in paragraph (7.6) of subsection (a) of Section 3‐3‐7.
(c) A person charged with violating a condition of parole or mandatory supervised release shall have a preliminary hearing before a hearing officer designated by the Board to determine if there is cause to hold the person for a revocation hearing. However, no preliminary hearing need be held when revocation is based upon new criminal charges and a court finds probable cause on the new criminal charges or when the revocation is based upon a new criminal conviction and a certified copy of that conviction is available.
(d) Parole or mandatory supervised release shall not be revoked without written notice to the offender setting forth the violation of parole or mandatory supervised release charged against him.
(e) A hearing on revocation shall be conducted before at least one member of the Prisoner Review Board. The Board may meet and order its actions in panels of 3 or more members. The action of a majority of the panel shall be the action of the Board. In consideration of persons committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice, the member hearing the matter and at least a majority of the panel shall be experienced in juvenile matters. A record of the hearing shall be made. At the hearing the offender shall be permitted to:
(1) appear and answer the charge; and
(2) bring witnesses on his behalf.
5

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:27
(f) The Board shall either revoke parole or mandatory supervised release or order the person's term continued with or without modification or enlargement of the conditions. (g) Parole or mandatory supervised release shall not be revoked for failure to make payments under the conditions of parole or release unless the Board determines that such failure is due to the offender's willful refusal to pay. Chapter 730. Corrections Act 5. Unified Code of Corrections (Refs & Annos) Chapter III. Department of Corrections Article 3. Parole and Pardon Board (Refs & Annos) 5/3‐3‐10. Eligibility after Revocation; Release under Supervision § 3‐3‐10. Eligibility after Revocation; Release under Supervision. (a) A person whose parole or mandatory supervised release has been revoked may be reparoled or rereleased by the Board at any time to the full parole or mandatory supervised release term under Section 3‐3‐8, except that the time which the person shall remain subject to the Board shall not exceed (1) the imposed maximum term of imprisonment or confinement and the parole term for those sentenced under the law in effect prior to the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1977 or (2) the term of imprisonment imposed by the court and the mandatory supervised release term for those sentenced under the law in effect on and after such effective date. (b) If the Board sets no earlier release date: (1) A person sentenced for any violation of law which occurred before January 1, 1973, shall be released under supervision 6 months prior to the expiration of his maximum sentence of imprisonment less good time credit under Section 3‐6‐3. (2) Any person who has violated the conditions of his parole and been reconfined under Section 3‐3‐9 shall be released under supervision 6 months prior to the expiration of the term of his reconfinement under paragraph (a) of Section 3‐3‐ 9 less good time credit under Section 3‐6‐3. This paragraph shall not apply to persons serving terms of mandatory supervised release. (3) Nothing herein shall require the release of a person who has violated his parole within 6 months of the date when his release under this Section would otherwise be mandatory. (c) Persons released under this Section shall be subject to Sections 3‐3‐6, 3‐3‐7, 3‐3‐9, 3‐14‐1, 3‐14‐2, 3‐14‐2.5, 3‐14‐3, and 3‐14‐4. The Department of Corrections also posts notices pursuant to "King v. Walker".
6

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHARLES KING, et al., Plaintiffs,
-vsROGER E. WALKER, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) No. 06 C 204 ) ) ) )

The videotaped deposition of SHUNIQUE JOINTER, as designee of the PRB, called for examination pursuant to Subpoena and the Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts pertaining to the taking of depositions, taken before Sandra Eberle, a notary public within and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, at 750 North Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois, on the 25th day of September, 2013, commencing at the hour of 4:37 p.m. and concluding at 4:51 p.m.

Reported by: Sandra Eberle, RPR, CRR License No.: 084-003229
1
McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:29

1 APPEARANCES:

2

RODERICK AND SOLANGE MacARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER

BY: MS. SHEILA A. BEDI

3

Northwestern University School of Law

357 East Chicago Avenue

4

Chicago, Illinois 60611

(312) 503-0844

5

sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu

a-vanbrunt@law.northwestern.edu

6

eraena-hart@law.northwestern.edu

7

AND

8

UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER

BY: MR. ALAN MILLS

9

4413 North Sheridan

Chicago, Illinois 60640

10

(773) 769-1411

alanmills@comcast.net

11

Representing the Plaintiffs;

12

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA MADIGAN

13

BY: MR. KEVIN LOVELLETTE

Assistant Attorney General

14

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

15

(312) 814-3720

klovellette@atg.state.il.us

16

Representing the Defendants

and the Deponent.

17

ALSO PRESENT:

18

RICK KOSBERG, video technician

ERIN RAMAMURTHY, law student

19

KENNETH TUPI, Attorney for PRB

20

* * *

21

22

23

24

2

McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:30

1 witnesses who may participate in the preliminary

2 parole hearing process?

3

A. That they have to be notified and

4 testimony given prior to the hearing.

5

Q. Okay. What are the PRB's policies

6 governing access to counsel at the preliminary

7 parole hearing process?

8

A. I don't know -- oh, I'm sorry.

9 Normally they will be -- they're allowed to have

10 a private attorney and that attorney would have

11 to contact me in order to attend the hearing.

12

Q. So the PRB policy is that a private

13 attorney would have to contact the King hearing

14 officer in order to attend the hearing?

15

A. Yes.

16

Q. Is that right? And how does the

17 private attorney get your information?

18

A. They normally call Springfield or they

19 will call the institution and get to me through

20 the telephone.

21

Q. To -- is there a formal policy

22 governing access to counsel in the preliminary

23 parole hearing process?

24

A. Is there a what?

10
McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:31

1

Q. Is there a policy, a formal policy, at

2 the PRB?

3

MR. LOVELLETTE: By formal, do you mean

4 written?

5

MS. BEDI: Yes, a written policy.

6

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

7 BY MS. BEDI:

8

Q. If -- what's the PRB's -- explain to me

9 the PRB's response in this scenario. At a

10 preliminary hearing a parolee says I can't speak

11 for myself; I need a lawyer.

12

A. Okay.

13

Q. What are the PRB's policies governing

14 that situation?

15

A. Then I would ask him does he actually

16 have an attorney hired on. And let's just

17 assume he says yes.

18

And then I would ask him does he have

19 his information so that I can give him a call.

20

And let's just assume that he says yes.

21 Then I would take the information and then I

22 would ask him, you know, I need to call your

23 attorney, do you want to reschedule this until a

24 particular time so that I can be able to get a

11
McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:32

1 hold of your attorney, make sure he doesn't

2 have, you know, any court appearances and be

3 able to make it. So -- and then normally they

4 agree with that.

5

Q. Okay.

6

A. If they have all that information and,

7 you know, they can follow through, that's the

8 process.

9

Q. And that's for a private attorney; is

10 that right?

11

A. Yes.

12

Q. What if a parolee says I can't speak

13 for myself in this hearing and I'm indigent, I

14 can't afford an attorney, will you help me get

15 an attorney?

16

A. No. That's not -- I can't do that.

17

Q. Okay. The PRB cannot provide

18 counsel --

19

A. Correct.

20

Q. -- for people who request it because

21 they can't speak for themselves?

22

A. Correct.

23

Q. Is that correct? Okay.

24

Does the PRB provide counsel for people

12
McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:33

1 who may have any kind of mitigating evidence

2 about why they should not be revoked?

3

A. I don't know.

4

Q. Does the --

5

A. Because being revoked is not at the --

6 you know, you're just saying in general, right,

7 at the hearings?

8

Q. Uh-huh.

9

A. Okay. Repeat the question again before

10 I answer that.

11

Q. Describe for me the PRB's policies and

12 practices with regard to appointing counsel to

13 parolees at the preliminary hearing.

14

A. That's not what you said at first, was

15 it?

16

MR. LOVELLETTE: No. She changed her

17 question. You're not going crazy. She changed

18 her question.

19

THE WITNESS: Oh, my God.

20

MR. MILLS: It was much better the second

21 time.

22

THE WITNESS: Okay. Say it again.

23 BY MS. BEDI:

24

Q. Now I'm going to screw it up again.

13
McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:34

1

MR. LOVELLETTE: She can read it back.

2 BY MS. BEDI:

3

Q. Describe for me the PRB's policies with

4 regard to appointing counsel for parolees at the

5 preliminary hearing, the preliminary parole

6 hearing.

7

A. The Board does not appoint counsel.

8

Q. To your knowledge, does the Board

9 appoint counsel at the final revocation hearing?

10

MR. LOVELLETTE: I'm going to object.

11

Don't answer that. That's beyond the

12 scope of the subpoena.

13 BY MS. BEDI:

14

Q. What files does the PRB keep regarding

15 the preliminary parole hearings?

16

A. What files?

17

Q. What documents.

18

A. What documents. Okay. You're throwing

19 me off there. They keep everything that was

20 presented in front of me. It goes straight to

21 the Board. So it all depends. I mean, it may

22 just be a simple violation report and just the

23 witness sheet and all that or it may be an

24 arrest report or it may be, you know, AMS

14
McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:35
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHARLES KING, et al., Plaintiffs,
-vsROGER E. WALKER, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) No. 06 C 204 ) ) ) )

The videotaped deposition of SHARON SHIPINSKI, called for examination pursuant to Subpoena and the Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts pertaining to the taking of depositions, taken before Sandra Eberle, a notary public within and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, at 750 North Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois, on the 1st day of October, 2013, commencing at the hour of 10:10 a.m. and concluding at 11:50 a.m.

Reported by: Sandra Eberle, RPR, CRR License No.: 084-003229
1
McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:36

1 APPEARANCES:

2

RODERICK AND SOLANGE MacARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER

BY: MS. SHEILA A. BEDI

3

MS. ALEXA VAN BRUNT

Northwestern University School of Law

4

357 East Chicago Avenue

Chicago, Illinois 60611

5

(312) 503-0844

sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu

6

a-vanbrunt@law.northwestern.edu

jan.stephens@law.northwestern.edu

7

eraena-hart@law.northwestern.edu

8

AND

9

UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER

BY: MR. ALAN MILLS

10

4413 North Sheridan

Chicago, Illinois 60640

11

(773) 769-1411

alanmills@comcast.net

12

Representing the Plaintiffs;

13

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA MADIGAN

14

BY: MR. KEVIN LOVELLETTE

Assistant Attorney General

15

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

16

(312) 814-3720

klovellette@atg.state.il.us

17

Representing the Defendants

and the Deponent.

18

ALSO PRESENT:

19

RICK KOSBERG, video technician

20

21

* * *

22

23

24 2

McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:37

1 that.

2

Q. Okay. Give me just one second here.

3 What training do servers receive about a

4 parolee's request for -- request for appointed

5 counsel?

6

A. I don't think they receive training

7 specific to that.

8

Q. So how should a server respond if a

9 parolee says I'd like an appointed attorney to

10 represent me at my preliminary parole hearing?

11

A. I believe the jail would provide

12 accommodation for a parolee to call for counsel.

13 That's not something -- that's not a DOC

14 function.

15

Q. So how --

16

A. If they're in the jail, we can't

17 control how the parolee can or can't make

18 contact with anyone from a jail. That's not our

19 jail.

20

Q. What if somebody at the NRC asks the

21 individual who served -- who served him for

22 appointed counsel, what would the response be?

23

A. Couldn't answer. I work in parole.

24

Q. And are Exhibits 1 and 2 the only

77

McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 10/22/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:38

1 written documents that exist regarding the

2 service process for the preliminary parole

3 hearings?

4

A. I think so. Those are formal policies

5 or directives.

6

Q. And you don't know of any other written

7 documents?

8

A. Well, beyond King.

9

Q. Beyond the consent decree and Exhibits

10 1 and 2, are there any other written documents?

11

A. Not that are policies. I think we have

12 turned in exhibits that are training or overview

13 or a few other things. But these are the formal

14 policies.

15

MS. BEDI: All right. Great. Let's take a

16 short break again.

17

THE VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Off the record,

18 11:26.

19

(A break was taken.)

20

THE VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Back on the record,

21 11:35.

22 BY MS. BEDI:

23

Q. All right. So I've got a question

24 about witnesses at the preliminary parole 78

McCorkle Litigation Services, Inc. Chicago, Illinois (312) 263-0052

Morales et al v. Monreal et al, Docket No. 1:13-cv-07572 (N.D. Ill. Oct 22, 2013), Court Docket
General Information

Court
Federal Nature of Suit Docket Number Status

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Civil Rights - Other[440] 1:13-cv-07572 Closed

© 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 40

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:243

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MOISES MORALES; MONTREAL THOMAS;

)

JOAQUIN ROCHA; SHAVONISE BUCHANNAN; )

and KELVIN PERRY, on behalf of themselves

)

and all similarly situated individuals

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

) Case No. 13CV7572

)

v.

) Judge Amy J. St. Eve

)

ADAM MONREAL, in his official capacity as

)

Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board; and )

S.A. GODINEZ in his official capacity as Director )

of the Illinois Department of Corrections;

)

)

Defendants.

)

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs MOISES MORALES, MONTREAL THOMAS, JOAQUIN ROCHA, MOISES MORALES; MONTREAL THOMAS; JOAQUIN ROCHA, SHAVONISE BUCHANNAN, and KELVIN PERRY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, file this complaint against ADAM MONREAL, Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, and S.A. GODINEZ, Director of the Department of Corrections, and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil rights class action complaint filed on behalf of the men and women who are in the custody of or under the supervision of the Illinois Department of Corrections (hereinafter, the DOC) and who are at risk of imprisonment without adequate due process as a result of the unconstitutional practices and procedures of both the DOC and the Illinois Prisoner Review Board (hereinafter, the PRB) with respect to parole revocation proceedings. The

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 2 of 28 PageID #:244
Defendants have developed a fundamentally unfair and procedurally flawed parole revocation process that violates the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as set forth in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) and related cases. This court should declare those procedures unlawful and it should enjoin them.
2. In direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Defendants unilaterally refuse to provide attorneys to parolees at any point in the parole revocation process. This is true even if a parolee is indigent and (1) has a colorable claim that he did not commit an alleged violation, (2) has mitigating evidence explaining why revocation is inappropriate and/or (3) cannot speak for him or herself.
3. The Defendants commit other due process violations against the parolees in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Parolees from most counties are routinely incarcerated without a timely preliminary hearing to determine whether there is reason to believe that they have actually violated the conditions of their parole. As a result, class members are detained, oftentimes for up to a month or more, without any kind of hearing into the legality of their imprisonment. At each stage thereafter, revocation proceedings fail to provide requisite due process protections. The PRB hearing officer (who adjudicates the preliminary parole hearing) and PRB members (who adjudicate the final revocation hearing) preside over faux proceedings that have few of the trappings of due process required before an individual can be imprisoned or otherwise deprived of his or her liberty.
4. In most instances, the hearing officer and the PRB members merely rubber stamp parole violation reports submitted by parole agents or the police reports of arresting officers, without inquiring into their reliability. The Defendants fail to provide an opportunity for parolees
2

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 3 of 28 PageID #:245
to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses, including parole agents or police officers whose reports serve as the basis for the alleged parole violation. Hearing Officers and PRB members fail to apply any consistent legal standard to the revocation proceedings and often elicit admissions in violation of the parolee’s rights to remain silent. The hearings are route, informal affairs that are more akin to a conversational inquiry that an administrative proceeding. Consequently, parole revocation hearings in Illinois are a sham.
5. The systematic and on-going violations described in this complaint result in the arbitrary imprisonment of hundreds of adults in Illinois facilities. The Defendants conduct over 10,000 of these unlawful hearings each year. The Defendants have, in effect, created a procedural vortex from which people on parole cannot escape. As a result of the Defendants’ policies and procedures, the Plaintiffs are continually rotated in and out of the prison system, often as a result of non-criminal technical parole violations, and often based merely on an unsubstantiated accusation that the parolee committed a new criminal offense.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of the Plaintiffs rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this complaint occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 8. Moises Morales is a parolee who was, at the time of the filing of the initial complaint, in the custody of the DOC and facing parole revocation because he was arrested on
3

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 4 of 28 PageID #:246
suspicion of domestic violence. Even though all criminal charges against him were dismissed, the PRB hearing officer found probable cause at his preliminary parole hearing. At the time of the initial complaint, Mr. Morales was awaiting his final revocation hearing. He had a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violation, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needed assistance presenting this evidence. Even so, the Defendants failed to ensure that Mr. Morales was represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
9. Montreal Thomas is a parolee who was, at the time of the initial complaint, in the custody of the DOC and facing parole revocation because he was arrested on suspicion of possession of marijuana. Even though all criminal charges against him were dismissed, the PRB hearing officer found probable cause at his preliminary parole hearing. At the time of the initial complaint, Mr. Thomas was awaiting his final revocation hearing. He had a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violation, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needed assistance presenting this evidence. Even so, the Defendants failed to ensure that Mr. Morales is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
10. Joaquin Rocha was, at the time of his initial complaint, in the custody of the DOC. The PRB violated his parole based on allegations that Mr. Rocha committed the violation of Battery and Criminal Trespass. He had a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violation, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needed assistance presenting this evidence. Even so, the Defendants failed to ensure that Mr. Rocha was represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
11. Shavonise Buchannan is currently in the custody of the DOC and is detained at the Cook County Jail. He is facing parole revocation based on allegations that he committed a number of non-criminal, technical violations and a drug-related criminal offense. He has a
4

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 5 of 28 PageID #:247
colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance presenting this evidence. Even so, the Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Mr. Buchannan is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings. Additionally, the Defendants have failed and will continue to fail to provide Mr. Buchannan with the procedural protections to which he is entitled during his parole revocation proceedings—including the right to access, develop and present evidence, the right to confront the witnesses against him, and the right to have his case heard before a fair and impartial decision maker.
12. Kelvin Perry is currently in the custody of the DOC and is detained at the Cook County Jail. He is facing parole revocation based on allegations that he committed a drug-related criminal offense. He has a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violation, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance presenting this evidence. Even so, the Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Mr. Perry is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings. Additionally, the Defendants have failed and will continue to fail to provide Mr. Perry with the procedural protections to which he is entitled during his parole revocation proceedings—including the right to access, develop and present evidence, the right to confront the witnesses against him, and the right to have his case heard before a fair and impartial decision maker.
13. Defendant Adam Monreal is the Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, the State agency that administers parole revocation proceedings. Mr. Monreal supervises the activities of the PRB, and is responsible for implementing the rules, regulations, procedures, and standards governing the parole revocation process in the State of Illinois.
5

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 6 of 28 PageID #:248
14. Defendant S.A. Godinez is the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, the state agency that is responsible for providing supervision to parolees and for issuing parole violation reports and warrants based on such reports. Until a parolee is discharged from parole, he or she remains in the legal custody of the DOC. When an individual’s parole is revoked, that individual is re-imprisoned in the DOC. Mr. Godinez is responsible for implementing the rules, regulations, procedures and standards governing DOC’s role in the parole revocation process in the State of Illinois.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 15. The Plaintiffs bring this suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all parolees in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections who currently or will in the future face parole revocation 16. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. There are approximately 30,000 individuals currently on parole under the supervision of the DOC and the PRB conducted over 8,000 revocation hearings in 2014. The class also includes many future members whose names are not known, since new people are released from prison and placed on parole each day and the Defendants initiate the parole revocation process frequently in a given week. There are questions of law and fact common to all class members, including but not limited to whether the Defendants’ policy and practice of systematically denying appointed counsel to parolees under the supervision of the DOC violates the U.S. Constitution and whether the Defendants’ parole revocation procedures, under which parolees are denied the opportunity to speak on their own behalf, present evidence, cross-examine adverse witnesses, and have an actual parole hearing that is conducted by a fair and impartial decision makers fail to provide parolees with adequate due process. Because the practices and procedures challenged in this
6

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 7 of 28 PageID #:249
Complaint apply with equal force to the named Plaintiffs and the other members of the class, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class in general.
17. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. They each possess a strong personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and are represented by experienced counsel with expertise in civil rights litigation. Counsel have the legal knowledge and resources to fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members in this action.
18. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class: their policies, procedures, practices, acts, and omissions have affected all class members. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 19. Approximately one-third of the population admitted to Illinois prisons in 2012 was imprisoned for violating the conditions of their parole. That is, 33% of the prisoners in this State were put behind bars after being charged with violations of the terms and conditions of their parole and subjected to revocation proceedings in which their liberty was rescinded. These revocation proceedings are being held in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States, based on the Defendants’ failure to provide parolees adequate due process protections in the hearings, including the appointment of counsel where so required. As a result, members of the Plaintiff class are being systematically and arbitrarily detained and imprisoned. Failure to Appoint Counsel to Indigent Parolees 20. The Defendants fail to implement any system by which adult indigent parolees may request and obtain counsel at cost to the State. The State categorically denies any request for appointed counsel because no system or funds are in place to secure such an appointment. As a
7

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 8 of 28 PageID #:250
result, parolees in the State of Illinois are and continue to be subjected to these proceedings without the assistance of counsel to which many are constitutionally entitled.
21. The Defendants’ policies and practices in this regard directly violate the requirements of due process established in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, which held that counsel should be provided in parole revocation cases where, after being informed of his right to request counsel, the parolee makes such a request, “based on a timely and colorable claim (i) that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.” 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973). The Court further held that, in “passing on a request for the appointment of counsel, the responsible agency also should consider, especially in doubtful cases, whether the probationer appears to be capable of speaking effectively for himself.” Id. at 790–91.
22. Thus, Gagnon affirmed that the right to counsel was “presumptive” in these three categories of cases—where there is a colorable claim the parolee did not commit the violation; where there is substantial evidence in mitigation of the violation, making revocation inappropriate; and where the parolee is incapable of speaking effectively for himself.
23. A significant percentage of indigent parolees fall within one or more of the Gagnon categories.
24. First, many parolees have, at the very least, a colorable claim that they did not commit the alleged parole violation. Parolees frequently are accused of violating parole merely because they have been arrested on suspicion of committing a new criminal offense. Sometimes
8

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 9 of 28 PageID #:251
the arrests themselves are unlawful. More often, these criminal charges are dismissed in a court of law as unfounded. The Defendants’ policies and procedures allow parolees to be violated and reimprisoned based solely on the fact that the parolee was subject to arrest—regardless of the merits of the case against him.
25. Similarly, a high percentage of parolees are accused of violating parole on the basis of their parole agent’s allegation that they committed a non-criminal technical violation, such as failing to check in with their parole officer. However, the evidence supporting these technical violations is often unreliable, for a variety of reasons.
26. Many of the supervisory functions of the parole system are outsourced to private companies, with insufficient oversight by the DOC or PRB. The private companies include but are not limited to electronic monitoring companies, private counseling services, and polygraph providers. Some of these private businesses are often more concerned with turning a profit then assisting parolees successfully transition into the community.1 Polygraph examinations are notoriously unreliable, and given the Defendants deficient procedural protections, parolees are unable to meaningfully challenge the integrity of these examinations.2
27. The computer program (AMS) that parole agents use to track parolees’ compliance with the terms of parole is rife with errors. In addition, parolees have no access to any of this computer-based information, and no way to challenge its reliability. The PRB routinely re-
1 Christopher Hartney & Caroline Glesmann, Prison Bed Profiteers: How Corporations Are Reshaping Criminal Justice in the U.S., NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME & DELINQUENCY 18 (May 2012), available at http://nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/prison-bedprofiteers.pdf; see also James Kilgore, Electronic Monitoring: Some Causes for Concern, PRISON LEGAL NEWS (Mar. 15, 2012), available at https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2012/mar/15/electronic-monitoring-some-causes-forconcern/. 2 Eric Zorn, Truth is, Faith in Polygraphs Led to False Jailing, CHICAGO TRIBUNE (Sept. 24, 2010), available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-09-24/news/ct-oped-0924-zorn20100924_1_polygraph-tests-parole-officer-ken-alder.
9

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 10 of 28 PageID #:252
imprisons parolees based solely on parole agents’ statements that parolees have not complied with the terms of parole.
28. Second, even in cases where the alleged violation is uncontested, many parolees have substantial reasons mitigating the violation, which, because of the complexity of developing such evidence, they are incapable of presenting on their own. Parolees are unable to present witnesses who can testify to facts that either justify or mitigate against revocation, or present documentary evidence in their favor. Moreover, they have difficulty developing such evidence in the first place, while they are subject to the conditions of almost constant lock-down in the Northern Reception Center at Stateville Correctional Center, the maximum security prison where most parolee detainees are initially incarcerated.
29. Technical violations in particular can often be remediated by an adjustment of the parolee’s conditions of parole, without full-scale revocation. Yet, without counsel to aid in the presentation of such mitigation evidence, the hearing officer and PRB systematically fail to take it into consideration.
29. Third, many parolees are unable to speak on their own behalf. Parolees who are under the supervision of the DOC have significantly higher levels of cognitive impairment, educational disabilities, illiteracy, mental health issues and other impairments than are found in the general public, and which make it difficult for such parolees to speak on their own behalf.3 The mostly recently available DOC data concludes that 38% percent of parolees in Illinois have
3 See Ill. Dept. of Corrections, Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report 62; see also Tom Dart, How We Shaft the Mentally Ill, Chicago Tribune, Jul. 29, 2014, available at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-cook-county-tom-dart-jailmentally-ill-0729-20140729-story.html; Ill. Dept. of Human Services, Mental Health Five-Year Strategic Plan Task Force Adult Committee Report 7, available at https://www.dhs.state.il.us/onenetlibrary/27897/documents/mental%20health/marysmith/strategic plan/mentalhealthservicesfiveyearstrategicplan2013.pdf.
10

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:253
a sixth grade reading level and that nearly 48% of parolees have not graduated from high school. National data suggests that 36% percent of people held behind bars live with mental illness. As a consequence, these class members are unable to prepare for or effectively defend themselves at their parole hearings without the assistance of counsel.
30. The Defendants have admitted that the State of Illinois has no process by which it appoints lawyers to parolees for whom the appointment of counsel is constitutionally required. In an October 2012 response to an Illinois Freedom of Information Act Request (“FOIA”), Defendant PRB’s FOIA officer wrote “The Prisoner Review Board does not appoint attorney's (sic) to represent adult inmates or juveniles who are being violated on parole.” See Oct. 12, 2012 email from K. Tupy to S. Bedi (attached as Exhibit A). Representatives of the PRB and DOC testified under oath at recent depositions that neither agency appoints counsel to parolees in their revocation proceedings.4 See Excerpt from Shunique Joiner Dep. (attached as Exhibit B); Excerpt from Sharon Shipinski Dep. (attached as Exhibit C). Failure to Provide Other Due Process Protections
31. The Defendants also fail to provide parolees with a variety of procedural protections to which they are legally entitled under controlling Supreme Court precedent, including Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). These protections include but are not limited to:
 The right and opportunity to receive adequate written notice of the allegations and evidence against them prior to the preliminary revocation hearing;
4 These depositions were taken in King v. Walker, No. 06 C 204 (N.D. Ill), litigation concerning the due process rights of Cook County parolees during preliminary parole revocation hearings.
11

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 12 of 28 PageID #:254
 The right and opportunity to speak on their own behalf at both the preliminary and final hearing;
 The right to develop evidence in advance of their preliminary and final hearings;  The right to access legal materials required in order for the parolee to participate
meaningfully in the parole revocation proceedings;  The right and opportunity to present written evidence and witnesses at both the
preliminary and final hearing;  The right to have an actual hearing before a fair and impartial decision maker;  The right to remain silent during parole revocation proceedings;  The right and opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses at both
the preliminary and final hearing. 32. For class members violated outside of Cook County,5 PRB officials fail to ensure parolees receive preliminary hearings at the time they are alleged to have violated the conditions of their parole. As a result, class members are imprisoned without any inquiry into the legality of their detention—typically for as long as one month and often for longer—while awaiting their final revocation hearing. 33. The Defendants’ policies and practices make it difficult, if not impossible, for parolees to prepare to defend themselves at their hearings. The Defendants prohibit parolees who are being held in DOC facilities—and in particular the Northern Reception Center—prior to their revocation proceedings from using the telephone; the Defendants also severely restrict non-legal
5 The Consent Decree entered in King v. Walker, Case No. 06 C 204 (N.D. Ill.) provides specific procedural protections for Cook County parolees in preliminary hearings, including by requiring that these hearings take place within 10 days of imprisonment. These protections do not apply to final revocation hearings or to parolees violated outside of Cook County.
12

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:255
visitation. As a result, parolees are virtually unable to communicate with witnesses or secure the documentation necessary to defend themselves against the allegations of a parole violation, including mitigating evidence. Additionally, parolees are denied access to legal resources required in order to participate meaningfully in the parole revocation process. Those held in reception centers are not provided access to law libraries. All parolees are not provided sufficient information about the parole revocation process, including, but not limited to the relevant evidentiary standards, the right to present mitigating evidence, and the right to remain silent.
34. During the preliminary and final revocation hearings, the hearing officer and PRB members elicit admissions from parolees and then use these admissions to either find probable cause that the revocation occurred or revoke parole. Because of the informal nature of the proceedings—and because the parolees are not informed of their right to remain silent in a meaningful manner—parolees who make admissions are not knowingly waiving their rights to be silent.
35. When the PRB does schedule final parole revocation hearings, it fails to do so in a timely manner. The final revocation hearing is consistently delayed due to DOC’s scheduling practices and procedures. PRB members only schedule hearings in specific prisons on certain days of the month. Depending on the PRB’s caseload (meaning the number of revocation hearings scheduled per prison each month), a parolee might have to wait several months for a final revocation hearing.
36. The final revocation hearings conducted by PRB are rote affairs that contain none of the due process protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Illinois state law. PRB members make most revocation decisions based solely on the one- to three-page report prepared by the parole officer and/or arresting law enforcement official, which constitutes unreliable
13

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:256
hearsay evidence. Parolees do not have the opportunity to confront parole officers or the arresting police officers at these hearings. Consequently, parolees do not have the opportunity to cross-examine the primary (if not the only) witness who presents evidence against them.
37. The Defendants also deny parolees the opportunity to contest their alleged parole violation by presenting documentary and physical evidence or live witnesses who can provide mitigating or exculpatory evidence on the parolee’s behalf. As a matter of course, the revocation hearings are held in secret, often far from the location of the alleged violation, and neither DOC employees nor PRB members assist class members in subpoenaing witnesses or locating documentary or other physical evidence in their favor. Consequently, Parolees lack the capacity to effectively defend themselves from allegations that they violated their conditions of parole.
38. PRB officers consistently fail to inform parolees that they have a right to retain counsel to help them navigate these complex adversarial proceedings. Family members and advocates are regularly denied access to the hearings and prohibited from participating on the parolee’s behalf. Those attorneys or advocates who do attempt to represent the parolee are not given access to the documents used against the class member in the revocation hearings. Parolees thus lack any meaningful representation in procedurally complex proceedings in which the class members’ liberty is at stake.
39. The preliminary and final revocation hearings themselves are cursory and very brief—far more akin to a casual conversation than a deliberative proceeding. The PRB members and hearing officers demonstrate bias by frequently rubberstamping the recommendations of the supervising parole agent. Their decisions are not based on any applicable evidentiary standards and the rules governing evidence in parole proceedings are regularly flouted. For example, PRB members and hearing officers routinely conflate the evidentiary burden—requesting that parolees
14

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:257
prove their innocence—and assuming that parolees are guilty until proven otherwise. PRB members and hearing officers also make decisions that rely entirely on police reports and documents submitted by parole agents—even in the complete absence of extrinsic evidence supporting the reliability of those documents.
40. The written decisions issued by the PRB and hearing officers are often indecipherable and do not contain information about the basis for the decision. There is no appeal mechanism or grievance procedure by which parolees can seek a review of PRB decisions. The lack of an appellate process ensures the continuing insulation of the PRB’s parole revocation process and prevents parolees from challenging the procedures and the outcome of the revocation hearing.
41. Throughout this revocation process, the class members are severely hampered by low rates of educational achievement and literacy levels, and high rates of mental health disorders and educational and cognitive disabilities.
42. The systematic and on-going violations described in the preceding paragraphs result in the arbitrary imprisonment of thousands of people in Illinois prisons. People are consistently subjected to months of unreviewable incarceration without process or remedy. As a result of the Defendants’ practices and procedures, the members of the Plaintiff class have suffered and continue to suffer well-established violations of their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF ALLEGATIONS Moises Morales
43. An employee of Defendant DOC served Moises Morales with his parole violation report on October 25, 2013. He was alleged to have committed the offense of domestic battery,
15

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:258
which was the only parole violation of which he was accused. Upon receiving his Parole Violation Report from the DOC Server, Mr. Morales expressed a great deal of confusion. When he was informed by the DOC server that he needed to decide whether to waive, postpone or proceed with his preliminary hearing, he told her that he could not make a decision because he did not understand the process. The DOC server informed Mr. Morales that he had to make a decision and that she could not help him decide or provide him with any additional information. Mr. Morales repeatedly expressed his confusion and his desire for help to the DOC server. She denied his requests. Eventually, and based on advice from other detainees, Mr. Morales decided to postpone his preliminary hearing until after he went to court for his first appearance on his new charge. Mr. Morales was hopeful that the charge would be dismissed because, while it was based on an argument he had with his girlfriend, he and his girlfriend had reconciled and she told him that she did not want to press charges against him.
44. Mr. Morales had a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged parole violation. Prior to Mr. Morales’ October 10, 2013 preliminary parole hearing, he appeared in court on his domestic battery charge and the charge was dismissed. His girlfriend, who was the only complaining witness, requested that the charge be dismissed because she felt that she was to blame for the argument that lead to the Mr. Morales’ arrest. During Mr. Morales’ preliminary hearing, a King investigator testified based on a conversation she had with the arresting officer, who took a complaint from Mr. Morales’ girlfriend moments after the argument. But the Hearing Officer did not review the girlfriend’s more recent testimony, which had changed significantly. The Hearing Officer was aware that the charges against Mr. Morales were dismissed, yet she still found probable caused based solely on the fact that Mr. Morales had been arrested.
16

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:259
45. Mr. Morales lacked the ability to present any evidence of his innocence at his preliminary hearing because he did not have the capacity to call and question his own witness, to cross-examine the arresting officer or DOC employees, or to present his own testimony. Because the hearing officer found probable cause, Mr. Morales remained imprisoned while awaiting his final parole revocation hearing, which at the time of the filing of the initial complaint had yet to be scheduled.
46. Mr. Morales also had significant evidence mitigating against revocation. He had made substantial efforts to adhere to the conditions of his parole and become a productive member of society. The incident underlying the alleged parole violation was the only time he had been accused of violating the terms of his parole. Indeed, at the time of the alleged violation, Mr. Morales was working two part-time jobs: one at Power Stop, where he was employed as a Quality Control Auditor, and one at Primary Staffing, where he assembled food displays for grocery stores. He received a certificate in advancing youth development from the Chicago Area Project and was in the process of becoming a mentor to at-risk children. He had obtained his GED. This information would demonstrate to PRB members why revocation would be inappropriate in his case. However, without an attorney, Mr. Morales was incapable of presenting this information in a manner that would be fairly considered by the Defendants.
47. At the time of the filing of the initial complaint, Mr. Morales was at imminent risk of having his due process rights violated at his final revocation hearing. Even though he had both a colorable claim that he had not committed the alleged violation and mitigating evidence suggesting that revocation was inappropriate, the Defendants would not appoint him counsel as required by law. Montreal Thomas
17

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:260
48. Montreal Thomas was arrested on September 7, 2013, after agents of Defendant DOC performed a routine parole compliance check and visited Mr. Thomas at his approved residence, which was his cousin’s home. While searching the residence, the officers found marijuana and, as a result, immediately placed Mr. Thomas in custody.
49. Mr. Thomas had a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged parole violation. Mr. Thomas had a preliminary parole hearing on September 25, 2013. At that time, Mr. Thomas attempted to explain to the Hearing Officer that he did not know that the drugs were in the house, that the Parole Violation Report included a number of errors, and that he believed his criminal charges would be dismissed because he did not have personal possession of the drugs. Mr. Thomas’ hearing took place at the Cook County Jail and he struggled to speak above the chaos and din of the jail. He was constantly interrupted by the King investigator and was unable to present a comprehensible narrative describing his innocence. The PRB Hearing Officer found probable cause at the preliminary hearing based on the King Investigator’s testimony, which pertained only to her interview with the arresting agent and the inaccurate parole violation report.
50. Mr. Thomas also had significant evidence mitigating against revocation. He had made substantial efforts to become a productive member of society. At the time of the initial filing, he had been on parole for two years and complied with all terms of his parole. He had worked consistently in construction and paid child support for his two children. His continued imprisonment imposed a substantial hardship on his children and their mother. Since his preliminary parole hearing, all criminal charges against Mr. Thomas were dismissed. Yet, at the time of the filing of the initial complaint, he was still imprisoned while awaiting his final parole revocation hearing, which was yet to be scheduled.
18

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 19 of 28 PageID #:261
51. At the time of the filing of the initial complaint, Mr. Thomas was at imminent risk of having his due process rights violated at his final revocation hearing. Even though he had both a colorable claim that he had not committed the alleged violation and mitigating evidence suggesting that revocation is inappropriate, the Defendants would not appoint him counsel as required by law. Joaquin Rocha
52. Joaquin Rocha was arrested on July 21, 2013, as a result of an argument with his neighbors. Shortly after the argument ended, the neighbor flagged down the police and told them that Mr. Rocha threatened his child. Based solely on this unsubstantiated third-party allegation, Mr. Rocha was arrested and charged with Battery and Criminal Trespass. Towards the end of July 2013, as a result of this arrest, a DOC server provided Mr. Rocha with a parole violation report. At that time, Mr. Rocha chose to postpone his preliminary parole hearing so he could await the outcome of his first court appearance. Mr. Rocha anticipated that the criminal charges against him would be dismissed.
53. Mr. Rocha had a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged parole violation. Mr. Rocha’s preliminary hearing was scheduled for August 7, 2013, at the Cook County Jail. The Hearing Report or record prepared by the PRB Hearing Officer lists a number of documents that were presented at the hearing and states that probable cause was found in court on his criminal charge. All of this information was entirely false. Contrary to what was written on the Hearing Report, Mr. Rocha’s criminal charges had actually been dismissed. Mr. Rocha was prevented from defending himself against the false allegations and contesting the evidence presented since his preliminary hearing, scheduled for August 7th, did not actually occur. The hearing report from that day stated that there was “no pass for the offender.” Thus, Mr. Rocha’s
19

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 20 of 28 PageID #:262
scheduled preliminary hearing was postponed without his consent, apparently because the Defendants could not locate Mr. Rocha, who was imprisoned in the Cook County Jail.
54. Mr. Rocha finally had his preliminary hearing on August 15, 2013. He tried to explain to the PRB Hearing Officer that his charges had been dismissed. The King investigator called him a liar and informed the hearing officer that Mr. Rocha had additional pending charges related to a traffic violation that were not listed in the parole violation report. The PRB Hearing Officer would not let Mr. Rocha explain his case and he was unable to access the computerized databases (AMS) the Hearing Officer and the King investigator were using to gather information about his alleged violations. Despite the fact that Mr. Rocha’s underlying criminal charges were dismissed, the hearing officer found probable cause.
55. On Friday, September 20, 2013, Mr. Rocha appeared before the PRB for his final revocation hearing. The PRB member told Mr. Rocha that if he consented to be violated, Mr. Rocha would only have to serve another week and then he would be released from prison and from parole. Mr. Rocha was reluctant to agree to the Board member’s suggestion. Mr. Rocha knew he had a defense to the alleged violation and he did not want to be violated for an offense he did not commit, but he also knew that he was unable to effectively present a defense or speak on his own behalf before the PRB member. After the PRB member repeatedly urged that he request to be violated, Mr. Rocha did so, on the understanding that he would soon be released from both prison and parole supervision.
56. The day before Mr. Rocha was set to be released from prison, the DOC served him with paperwork informing him that he would not, in fact, be released, either from prison or parole. Instead, he was to serve an additional 18 months in DOC custody for violating the conditions of his parole. Mr. Rocha remains imprisoned and has never received an explanation
20

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 21 of 28 PageID #:263
for this outcome. Even though Mr. Rocha’s case was procedurally complicated and even though he had a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violation, the Defendants denied him access to appointed counsel. As a result, Mr. Rocha has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm. Kelvin Perry
57. Kelvin Perry is a parolee who is currently in the custody of the DOC and is detained in the Cook County Jail. He takes medication to treat his anxiety and depression. In mid-February 2015, Mr. Perry was arrested for a drug related offence. On March 4, 2015, his preliminary parole hearing was continued to await the result of his criminal hearing.
58. Mr. Perry has a colorable claim that he did not commit his alleged criminal violation. The police report—which was presented as the sole piece of evidence against him during his preliminary hearing—is missing key information, including the location of the alleged offense. Because of the Defendants practices and policies regarding parole revocations hearings described in this complaint, Mr. Perry will be prevented from accessing, developing and presenting potentially exculpatory evidence, including video from a surveillance camera, and will be presented from to cross-examining the arresting officer. Additionally, the Defendants will deny Mr. Perry the opportunity to develop and present mitigating evidence.
59. As a result of the Defendants’ practices and procedures, Mr. Perry is at imminent risk of having his due process rights violated throughout his parole revocation proceedings. Even though he has both a colorable claim that he has not committed the alleged violation and mitigating evidence suggesting that revocation is inappropriate, the Defendants will not appoint him counsel as required by law. Nor will the Defendants provide him a hearing before a fair, unbiased decision maker, or allow him to present evidence on his own behalf. To the contrary,
21

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 22 of 28 PageID #:264
the Defendants policies and procedures will affirmatively prevent Mr. Perry from developing evidence on his own behalf and from accessing sufficient legal resources in order to participate meaningfully in his parole revocation proceedings. As a result, Mr. Perry as suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm. Shavonise Buchannan
60. Shavonise Buchannan was arrested on February 16, 2015, when he turned himself in for outstanding warrants. His Parole Violation Report was issued on February 21, 2015. Mr. Buchannan had his preliminary parole hearing on March 4, 2015, during which the hearing officer found no probable cause for the violation of any criminal statute. The hearing officer did find probable cause for five non-criminal, technical violations: failure to report to his agent, failure to permit the agent to visit his host site, failure to get permission to change residences, failure to check into AMS weekly, and failure to complete an education program.
61. During his preliminary meeting, Mr. Buchannan was very confused. He did not understand who was in the room, he did not know that he was allowed to ask questions, and he did not understand anything the hearing officer told him. He does not remember being asked any questions or given a chance to explain himself.
62. Mr. Buchannan has a colorable claim of innocence for the allegation that he did not complete the required educational program—and he has paper work that supports this claim. He also has evidence that could mitigate his culpability for the allegations related to the alleged host site and failure to report violations. Due to no fault of his own, he was forced leave the host site—and he immediately informed his parole officer about this change and set out identify a new host site. During this time the Defendants assigned to Mr. Buchannan a new parole officer and the requirements for communicating with this new officer were never communicated to Mr.
22

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 23 of 28 PageID #:265
Buchannan. The Defendants’ policies and practices will deny Mr. Buchannan the opportunity to access, develop and present evidence on his own behalf at his final revocation hearing.
63. As a result of the Defendants’ practices and procedures Mr. Buchannan is at imminent risk of having his due process rights violated throughout his parole revocation proceedings. Even though he has both a colorable claim that he has not committed the alleged violation and mitigating evidence suggesting that revocation is inappropriate, the Defendants will not appoint him counsel as required by law. Nor will the Defendants provide him a hearing before a fair, unbiased decision maker, or allow him to present evidence on his own behalf. To the contrary, the Defendants policies and procedures will affirmatively prevent Mr. Buchannan from developing evidence on his own behalf and from accessing sufficient legal resources in order to participate meaningfully in his parole revocation proceedings. As a result, Mr. Buchannan has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm. Allegations of a Putative Class Member
64. G.V. is a parolee who was, at the time of the initial complaint, in the custody of the DOC. He takes Risperdal and Trazadone for serious mental illness and he has a difficult time reading documents and comprehending what he has read. He is also unable to communicate in a coherent, intelligible fashion. On June 23, 2013, G.V. was arrested for allegedly pointing a BB gun at an acquaintance in his neighborhood. The police arrested G.V. based solely on the unsubstantiated accusations of this acquaintance.
65. On July 28, 2013, a DOC sever provided G.V. with a copy of his parole violation report, which alleged that G.V. had violated parole by committing an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (as a result of the incident with the BB gun) and because he had not made himself
23

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 24 of 28 PageID #:266
available to his parole agent for supervision. G.V. could not understand this paperwork. He tried to read it but it made no sense to him.
66. G.V. had a colorable claim that he did not commit his alleged criminal violation, which is bolstered by the fact that his criminal charges against him were dismissed on July 5, 2013. Additionally, G.V. spent much of this parole term in and out of mental health treatment centers. He has hospital records that illustrate that his repeated hospitalizations have made it difficult to maintain contact with his parole agent since he could not access the phone while hospitalized. Regardless, at his July 11, 2013 preliminary parole hearing, the PRB Hearing Officer found probable cause that G.V. committed the alleged violation.
67. At his preliminary parole hearing. G.V. did not understand what was happening and, as a result of his mental health issues, he was unable to speak for himself or describe the evidence he had to prove that he did not commit the alleged violations. During his hearing, the King investigator recited the facts from his parole violation report. G.V. did not have the capacity to subject her to cross-examination. Nor did G.V. have the ability to gather the documents related to his hospitalizations to submit to the PRB hearing officer.
68. During his final revocation hearing, a PRB member told G.V. that he was revoked and that he would have to remain imprisoned for the remainder of his parole term. G.V. did not understand that he was attending a final revocation hearing or that he had the right to present evidence on his own behalf during this hearing. Even if he had understood these rights, it would not have affected the outcome of his parolee proceedings. As a result of his mental illness, G.V. lacked the capacity to speak for himself.
69. Even though G.V. clearly lacked the capacity to effectively speak for and defend himself on the alleged parole violations, the Defendants denied him access to appointed counsel.
24

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 25 of 28 PageID #:267
Consequently, G.V. was unable to testify and present witnesses on his own behalf or crossexamine adverse witnesses. As a result of the Defendants’ violations, G.V. suffers and will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
70. For as long as each named Plaintiff and the putative class members remain on parole in Illinois, they will face an ongoing imminent risk of being subjected to the Defendants’ unconstitutional parole revocation procedures.
COUNT I 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Right to Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment 71. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth in this Count. 72. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief against all Defendants to prevent the continued violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the class they represent. 73. As a matter of policy and practice, the Defendants systematically fail to screen parolees to determine whether they are eligible for counsel, at cost to the State, as required under Gagnon v. Scarpelli. Defendants fail to appoint counsel to those parolees who do qualify. 74. The Defendants also fail to provide parolees with revocation proceedings that protect their rights to procedural due process. As a result of the Defendants’ policies and practices, parolees are affirmatively barred from developing and/or accessing evidence that they are entitled to present during their revocation proceedings. Parolees are unable to speak on their own behalf, present evidence, and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Compounding these procedural deficiencies, the Defendants fail to provide parolees with a substantive hearing before a fair and unbiased decision maker. Instead Defendants supply the parolees with procedures that function as a little more than a meet and greet during which PRB members and hearing officers rubber stamp the recommendations of parole agents.
25

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 26 of 28 PageID #:268
75. Consequently, the Defendants are in continuous violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of the members of the class under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class they represent respectfully pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in the following manner: 1. Enter an Order certifying a class of all adult parolees in the State of Illinois who currently or will in the future face parole revocation proceedings. 2. Adjudge and declare that the policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint to be in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the class they represent under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 3. Preliminary and permanently enjoin the Defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons under their control from subjecting Plaintiffs and the class they represent from the unlawful policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint. 4. Retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as the Defendants have fully complied with all orders of the Court, and there is reasonable assurance that the Defendants will continue to comply in the future with these orders. 5. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 6. Award Plaintiffs and the class they represent such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
26

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 27 of 28 PageID #:269
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Sheila A. Bedi Counsel for the Named Plaintiffs and Putative Class
Alexa Van Brunt Sheila A. Bedi Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law 357 E. Chicago Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 503-1336 Alan Mills Uptown People's Law Center 4413 North Sheridan Chicago, Illinois 60640 (773)769-1411
27

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/13/15 Page 28 of 28 PageID #:270
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that she served the foregoing document via the Court’s CM/ECF system on March 13, 2015.
/s/ Sheila A. Bedi

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 136 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:832

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

MOISES MORALES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CRAIG FINDLEY, et al., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13-cv-07572

)

)

Judge Amy J. St. Eve

)

)

)

ORDER
The Court has reviewed twenty written objections to the proposed class action settlement in this case. (R.132-2, Written Objections; see also R.126 – R.130). The Court construes these submissions as motions for relief (the “Objection Motions”). In addition, the Court has received a request from class member William Evans to opt out of the class. (R.131, the “Opt-Out Motion”). For the following reasons, the Court denies all Objection Motions and denies the OptOut Motion.
BACKGROUND
Named Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Montreal Thomas, and Joaquin Rocha filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit in October 2013, alleging that Defendants conducted parole revocation proceedings in violation of parolees’ due process rights. (R.1). In particular, the original complaint alleged that Defendants—including the chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board (“PRB”) and the director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”)— systematically failed to consider whether parolees qualified for the appointment of counsel, and failed to appoint counsel to those parolees who did so qualify. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 13, 17-18, 55). After initial, extensive settlement discussions failed, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in March 2015. (R.48). The First Amended Complaint added two named Plaintiffs—Shavonise Buchannan and Kelvin Perry—and added new allegations challenging, inter alia, Defendants’ practice of denying parolees the right to examine the evidence against them and the right to confront witnesses during parole revocation proceedings. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12, 31). Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleged:
As a matter of policy and practice, the Defendants systematically fail to screen parolees to determine whether they are eligible for counsel, at cost to the State, as required under Gagnon v. Scarpelli. Defendants fail to appoint counsel to those parolees who do qualify.

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 136 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:833
The Defendants also fail to provide parolees with revocation proceedings that protect their rights to procedural due process. As a result of the Defendants’ policies and practices, parolees are affirmatively barred from developing and/or accessing evidence that they are entitled to present during their revocation proceedings. Parolees are unable to speak on their own behalf, present evidence, and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Compounding these procedural deficiencies, the Defendants fail to provide parolees with a substantive hearing before a fair and unbiased decision maker. Instead Defendants supply the parolees with procedures that function as a little more than a meet and greet during which PRB members and hearing officers rubber stamp the recommendations of parole agents.
(Id. at ¶¶ 73-74). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. (Id.).
During 2015-2016, the parties engaged in extensive discovery, including significant document production, fact-witness depositions, interviews with putative class members, the observation of parole hearings, and the production of an expert report by Plaintiffs’ expert witness. Shortly before the close of expert discovery, the parties renewed settlement discussions and, on October 24, 2016, filed a draft settlement agreement with the Court. (R.123). The parties separately moved to certify the class. (R.121). On October 27, 2016, the Court granted the joint motion for class certification, as well as the joint motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. (R.124). The Court certified the class as “all people who, while on parole / Mandatory Supervised Release (‘MSR’), are supervised by the IDOC and who now or in the future will be subject to parole revocation proceedings conducted by the IDOC and the PRB.” (R.121, R.124).1
The proposed settlement provides injunctive relief – namely, the implementation of the following measures to safeguard the due process rights of class members in parole revocation proceedings:
1. Evidentiary and Adjudicatory Standards – During the parole revocation process, parolees will receive notice of the charges against them, an opportunity to contest the charges, and the right to present a defense on their behalf. Parolees will also receive written findings at each stage of the parole revocation process. From an adjudicatory standpoint, the process will proceed in two stages. During the first—the preliminary revocation hearing—a fair, impartial, and independent Hearing Officer provided by PRB will consider the evidence presented and decide whether there is probable cause to believe that the violation may have occurred. Upon a finding of probable cause, the parolee will proceed to the second stage – the final revocation hearing. At that point, one or more PRB members will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. If there is insufficient evidence to meet that standard, the parolee will be released from IDOC custody, unless there are other pending charges or outstanding warrants against the parolee.
1 The Settlement Class excludes those persons covered by the class definition in M.H. v. Monreal et al., 12-cv-8523 – specifically, “juvenile parolees in the State of Illinois who currently face or in the future will face parole revocation proceedings.” (Id.).
2

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 136 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:834
2. Appointment of Counsel for Qualified Alleged Parole Violators – If a parolee cannot afford to hire an attorney, and has a timely and colorable claim that he or she did not commit the alleged parole violation, PRB shall appoint counsel, upon request and at no expense to the parolee, throughout the entire parole revocation process. In addition, if a parolee cannot afford to hire an attorney, and has committed the violation but has substantial reasons mitigating against revocation that are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present, PRB shall appoint counsel, upon request and at no expense to the parolee, for the final revocation hearing.
3. Timelines – The parolee will receive a copy of the parole violation report and a Notice of Rights governing the parole revocation procedure (“Service”) within 5 days of the parole violation being lodged or placed on record with applicable law enforcement authorities. Unless the parolee opts to waive or postpone the hearing, parolees in Cook County will have a preliminary revocation hearing within 10 business days of Service, as will parolees outside of Cook County who do not request to be screened for attorney appointment. Parolees outside of Cook County who do request a screening for attorney appointment, however, will have a preliminary revocation hearing within 20 business days of Service, unless waived or postponed by the parolee. If, after screening, PRB concludes that a parolee is a Qualified Alleged Parole Violator, PRB will appoint counsel no less than 2 business days before the preliminary revocation hearing, or no less than 2 business days before the final revocation hearing, as applicable. Final revocation hearings will occur within 90 days of Service, subject to certain exceptions.
4. Independent Monitor – The parties agree to the appointment of an independent monitor to assist, assess, and report on Defendants’ implementation of and compliance with the Settlement Agreement.
(R.133-1, Final Settlement Agreement; R.134, Joint Br. at 3-5). The Settlement Agreement also contemplates an attorney fee award of $225,000, paid to Class Counsel as compensation for the time and money expended in the litigation of this case. (Id.).
After the Court granted preliminary approval, Defendants posted a Notice of Settlement in a prominent area of each IDOC correctional center, accessible to putative class members. Defendants further provided a copy of the Notice of Settlement to each person whom Defendants released to MSR or parole from November 7, 2016 until January 6, 2017. In addition, IDOC allowed Class Counsel, and law students working under counsel’s supervision, to meet in-person with putative class members to discuss the proposed settlement. (R.125). Class Counsel then collected comments and objections from class members and others, receiving 123 letters in tota1. The vast majority of these letters either explicitly expressed support for the settlement or requested additional information about the litigation. (R.132, Summary of Objections and Responses). Class Counsel received 20 letters objecting to the settlement. (R.132-1, Summary of Objections).
3

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 136 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:835
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may approve a class action settlement only “on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). In conducting this evaluation, the Court considers several factors, including “(1) the strength of the class’s case, (2) the complexity and expense of further litigation, (3) the amount of opposition, (4) the reaction of class members to the settlement, (5) the opinion of competent counsel, and (6) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery that was completed.” Martin v. Reid, 818 F.3d 302, 306 (7th Cir. 2016).
The Court now addresses the Objection Motions and the Opt-Out Motion as part of its fairness evaluation. See generally id. The Court defers ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the class action settlement (R.133) until the final approval hearing in this case. That hearing is scheduled for January 25, 2017. (R.124, R.125).
ANALYSIS
I. Objection Motions
After reviewing the Objection Motions, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that—with one exception—each seeks (i) injunctive or monetary relief that goes beyond the scope of the proposed settlement, and/or (ii) individual relief that is not available on a class-wide basis. The fact that a settlement does not provide “all the relief desired by particular, individual” claimants, however, does not render it unfair. See Isby v. Bayh, 75 F.3d 1191, 1200 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Mangone v. First USA Bank, 206 F.R.D. 222, 230 (S.D. Ill. 2001) (“The pleadings frame the case, and, therefore, it is not surprising, nor does it render the settlement unfair, that claims not included in the lawsuit were not included in the Settlement Agreement”).
Several objectors, for example, request monetary compensation in connection with the proposed settlement. This class action, however, involves only widespread, injunctive relief, and the Court certified the class on such basis. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) (“A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if . . . the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole”). Class members remain free, in other words, to pursue damages claims on their own. Similarly, class members remain free to raise individual legal challenges—and to seek appropriate relief—to redress individual deficiencies in past parole revocation proceedings. These objections, in short, do not impact the fairness of the proposed settlement. (R.132-2, Written Objections by Bakalik, Evans, Hamilton, Henderson, Hunter, Moore, Nitz, Pike, Roberts, Singleton, and Upton).
In addition, several objectors raise concerns with the Settlement Agreement’s failure to cover other systemic deficiencies associated with the parole revocation and supervision process, including (i) the continued incarceration of individuals who cannot secure an approved host site, (ii) the continued incarceration of individuals throughout the revocation process, and (iii) the placement of individuals on house arrest. (Id., Written Objections by Chatman, Foxx, Harper, Hill, Sigo, Veal, and Viens). The fact that the Settlement Agreement does not contemplate all due process safeguards desired by class members, however, does not render it unfair. Here, again, the Settlement Agreement does not preclude any objector from seeking injunctive relief to
4

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 136 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:836
redress such other, alleged constitutional deficiencies in the parole revocation system.2 Similarly, that one class member would prefer to bind Defendants via a final judgment on the merits, instead of appointing an independent monitor to track Defendants’ settlement compliance, (id., Written Objection by Donaldson), does not render the settlement unfair, unreasonable, or inadequate under Rule 23. See Isby, 75 F.3d at 1200 (“the essence of settlement is compromise”) (citation omitted).
Class Counsel did, however, receive one substantive objection to the proposed settlement. In particular, the Illinois State Bar Association and the Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys (collectively, the “Associations”) interpreted the following draft language— “Defendant Prisoner Review Board (‘PRB’) may arrange to appoint counsel from public defenders’ offices or private counsel who will serve pro bono”—as authorizing PRB to conscript unwilling attorneys into pro bono service. (R.132-2, Written Objections by the Associations). Concerned that such language implicated separation of powers concerns, the Associations proposed the following replacement language: “To reduce costs, Defendant PRB may arrange to secure volunteer private counsel and supervised 711 law students who may serve pro bono.” (Id.). The parties, in turn, agreed to the replacement language. (R.133-1, Final Settlement Agreement at Section C-14). Accordingly, the Court denies this objection as moot.
In short, after reviewing each written objection in light of the Final Settlement Agreement, the Court finds that none precludes a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23. See, e.g., Mangone, 206 F.R.D. at 227-31. The Court, therefore, denies the Objection Motions.
II. Opt-Out Motion
The Court next considers the Opt-Out Motion. In particular, class member William Evans requests to opt out of this class action in order to add allegations in his pro se lawsuit— currently pending in state court—concerning the “unfairness of the parole proceeding” to which he was subjected. (R.131). As a member of a Rule 23(b)(2) class, however, Evans does not have formal opt-out rights. See Lewis v. City of Chicago, Illinois, 702 F.3d 958, 962 (7th Cir. 2012) (“Rule 23(b)(2) does not require notice, because no one can opt out of a (b)(2) class”); Jefferson v. Ingersoll Int’l Inc., 195 F.3d 894, 897-98 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Rule 23(b)(2) is designed for all-or-none cases in which final relief of an injunctive nature or of a corresponding declaratory nature, settling the legality of the behavior with respect to the class as a whole, is appropriate”) (citation omitted). In any event, as discussed above, the Settlement Agreement does not preclude Evans from litigating his individual claim in the context of his individual lawsuit. (R.134, Joint Br. at 10 (“Nothing in the Settlement Agreement precludes individual litigants from seeking monetary damages stemming from the violation of their rights in the parole revocation process”)). The Court, accordingly, Court denies this motion.
2 Moreover, Plaintiffs represent that existing consent decrees entered in previous lawsuits, and/or the resolution of currently pending putative class action lawsuits, may address some of these systemic issues. See, e.g.¸ Downie v. Klincar, No. 89-cv-2937 (addressing the issue of release pending a final revocation hearing); Murphy v. Madigan, 16-cv-11471 (addressing host site issues).
5

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 136 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:837

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies all motions objecting to the proposed class action settlement (R.132-2) and denies class member William Evans’ motion to opt out of the class. (R.131).

Dated: January 24, 2017

_________________________________ AMY J. ST. EVE United States District Court Judge

6

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:796

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MOISES MORALES, et al., Plaintiff,
vs.
CRAIG FINDLEY, et al., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 13-cv-07572

)

)

Hon. Amy J. St. Eve

)

)

)

)

FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT On October 22,2013, Plaintiffs filed the above-captioned suit, asserting constitutional challenges to the parole revocation process as it pertains to people who have been paroled from the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendants are the Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board and the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, both sued in their official

capacities ("Defendants"). In order to resolve the allegations in the Complaint, the Parties have

entered into the following Settlement Agreement.

A. SETTLEMENT CLASS & DEFINITIONS 1. The Parties agree that to avoid costly and protracted litigation, the claims against the
Defendants should be res0]V-eCrhf11iiS--s-ettrem.-eiif-Agi;eem:ent: ----By--enreffii~fftitOtfiHr-Settlement --- ------------ --------------------------

Agreement, or by taking any action in accordance with it, the Defendants do not admit any of the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' complaint, nor do Defendants admit liability for any purposes. The parties intend for this Settlement Agreement to bind Defendants, their assigns, and their

successors and the plaintiff class.

2. The Parties agree to a settlement class comprised of all people who, while on

parole/Mandatory Supervised Release ("MSR"), are supervised by the Illinois Department of

1

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:797
Conections (hereinafter "!DOC") and who now or in the future will be subject to parole revocation proceedings conducted by the !DOC and the Illinois Prisoner Review Board (hereinafter "PRB"). The settlement class is limited to adults and does not include any persons encompassed by the class definition in MH v. Monreal, eta!., 12-cv-8523.
3. "Parolee" refers to any individual who, while on parole/MSR is supervised by the !DOC, and who is subject to parole revocation proceedings conducted by the JDOC and the PRB.
4. "Parole Violation Report" is a report generated by the !DOC that includes the allegations of parole violations against the Parolee.
5. "Notice of Rights" refers to the written notice attached to this Agreement that explains the class members' rights.
6. "Alleged Parole Violator" (hereafter "APV") refers to any individual who is committed to JDOC and:
(i) Has been released from an JDOC facility on parole or Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR) status (hereafter "parole"); and
(ii) Has been or is subject to being charged by JDOC with a violation of the conditions of parole and faces a continued risk ofreconfinement as a result of parole revocation proceedings.
7. "Qualified APV" is defined as an APV who: (i) Requests appointed counsel; (ii) Is indigent, meaning that retaining an attorney would foreclose the Parolee from
providing for life's necessities; and (iii) Meets at least one of the following factors, as determined by Defendant PRB in
accordance with the procedures described in this Agreement: a. Has a timely and colorable claim that he or she has not committed the alleged
violation of the conditions upon which he or she is at liberty; or b. Has a claim that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is
uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justifY or mitigate the violation
2

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:798
and make revocation inappropriate, and the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present. 8. Any APV who does not meet the foregoing definition of a "Qualified APV" is an "Ineligible APV ." 9. "Served Status" shall be defined as the time at which a parole violation warrant is lodged or placed on record with the Illinois law enforcement entity that has physical custody of the Parolee.
B. CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PAROLE REVOCATION HEARINGS
I. Defendant !DOC will provide Parolees, within five (5) calendar days of the parole violation warrant going into 'served' status, with a notice of the alleged parole violation(s) and the Notice of Rights, attached as Exhibit A. The notice of the alleged parole violation(s) shall set forth the alleged parole violations using simple, clear and concise language. At the time of service, the !DOC will provide each parolee with the Notice of Rights form (Exhibit A) and inquire whether the parolee wishes to have it read to him or her. Upon a parolee's request, the !DOC shall read the Notice of Rights form to the parolee. If the parolee chooses not to have the Notice of Rights fom1 read to him or her, the !DOC shall provide the parolee with an oppottunity to review the fon11 prior to making any decisions regarding his or her parole revocation hearing(s).
2. At the time the Parole Violation Report and the Notice of Rights are served, Parolees may choose one of the following options:(!) a waiver of the preliminary parole revocation hearing; (2) a preliminary parole revocation hearing, which will be scheduled (a) within ten business days of the warrant going into Served Status, if the offender does not request to be screened for an appointed attorney or the offender is located in Cook County or (b) within twenty (20) business days of the warrant going into Served Status, if the offender is located outside of Cook County and reqnests to be screened for an appointed attorney; or (3) a postponement of the
3

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:799

preliminary parole revocation hearing for up to thiliy (30) calendar days from the date the warrant

goes into Served Status.

3.

Unless the parolee requests a postponement of the preliminary hearing or waives

the preliminary hearing, the Defendants shall make a reasonable effmi to schedule the parolee's

preliminary hearing for within ten business days of the warrant going into served status, regardless

of the parolee's location and regardless of whether the parolee has requested counsel. After this

agreement has been approved and has been in effect for twelve months, the Monitor shall assess

progress toward this goal and report his or her findings to the parties.

4. Parolees who do not waive the preliminary parole revocation hearing and who, for

unforeseen reasons, including concurrent court appearances, medical issues, or other unavoidable

circumstances beyond the control of Defend:mts, are not available for their hearing within the time

fran1e set fmih in the paragraph above shall have their hearing postponed until the next available

hearing date.

5. At the time of service, the Parolee may complete the Preliminary Parole Revocation

Hearing Fom1 ("Hearing Form") (Exhibit B) to provide witnesses' names, contact information, the

general area(s) of questioning and/or specific questions for the witnesses, and attorney contact

information. The Parolee shall return the Hearing Form to a Defendant IDOC employee as soon as

possible. Upon receipt of a completed Hearing Form, Defendant IDOC staff will forward the

Hearing Form to the Defendant PRB prior to the Parolee's preliminary hearing.

6. Defendant PRB shall make available all evidence in its possession related to the

alleged violation of parole to the Parolees and/or their attorneys no less than two business days

prior to the scheduled beginning of the preliminary hearing. If PRB subsequently obtains

additional evidence, it shall provide that evidence to the Parolees and/or their attorneys as soon as

practical after its receipt by the PRB. Such subsequently obtained evidence provided to the 4

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:800

Parolees and/or their attorneys less than one business day prior to the start of the preliminary hearing shall not be considered, unless it is a charging instrument, relates to the disposition of

criminal charges, and/or relates to a finding of probable cause in a criminal case.

7.

Defendant PRB shall provide each Parolee who does not waive a preliminary parole

hearing with a prelimmary parole hearing as follows:

a. Defendant PRB shall provide a fair, impartial, and independent Hearing Officer who has knowledge of the parole revocation process, the requirements of due process and the
. relevant legal standards to preside over each hearing,

b.

The Hearing Officer is required to disqualify himself or herself if officer who made the report of parole violations or recommended

he or she was the parole revocation; or if he or she

supervises the parole officer who made the report of parole violations or recommended

revocation; or if he or she has independent knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts related

to the revocation. The Hearing Officer shall not be disqualified merely because he or she

assessed the parolee to determine the parolee's eligibility for appointed counsel

c. The Hearing Officer is required to determine whether or not probable cause exists that the Parolee committed the alleged violations set forth in the Parole Violation Report. In making this determination, the Hearing Officer must exercise independent judgment and must evaluate the reliability and credibility of the evidence that is before him or her. The Hearing Officer may make a determination only on evidence that is both presented at the hearing (and not on information presented only at the assessment for eligibility for appointed counsel) and relevant to the alleged violations of Parolee's conditions of parole.

d.

Defendant IDOC shall provide in Defendant IDOC's facilities

a location for which allows

the the

preliminary parole Hearing Officer to

hearings that are held conduct an appropriate

hearing.

e. Dui'ihg the preliminary parole revocation: hearing, a Parolee may request a continuance for good cause of up to thirty (30) calendar days from the date of that hearing.

f. The Parolee may request that, prior to the preliminary parole revocation hearing, the Hearing Officer attempt to contact via telephone any witnesses listed on the Hearing Form by the parolee. Upon making contact with the proposed witoess, the Hearing Officer shall identify him or herself and briefly explain the reason for the call. The Hearing Officer shall inform the witness that the witness may give their statement to the Hearing Officer over the phone. If the witness chooses to provide a statement to the Hearing Officer, the Hearing Officer will summarize the witness' statement on the Hearing Form. Information provided by the witness shall be considered by the Hearing Officer in rendering his or her decision during the hearing.

5

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:801
g, If a Parolee identities a witness for the first time during the preliminary revocation hearing, the Hearing Officer shall attempt to contact the witness or witnesses by telephone during the hearing. If the witness or witnesses are unavailable, the Parolee may request that the hearing be postponed until the next hearing date for purposes of contacting the witness.
h. Parolees or their attorneys, if they are represented, have the right to cross examine adverse witnesses (unless the Hearing Officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing the confrontation of adverse witnesses), speak on their own behalf, and provide relevant witness testimony and documentary evidence.
i. The evidence presented to the Hearing Officer will become part of the official record of each parole revocation case, and shall be included in the file provided to the PRB Board Members making the final revocation decision.
J. Qualified APVs shall be appointed counsel, as set forth in Part C below.
k. Prior to the stmi of the hearing session, the Hearing Officer will ensure that each parolee is read the admonition contained in Exhibit C m1d provided a copy of the admonition. If feasible, the Hearing Officer may read the admonition to the parolees as a group.
I. At the start of each hearing, the Hearing Officer will ask each parolee who is not represented by counsel if the parolee understood the admonition.
m. If the Hearing Officer finds probable cause, the Parolee shall have the right to request release (lifting of the parole violation warrant) from custody pending a final parole revocation hearing and to present evidence in support of this request. After considering a.! I of this evidence, the Hearing Officer will make a written recommendation on the Report of Findings form which shall be communicated to the PRB.
n. The Hearing Officer will provide Parolees or their attorneys, if they are represented, with a copy of the written determination within one business day of the preliminary revocation hearing.
o. The written detcnnination shall also include a summary or digest of what occurred at the hearing (including the pm·olees' position and the substance of the evidence presented during the hearing), whether probable cause for each charge and/or technical violation was found, the reasons for the hearing officer's determination and any recommendation regarding release pending the final revocation hearing.
8. Defendant PRB shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that all Parolees at !DOC
Reception and Classification Centers are presented for a final revocation hearing at the next
scheduled PRB hearing date and/or within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of service, whichever
is sooner. The PRB may not w1ilaterally postpone a hearing date solely becanse it is awaiting the 6

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:802
result of a pending court case or additional infonnation about the oflense. All final parole
revocation hearings must occur within ninety (90) calendar days of the date of service unless the
parole violator requests a continuance, refuses to appear, is required by writ to appear in court or
other legal proceedings, is unavailable due to medical or mental health reasons, is not at the
Department of Corrections facility where the hearings are conducted, or becanse the hearing cannot
occur within 90 calendar days due to other extraordinary circumstances.
9. Defendant PRB shall provide each Parolee with a final parole revocation hearing as
follows:
a. The PRB shall ensure that each final parole revocation hearing is heard by at least one member and that each decision is issued through a panel of at least three members. The PRB shall ensure that each parole hearing is a structured proceeding, but hearings may be informal.
b. PRB Board Members are required to determine whether there is proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Parolee committed the alleged vio!ation(s). Each PRB Board Member must exercise independent judgment and must make this evaluation based solely on the reliability and credibility of the evidence presented during the final revocation hearing.
c. In determining whether a violation occurred, PRB members may not consider charges for which no probable cause was found.
d. Defendant !DOC shall provide a location for the parole revocation hearings that allows the PRB members to conduct an appropriate hearing.
e. During the parole revocation hearings, Defendant PRB shall pem1it Parolees to cross examine adverse witnesses (unless the Presiding Officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing the confrontation of adverse witnesses), speak on their own behalf, and provide witness testimony and documentary evidence to the PRB.
f. Prior to the start of the hearing session, a PRB Board Member or PRB staff will, ensure that each parolee is read the admonition contained in Exhibit D and is provided a copy of the admonition. If feasible, the PRB Board Member or PRB staff will read the admonition to the parolees as a group.
g. Defendant PRB will provide Parolees and their attorneys (if applicable) with a written explanation of the PRB's final parole revocation hearing decisions as soon as administratively feasible, but without unreasonable delay. The written explanation fi·01n
7

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:803
the final revocation hearing must include a statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied upon and (if applicable) the reasons for revoking parole. h. If the PRB Board Members determine that there is proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Parolee committed the alleged violation(s), or if the Parolee was found guilty of a new criminal offense, the Parolee shall be entitled to present mitigating evidence explaining why revocation is inappropriate and/or why a sanction other than reimprisonment should be imposed on the Parolee. After considering all of this evidence, the PRB Board Members presiding over the hearing shall detem1ine whether sufficient evidence exists to weigh against reimprisomnent and/or a revocation. Defendant PRB shall record ilie outcome of this vote in the written findings and in the hearing record, and shall also include a summary of the evidence presented during this portion of the hearing in the written findings and in the hearing record. I0. An alleged violator who could be prosecuted for criminal charges in the parole violation report may invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify regru·ding those criminal allegations. The Hearing Officer or Board Member shall not compel the alleged violator to testify regarding the criminal charges once the violator chooses not to testify. An alleged violator's decision not to testify at the preliminary and/or final revocation hearing will not constitute evidence
of a violation.
II. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall develop a handbook of legal resources and information aimed at providing parolees with the resources necessary to meaningfully participate in the parole revocation process. Defenda11ts shall be responsible for providing each parolee with a copy of the handbook. Plaintiffs shall develop, produce, and copy the handbooks at their own expense.
12. Defendant !DOC will make its best efforts consistent with the existing mles,
policies, and procedures, to provide offenders in its facilities who face parole revocation hearings with access to mea11s of communicating, including by telephone a11d mail, with individuals and
entities in a position to provide relevant eye-witness or character testimony or pertinent
documentary evidence during the parole revocation process. The Monitor shall evaluate whether offenders in DOC facilities who face parole revocation hearings are afforded adequate access to mea11s of communicating with potential witnesses and to pertinent documentary evidence, and
8

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:804

shall report his findings to the parties.

C. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR QUALIFIED APV'S

1. Defendant PRB shall appoint counsel ("appointed counsel") to represent each

Qualified APV, pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement. 2. Qualified APVs may waive appointed counsel or may choose to retain alternate

counsel. In the event a Qualified APV elects notto be represented by appointed counsel, neither

the PRB nor the !DOC shall have any obligation to pay for alternate counsel. 3. The Notice of Rights referenced in A.5 shall inform the APV that he or she may

retain a private attorney at his or her own expense or may request that counsel be appointed to him

or her at no cost to him or her if he or she is indigent and meets certain other conditions, and shall

inform the APV that he or she must request an appointed counsel in writing, must establish

indigence to be considered for appointed counsel, and may choose to waive any right to counsel.

4. If the APV requests appointed counsel at tl1e time of service, the !DOC employee

effecting service will provide the requisite request and indigency forms that the APV must

complete. 5.

Defendant PRB will develop forms for an APV to request appointed counsel and for

an indigency assessment. Once completed, the request and/or indigency forms will be submitted to

Defendant PRB for further assessment. Defendant PRB may investigate an APV's financial status

to determine the accuracy of representations provided. Any appointment of counsel will be

terminated if the APV's indigency representations are determined to be false.

6. If an APV requests appointed counsel as set forth above and establishes indigence, a

PRB Hearing Officer or PRB Board Member will assess the APV's eligibility for appointed

counsel in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778,790-91 (1973), or in accordance with any subsequent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court
9

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:805

which abrogates or otherwise modifies its decision in Gagnon. The Hearing Officer or Board

Member shall have "considerable discretion" in conducting the screening. See id. at 790. The

appointment-of-counsel assessment will be made on a case-by-case basis within the exercise of

sound discretion. Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 790-91 (rejecting "inflexible constitutional rule with

respect to the requirement of counsel" in favor of a decision made "on a case-by-case basis in the

exercise of a sound discretion by the state authority charged with the responsibility for

administering the probation and parole system").

7. If the APV does not make a request at the time of service to be screened for an

appointed attorney, but later makes such a request, the APV's preliminary hearing will be

rescheduled to a date within twenty (20) business days of the request. However, if the APV waives

his or her preliminary hearing or is not entitled to a preliminary hearing (for example, if probable

cause of a new criminal violation is found in a criminal proceeding, the parole violation is a matter

of public record or is uncontested, or if the APV has been found guilty of or pleads guilty to a new

criminal violation) or if the APV did not request to be screened for an appointed attorney at his or

her preliminary hearing or was denied appointment of counsel at his or her preliminary hearing, a

PRB Hearing Officer or Board Member may assess the APV for purposes of determining whether

he or she is entitled to counsel for the final revocation hearing.

8.

The appointment-of~counsel assessment will occur through an interactive dialogue

between the APV and the PRB Hearing Officer or PRB Board Member. However, the PRB may

appoint counsel for an APV without engaging in such a dialogue. Defendant PRB shall, in

consultation with class counsel and the monitor, develop an appropriate form for use in assessing a

parolee's eligibility for appointed counsel. The PRB hearing officer or PRB Board member must

complete this form during each appointment of counsel assessment.

10

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:806
9. To detennine whether counsel should be appointed as to the preliminary hearing for
an indigent APV who has requested counsel and has not waived a preliminary hearing or been
rendered ineligible for a preliminary hearing (see C. 7), the PRB Hearing Officer will consider
whether the APV has a timely and colorable claim that he or she has not committed the alleged
violation of the conditions of his or her mandatory supervised release or parole. Especially in
doubtful cases, where it is unclear whether the APV meets the aforementioned standard, the PRB
Hearing Officer will consider whether the APV appears incapable of speaking effectively for
himself or herself. If the PRB Hearing Officer determines at the preliminary hearing that the APV
is a Qualified APV after this assessment, the preliminary hearing will be rescheduled (up to 20
business days later) for the appointment of counsel, and counsel will be appointed for both the
preliminary and final parole revocation proceedings.
10. To detem1ine whether counsel should be appointed as to a final revocation hearing
for an indigent APV who has requested counsel and has not previously been found to be a
Qualified APV:
a. If the appointment-of-counsel assessment set forth in C.9 has already been conducted, and probable cause was found at the preliminary hearing, the PRB Hearing Officer or PRB Board member will then consider whether counsel should be appointed for the final revocation hearing. The PRB Hearing Officer or PRB Board member will consider whether the APV has a timely and colorable claim (i) that he or she bas not committed the alleged violation of the conditions of mandatory supervised release or parole; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present. Especially in doubtful cases, in which it is nnclear whether the APV meets (i) or (ii) in the foregoing sentence, the PRB Hearing Officer or Board Member will consider whether the APV appears incapable of speaking effectively for himself or herself.
If counsel is appointed after this assessment, the final parole hearing will be set on the next available docket.
b. If the APV does not have a preliminary hearing (see C.7) or was found ineligible for the appointment of counsel, the PRB Hearing Oflicer or PRB Board member will determine whether counsel should be appointed for the final revocation hearing. The PRB Hearing
1 I

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:807

Officer or PRB Board member will consider whether the APV has a timely and colorable claim (i) that he or she has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions of mandatory supervised release or parole; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present. Especially in doubtful cases, in which it is unclear whether the APV meets (i) or (ii) in the foregoing sentence, the PRB Hearing Officer or PRB Board member will consider whether the APV appears incapable of speaking effectively for himself or herself.
11. At Defendant PRB' s discretion, Defendant PRB may choose to forego the two-step
analysis set forth in Paragraphs C.9 and C.lO (a) and instead perform the analysis set forth in C.lO
(b) for each indigent APV who requests counsel, at the preliminary or final revocation hearing

stage. 12.

Counsel shall be appointed for all Qualified APVs no less than two business days

prior to a preliminary or final parole revocation hearing. The Monitor's responsibilities shall include evaluating compliance with the time frames set forth in this agreement.
13. Defendants will, pursuant to any relevant policies or procedures, reasonably accommodate requests by APVs who are represented by counsel to communicate with counsel in advance of their preliminary and final parole revocation hearings. Subject to any relevant policies or procedures, APVs may communicate confidentially with their counsel.
14. The Defendant PRB will compensate or otherwise secure the services of

attorneys to represent every Qualified APV through every stage of the parole revocation process. Defendant PRB shall ensure that Counsel for eligible parolees are compensated or contracted for the legal service reasonably required to represent Parolees during parole revocation hearings including pre-hearing investigations, client interviews, representation during preliminary and final parole revocation hearings and any appeals or requests for reconsideration. Defendant PRB shall establish and publish in advance of any appointment of private counsel the rates it will pay such counsel who are appointed to represent Qualified
12

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:808
APVs. Defendant PRB may establish a maximum amount it will pay appointed private counsel for representing any Qualified APV, and it may establish a rate it will pay appointed counsel for representing more than one Qualified APV in hearings held on the same day or on consecutive days. To reduce costs, Defendant PRB may arrange to secure volunteer private counsel and supervised 711 law students who may serve pro bono. Law students who are eligible under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 711 and who are under the supervision of a licensed attorney may be appointed to represent Qualified APVs without compensation.
15. Defendants shall develop appropriate forms for use in determining eligibility for appointed counsel. However, the decision as to whether a parolee is eligible for appointed counsel shall be made on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of a sound discretion by the PRB.
16. If the alleged violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, Defendant PRB shall notify the APV or his or her attorney in writing that the violation is established and that a final revocation hearing will be held only to determine what, if any, sanction to impose. At such a final revocation hearing, the violation shall be presumed to have occurred, and the PRB Hearing Officer need not consider evidence related to whether it occurred.
17. Representation by appointed counsel shall terminate at the conclusion of the hearings before the PRB and any appeal to the PRB.
18. !DOC may have counsel present at revocation proceedings acting in a prosecutorial role only if the parolee is represented by counsel.
D. MONITORING I. The parties agree that David Muhammad will monitor the Defendants' compliance with the terms of this. Agreement. 2. The Defendants agree, subject to appropriation, to pay for all agreed upon costs associated with said monitoring pursuant to a reasonable budget to be agreed upon by and
13

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:809
between the Defendants and the Monitor.
3. The general principles for monitoring shall include:
i) The Monitor's role shall include: observing a representative sample of parole revocation proceedings, including the service of parole revocation reports, the attorney eligibility screening process and preliminary and final revocation hearings; interviewing agents/employees of the defendants and class members; reviewing documents related to the parole revocation process, gathering of appropriate data and statistics; conducting hearing observations; assessing and reporting to the parties on whether the objectives of the Settlement Agreement are being met and to what extent the Defendants have achieved compliance with each provision of this agreement; and, where disputes between the parties occur or where there appears to be non-compliance, assisting to resolve such matters in the most expeditious and non-adversarial fashion possible;
ii) The Monitor shall strive to minimize interference with the mission of the Defendants while at the same time having reasonable access to class members, hearings, staff, and documents as set forth below. The Monitor shall also strive to minimize the expense of monitoring.
4. The Defendants shall provide the Monitor with reasonable access to the class
members and to the hearings governed by this Settlement Agreement. The Monitor may interview
PRB Hearing Officers or Board Members, but shall not have access to their deliberations. The
Monitor shall provide the PRB and DOC legal offices with at least forty-eight (48) hours' notice
prior to any visit to any IDOC facility.
5. The Monitor shall have reasonable opportunities to interview appointed counsel and
members of the Defendants' staff who have an essential role in executing the requirements of this
Settlement Agreement. Counsel for Defendants and Class Counsel may be present at interviews of
stafJ and contractors.
6. The Defendants shall provide all records related to the Defendants' compliance with
this Settlement Agreement to the Monitor upon request, except that the Monitor shall not have
access to parolees' medical or mental health records, or to other records deemed confidential by
state or federal law, unless the monitor furnishes the authorization or release necessary to receive
14

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:810

those records.

7. Within six months of the Court's approval of this Agreement, the Monitor shall

provide the parties with a brief letter regarding the Defendants' progress in implementing the

requirements of this Agreement, and make himself or herself available for a teleconference with

the parties to discuss the letter.

8. The Monitor shall prepare and submit a report to the patties twelve months after this

Agreement is approved by the Court and every six months thereafter for the life of this Agreement.

9.

In his or her reports, the Monitor shall evaluate the status of the Defendants'

compliance with the relevant provisions of the Settlement Agreement using the following

standat·ds: Substantial Compliance and Non-Compliance. For purposes of this Settlement

Agreement, Defendants are in Substantial Compliance as to a substantive provision if any violation

is minor or occasional, and is neither systemic nor serious. If a serious violation of the Settlement

Agreement occurs, Defendants are in Substantial Compliance if they promptly identify the

violation and develop and implement a timely and appropriate remedy that results in Substantial

Compliance.

I0. If the Monitor believes at any time that Defendants are not in Substantial

Compliance with any substantive provision of this Settlement Agreement, the Monitor shall

promptly notify the parties in writing and recommend action steps that, if completed, would attain

compliance ("Compliance Steps"). There shall be a rebuttable presumption that Defendants have

achieved substantial compliance if they have implemented the Compliance Steps.

I I. Plaintiffs' counsel (and law students acting under the supervision of Plaintiffs'

counsel) shall be entitled to observe parole revocation hearings and speak to parolees, after

providing a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours' notice to IDOC. Counsel shall also be permitted to

have confidential legal visits with members of the plaintiff class identified during such 15

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:811
observations. All such visits will be subject to reasonable security measures and the subject facility's legal visit scheduling process so that they will not interfere with either the confidentiality of such visits or the operations of the !DOC facility in which the parolee is housed. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit any right of access Plaintiffs' counsel may otherwise have pursuant to statute or othe1wise. Upon written request, Defendant PRB shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with information available to it regarding the dates and locations of upcoming parole revocation hearings. Upon written request, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a reasonable amount of parole violation reports, hearing records, and reports of finding. If Plaintiffs believe that additional types of documents are necessary to evaluate Defendants' substantial compliance with this agreement, Plaintiffs shall submit a written request to Defendants and explain why they are necessary for their review. If Defendants refuse, the parties shall consult with the monitor regarding whether such documents shall be produced. The Monitor and Plaintiffs' Counsel shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws with regard the confidentiality of the class members' records and information.
12. Reports, documents, data, and other information provided by the Defendants to the Monitor will also be available to Plaintiffs' counsel on a confidential basis and for use in this matter only.
13. In the event that the designated monitor is no longer able or willing to serve as the Monitor, the parties shall attempt to jointly select another Monitor. If the parties cannot agree on a replacement Monitor, the parties shall request the assistance of an independent, third party mediator. The parties shall share the cost of any such mediation.
E. DISPUTE RESOLUTION I. If Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with any provision of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs shall provide the Defendants, in writing, specific
16

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:812
reasons why they believe that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with such provision or provisions, referencing the specific provision or provisions. Plaintiffs may not allege that the Defendants are not in Substantial Compliance based on minor or isolated delays in compliance. To the extent Plaintiffs rely on observations or opinions of the Monitor to support an allegation that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance, Plaintiffs shall make a reference to the written reports of the Monitor and to portions thereof which support Plaintiffs belief. The parties shall conduct good faith discussions, which may involve the Monitor, to resolve any dispute related to whether Defendants are in Substantial Compliance with this Settlement Agreement.
2. After the Monitor's first status repoti, to be submitted to the parties twelve months after this Agreement is approved by the Court, if Defendants and Plaintiffs are not successful in their efforts to resolve any dispute, the Plaintiffs may terminate this Settlement Agreement.
3. This is an agreement between the parties and is not subject to enforcement by the federal court through a petition for contempt or otherwise.
F. IMPLEMENTATION AND TERMINATION 1. The Parties recognize that this Settlement Agreement will require the procurement of services by the PRB. Accordingly, Defendants will use their best efforts to implement this agreement within a reasonable time, but, unless Defendants show good cause for any extension, no later than nine (9) months from the date this Settlement Agreement is entered. If the Defendants require an extension, they will notify Plaintiffs' counsel and state the length of the extension required. 2. This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties, supersedes all prior agreements, representations, negotiations, and undertakings in this litigation not set forth or incorporated herein.
17

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:813
3. This Settlement Agreement shall terminate 24 months after the date of its approval by the Court.
4. Plaintiffs may also terminate this Agreement nine months after its approval by the Court if Defendants are tmable to begin implementing the requirements of this Agreement due to a lack of funding.
5. Defendants agree to pay to Plaintiffs' counsel the sum of$225,000 in full settlement of all of Plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees and costs associated with this litigation and Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel shall not seek any additional or future attorneys' fees or costs beyond those agreed to in this paragraph, including, but not limited to, any that may be related to any future enforcement, compliance, or other work associated with litigation and settlement matters related to this litigation.
6. Upon approval of this Settlement Agreement, the Court will enter judgment dismissing the action without prejudice.
Agreed to by the Pmiies as indicated by their or their counsel's signature below:
For the Plaintiff Class:
Sheila A. Bedi Alexa Van Brunt Vanessa Del Valle Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center Nmihwestern University School of Law 375 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 503-1336
18

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 133-1 Filed: 01/13/17 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:814

Alan Mills Uptown People's Law Center 4413 N. Sheridan Road Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410

For the Defendants:

Is/

Date: Janna

17

Craig Findley, Chairman of the lllinois Prisoner Review Board

John Baldwin, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections

19

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 76 Filed: 08/12/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:447

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MOISES MORALES; MONTREAL THOMAS;

)

JOAQUIN ROCHA; SHAVONISE BUCHANNAN; )

and KELVIN PERRY, on behalf of themselves and )

all similarly situated individuals;

)

)

Plaintiffs,

) Case No. 13CV7572

)

v.

) Judge Amy J. St. Eve

)

CRAIG FINDLEY, in his official capacity as

)

Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board; and )

GLADYSE TAYLOR, in her official capacity

)

as Acting Director of the

)

Illinois Department of Corrections;

)

)

Defendants.

)

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL EXPERT ACCESS TO IDOC FACILITIES

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class they seek to represent, file this motion

seeking to compel Defendants’ compliance with the subpoena requesting that the Plaintiffs’

expert be permitted to conduct parole hearing observations in Illinois Department of Corrections

facilities. In further support of this motion, the Plaintiffs state:

1. On August 3, 2015 Plaintiffs counsel served a subpoena on counsel for Defendants

requesting access to the IDOC correctional facilities where final and preliminary parole hearings

occur in order to permit their expert an opportunity to observe parole proceedings. Counsel for

Plaintiffs explained that their expert resides in California, and requested that the Defendants

inform them of their position on this request by August 7, 2015, so that the expert would have

enough time to make travel arrangements. See Exhibit A.

2. Further on August 7, 2015, counsel for Plaintiffs provided counsel for Defendants with a

draft proposed joint order that if entered by this Court would provide Plaintiffs’ expert with

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 76 Filed: 08/12/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:448
access to IDOC facilities and would set forth ground rules for his observations. Counsel for Plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to reach counsel for Defendants by phone to discuss this matter on August 10, 2015. Counsel for Defendants responded by email and stated that he was unable to communicate with his client—but expected to have a response by the end of this week. Counsel for Plaintiffs responded and explained that because of scheduling reasons, counsel for Plaintiffs would be required to file this motion today if the Defendants were unable to confirm that they would comply with the subpoena.
3. The ability of the Plaintiffs’ expert to observe parole proceedings is essential to this case and these observations are an important part of the expert’s methodology. There is no substitute for these in-person observations. This is particularly so because the Defendants’ failure to maintain an adequate record of parole proceedings creates and compounds the procedural due process violations that are at the heart of the Plaintiffs’ case. In short, the information sought by the Plaintiffs and their expert cannot be divined from a review of parole files.
4. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order that will require the Defendants to 1) permit Plaintiffs’ expert to conduct observations of preliminary and final parole revocation proceedings from August 24, 2015-September 4, 2015; 2) within three days of the date of this order, provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with the schedule and location of all preliminary and final parole revocation hearings that will occur during this time; 3) ensure that Plaintiffs’ expert has full access to the final and preliminary parole hearings, which shall include the opportunity to visually observe the proceedings, to hear and understand the proceedings and to review parole violation reports and other documents considered by the hearing officer and/or Prisoner Review Board member at the conclusion of the hearing; 4) provide Plaintiffs’ expert with the opportunity to interview putative class members in a
2

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 76 Filed: 08/12/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:449
confidential manner, at the conclusion of the parole proceedings; 5) allow Plaintiffs’ expert to bring with him into IDOC facilities one digital recording device, notepads, pens, and one bottle of sealed water. Undersigned counsel will submit a proposed order setting forth the terms described above for the Court’s consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Sheila A. Bedi Counsel for the Plaintiff class
Sheila A. Bedi Alexa Van Brunt Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law 375 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 503-8576 Alan Mills Uptown People's Law Center 4413 North Sheridan Road Chicago, Illinois 60640 (773) 769-1410
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that she served the foregoing document via the Court’s CM/ECF system on Wednesday, August 12, 2015.
/s/ Sheila A. Bedi
3

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 76-1 Filed: 08/12/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:450

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 76-1 Filed: 08/12/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:451

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 76-1 Filed: 08/12/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:452

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 76-1 Filed: 08/12/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:453

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 76-1 Filed: 08/12/15 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:454

Case: 1:13-cv-07572 Document #: 76-1 Filed: 08/12/15 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:455

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 1 of 13
CASREF,TERMED,VALDEZ
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.1.1.2 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−07572

Morales et al v. Monreal et al Assigned to: Honorable Amy J. St. Eve Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Moises Morales
Plaintiff Montreal Thomas

Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Date Terminated: 01/25/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alan S. Mills Uptown People's Law Center 4413 North Sheridan Chicago, IL 60646 (773) 769−1411 Email: alan@uplcchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A Bedi Roderick Macarthur Justice Center 375 E. Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 503−2492 Email: sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Del Valle Roderick And Solange Macarthur Justice Center Northwestern University School Of Law 375 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 503−5932 Email: vanessa.delvalle@law.northwestern.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexa Van Brunt Roderick Macarthur Justice Center Northwestern University School Of Law 375 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 503−1336 Email: a−vanbrunt@law.northwestern.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan S. Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A Bedi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Del Valle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexa Van Brunt

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 2 of 13

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joaquin Rocha on behalf themselves and all similarly situated individuals

represented by Alan S. Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A Bedi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Del Valle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alexa Van Brunt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Buchannan Shavonise

represented by Vanessa Del Valle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kelvin Perry

represented by Vanessa Del Valle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Adam Monreal in his official capacity as Chairman of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board
Defendant

represented by Michael T. Dierkes Illinois Attorney General's Office (100 W) 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 814−3672 Email: mdierkes@atg.state.il.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah Morgan Beltran Illinois Office of the Attorney General 100 West Randolph Street 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 312 814 3599 Email: dbeltran@atg.state.il.us TERMINATED: 05/18/2015
Sunil Shashikant Bhave Illinois Attorney General 100 W. Randolph St., 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 814−4450 Email: sbhave@atg.state.il.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 3 of 13

S.A. Godinez in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections

represented by Michael T. Dierkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah Morgan Beltran (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2015

Sunil Shashikant Bhave (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Pat Quinn in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois TERMINATED: 01/13/2014

represented by Michael T. Dierkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant William Evans

Date Filed 10/22/2013 10/22/2013 10/22/2013 10/22/2013 10/22/2013 10/22/2013
10/22/2013 10/23/2013
11/06/2013 11/07/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas; Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752−8853310. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas by Alexa Van Brunt (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. (jn, ) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
4 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas to certify class (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
5 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Certify the Plaintiff Class by Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Parolee declarations (Part 1), # 2 Exhibit A: Parolee declarations (Part 2), # 3 Exhibit A: Parolee declarations (Part 3), # 4 Exhibit B: Declarations of counsel, # 5 Exhibit C: Declarations of named plaintiffs)(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
6 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of motion to certify class 4 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 11/4/2013 at 08:45 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
7 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Initial status hearing set for 12/9/13 at 8:30 a.m. in courtroom 1241. Parties shall refer to Judge St. Eve's web page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov and file a joint status report by 12/4/13 as set forth in the Initial Status Conferences procedure. Plaintiffs' motion to certify class 4 is denied without prejudice with leave to refile once the defendants have appeared. Defendants are on notice that this is a putative class action. No appearance is required on the 11/4/13 notice date. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants S.A. Godinez, Adam Monreal, Pat Quinn by Michael T. Dierkes (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
9 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas to amend/correct order on motion to certify class,,, terminate deadlines and hearings,,, set deadlines/hearings,, 7 (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 11/07/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 4 of 13

11/07/2013 11/11/2013 11/12/2013
11/21/2013 01/10/2014 01/10/2014 01/10/2014 01/13/2014 01/13/2014 01/15/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/17/2014
01/23/2014

10 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of motion to amend/correct, motion for relief,, 9 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 11/12/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−8917453. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 11/11/2013)
12 ORDER: Motion hearing held on 11/12/13. Plaintiffs' motion to amend the court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification 9 is granted without objection. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be treated as if it were pending since the original date of filing, October 22, 2013. Sheila Bedi's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of plaintiffs 11 is granted. Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead by 1/10/14. Parties shall file a proposed discovery plan by 1/13/14. Status hearing set for 12/9/13 is stricken and reset to 1/16/14 at 8:30 a.m. Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 11/12/2013:(mb, ) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
13 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas. All Defendants. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
14 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas to dismiss Patrick Quinn (Agreed) (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
15 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of motion to dismiss 14 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 1/15/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
16 ANSWER to Complaint by S.A. Godinez, Adam Monreal(Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal of defendant Patrick Quinn without prejudice 14 is granted. Pat Quinn (in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois) terminated. No appearance is required on the 1/15/14 notice date. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
18 Parties' Joint Proposed Discovery Plan by Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
19 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants S.A. Godinez, Adam Monreal by Deborah Morgan Beltran (Beltran, Deborah) (Incorrect document linked). Modified on 1/16/2014 (et, ). (Entered: 01/15/2014)
20 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants S.A. Godinez, Adam Monreal by Deborah Morgan Beltran (Beltran, Deborah) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
21 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable Maria Valdez for the purpose of holding proceedings related to: settlement conference.(kef, )Mailed notice. (Entered: 01/16/2014)
22 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 1/16/2014 and continued to 2/25/2014 at 08:30 AM. Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by 4/1/14. Written discovery shall be issued by 5/1/14. Fact discovery shall be completed by 8/1/14. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
23 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: This case has been referred to Judge Valdez to conduct a settlement conference. The parties are ordered to appear for status on 1/23/2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1041 to set a settlement conference date. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted without a motion showing extreme hardship. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
24 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 1/23/2014. Case is set to 4/1/2014 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 1041 for settlement conference. Judge Valdez requires full compliance with the Court's Standing Order on Settlement Conference found on Judge Valdez's website available at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov, or the parties can contact courtroom deputy, Lisa Provine, at 312/408−5135 for a copy. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Court's Standing Order may result in the unilateral cancellation of the settlement conference by the Court. Absent leave from the Court, cancellation will result if the Plaintiff fails

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 5 of 13

02/25/2014 03/24/2014 04/01/2014
04/09/2014 06/08/2014 06/09/2014 07/08/2014
07/10/2014 08/18/2014 08/25/2014 09/25/2014
10/01/2014 10/21/2014
10/24/2014 12/05/2014 12/11/2014

to submit to chambers copies of the settlement letters four days prior to the settlement conference. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted without a motion showing extreme hardship. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
25 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 2/25/2014 and continued to 4/8/2014 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
26 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing set for 4/8/14 is stricken and reset to 4/9/2014 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
27 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Settlement conference held. Settlement conference continued to July 8, 2014 at 2:00 PM. Defendants advise the Court that additional fact gathering needs to be undertaken in order to effectively respond to the settlement offer. As a result, Defendants are to provide a detailed response to the Plaintiff's counsel by June 24, 2014. Thereafter, by July 1, 2014, each side is to provide the Court will a statement of the status of their respective settlement positions. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
28 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 4/9/2014 and continued to 6/9/2014 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
29 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas by Alan S. Mills (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 06/08/2014)
30 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 6/9/2014 and continued to 7/10/2014 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
31 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Settlement conference held on 7/8/2014. Due to the unavailability of counsel, the next available date for a continued settlement conference is August 18, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
32 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 7/10/2014 and continued to 8/25/2014 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
33 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Settlement conference held. Settlement conference continued to September 29, 2014 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
34 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 8/25/2014 and continued to 10/2/2014 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
35 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: At the telephonic request of the parties, with agreement of the Court, the settlement conference scheduled for 9/29/2014 at 10:00 a.m. is stricken and reset to 10/21/2014 at 02:00 p.m. Parties were also offered 10/2/2014 as a settlement conference date. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
36 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing set for 10/2/14 is stricken and reset to 10/24/2014 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
37 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Settlement conference held. Settlement conference continued to December 19, 2014 at 2:00 PM. Defendants to provide a draft document to the Plaintiffs by December 12, 2014. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
38 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 10/24/2014 and continued to 12/22/2014 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
39 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: At the parties' telephonic request, status hearing is set for 12/11/14 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
40 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Magistrate Judge status hearing held on 12/11/2014 and continued to 2/5/15 at 10:00 a.m. Defendant advises that due

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 6 of 13

12/17/2014 12/18/2014 02/05/2015 02/10/2015 02/20/2015 03/05/2015
03/09/2015
03/13/2015 04/01/2015 04/01/2015 04/07/2015 04/08/2015

to the new state administration, any continued settlement conferences will not be fruitful at this time. Settlement conference previously set for 12/19/14 is stricken, to be reset at the 2/5/15 status hearing. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
41 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal ThomasJOINT MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESET DECEMBER 22 STATUS DATE (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
42 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Parties' joint motion to strike and reset status date 41 is granted. Status hearing set for 12/22/14 is stricken and reset to 2/10/15 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
43 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 2/5/2015 and continued to 3/5/2015 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
44 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 2/10/2015 and continued to 3/9/2015 at 08:30 AM. Parties shall file a joint discovery plan by 2/20/15. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
45 Join Proposed Discovery Plan by Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
46 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez:Magistrate Judge Status Hearing held on 3/5/15. Case is set to 4/8/2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1041 for settlement conference. Judge Valdez requires full compliance with the Court's Standing Order on Settlement Conference found on Judge Valdez's website available at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov, or the parties can contact courtroom deputy, Lisa Provine, at (312)408−5135 for a copy. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Court's Standing Order may result in the unilateral cancellation of the settlement conference by the Court. Absent leave from the Court, cancellation will result if the Plaintiff fails to submit to chambers copies of the settlement letters four days prior to the settlement conference. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted without a motion showing e extreme hardship. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
47 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 3/9/2015 and continued to 4/13/2015 at 08:30 AM. Plaintiffs' amended complaint shall be filed by 3/13/15. Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead by 4/14/15. Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures shall be exchanged by 4/10/15. Written discovery shall be issued by 4/10/15. Fact discovery shall be completed by 6/30/15. Plaintiffs' expert designations by 7/30/15. Defendants' expert designations by 9/30/15. Rebuttal expert designations by 10/15/15. All expert discovery shall be completed by 11/16/15. Any dispositive motions, with supporting memoranda, shall be filed by 12/1/15. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
48 First AMENDED complaint by Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas against Buchannan Shavonise, Kelvin Perry (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
49 MOTION by Defendant Adam Monreal for protective order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
50 NOTICE of Motion by Michael T. Dierkes for presentment of motion for protective order 49 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 4/9/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
51 ORDER: The Court substitutes Craig Findley, the current Chairman of the Prisoner Review Board, in lieu of Adam Monreal, as a Defendant in this lawsuit. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 25(d). The Clerk's Office is directed to make this change on the docket and the case caption. Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 4/7/2015. (jh, ) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
52 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Settlement conference held. The Court directs the parties to exchange draft proposed consent decrees within the next 60 days. The Defendant's draft shall focus on the Gagnon issues. The Plaintiff's draft shall focus on the other due process issues. A status hearing is set before Judge Valdez for

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 7 of 13

04/09/2015
04/17/2015 05/13/2015 05/15/2015 05/15/2015 05/18/2015 05/18/2015 05/18/2015 05/19/2015 05/21/2015
06/04/2015 06/04/2015 06/04/2015

June 4, 2015 at 10:00 AM for the purposes of setting the next settlement conference date. The Court anticipates that the next settlement conference will be held within a couple of weeks of the next status hearing. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
53 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Motion hearing held on 4/9/2015. Defendant Findley's motion for protective order 49 is entered. Response by 4/17/15. Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead by 5/12/15. Status hearing set for 4/13/15 is stricken and reset to 6/9/15 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
54 RESPONSE by Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal Thomasin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Adam Monreal for protective order 49 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
55 ANSWER to amended complaint by S.A. Godinez, Adam Monreal(Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 05/13/2015)
56 MOTION by counsel for Defendants S.A. Godinez, Adam Monreal to withdraw as attorney (Beltran, Deborah) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
57 NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Morgan Beltran for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 56 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 5/26/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Beltran, Deborah) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
58 ORDER: Motion to withdraw as counsel 56 is granted. Deborah Beltran is given leave to withdraw as counsel for defendants. Notice motion date of 5/26/15 is stricken. (jh, ) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
59 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Kelvin Perry, Joaquin Rocha, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal Thomas to compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
60 NOTICE of Motion by Sheila A Bedi for presentment of motion to compel 59 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 5/21/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
61 NOTICE of Motion by Sheila A Bedi for presentment of motion to compel 59 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 5/21/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
62 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 5/21/2015: Motion hearing held on 5/21/15. Defendant Findley's motion for protective order 49 is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated in open court. Plaintiffs' motion to compel 59 is entered and continued to 6/4/15 at 9:00 a.m. Status hearing remains set for 6/9/15 at 8:30 a.m. [For further details, see Order.] Mailed notice(kef, ) (Entered: 05/21/2015)
63 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants S.A. Godinez, Adam Monreal by Sunil Shashikant Bhave (Bhave, Sunil) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
64 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Motion hearing held on 6/4/2015. Plaintiff's motion to compel 59 is continued to 6/11/15 at 8:30 a.m. Status hearing set for 6/9/15 is stricken and reset to 6/11/15 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
65 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Magistrate Judge status hearing held on 6/4/2015. This case is set to 7/30/2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1041 for settlement conference. Judge Valdez requires full compliance with the Court's Standing Order on Settlement Conference found on Judge Valdez's website available at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov, or the parties can contact courtroom deputy, Lisa Provine, at (312)408−5135 for a copy. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Court's Standing Order may result in the unilateral cancellation of the settlement conference by the Court. Absent leave from the Court, cancellation will result if the Plaintiff fails to submit to chambers copies of the settlement letters four days prior to the settlement conference. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted without a motion showing extreme hardship. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 06/04/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 8 of 13

06/11/2015
07/06/2015 07/21/2015 07/21/2015 07/28/2015 07/28/2015 07/28/2015 07/29/2015
08/04/2015 08/05/2015
08/12/2015 08/12/2015 08/17/2015 08/19/2015

66 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing held on 6/11/2015 and continued to 8/4/2015 at 08:30 AM. Plaintiffs' motion to compel 59 is granted in part as stated in open court and denied in large part as moot. Fact discovery cutoff is extended to 7/31/15. Plaintiffs' expert designations by 8/31/15. Defendants' expert designations by 10/30/15. Rebuttal expert designations by 11/16/15. All expert discovery shall be completed by 12/18/15. Any potentially dispositive motions, with supporting memoranda, shall be filed by 1/11/16. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
67 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing set for 8/4/15 is stricken and reset to 8/5/2015 at 01:30 PM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
68 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Kelvin Perry, Joaquin Rocha, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal Thomas for extension of time to complete discovery (unopposed) (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
69 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of motion for extension of time to complete discovery 68 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 8/5/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
70 MOTION by Defendants S.A. Godinez, Adam Monreal to strike and reschedule settlement conference (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
71 NOTICE of Motion by Michael T. Dierkes for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 70 before Honorable Maria Valdez on 7/29/2015 at 10:15 AM. (Dierkes, Michael) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
72 RESPONSE by Moises Morales, Kelvin Perry, Joaquin Rocha, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal Thomasin Opposition to MOTION by Defendants S.A. Godinez, Adam Monreal to strike and reschedule settlement conference 70 (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
73 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Motion hearing held on 7/29/2015. Defendants' Emergency Motion to Strike and Reschedule Settlement Conference 70 hereby is granted. Settlement Conference is re−set for 9/14/2015 at 10:00 a.m. As stated on the record, all parties with full settlement authority are to appear at the settlement conference. Status hearing is set for 8/27/2015 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
74 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing set for 8/5/2015 is reset from 1:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
75 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing held on 8/5/2015 and continued to 8/27/2015 at 08:30 AM. Plaintiff's unopposed motion for an extension of time 68 is granted. Fact discovery cutoff is extended to 8/31/15. Plaintiffs' expert disclosures by 9/30/15. Defendants' expert disclosures by 11/30/15. Rebuttal expert disclosures by 12/14/15. All expert discovery shall be completed by 1/15/16. Any potentially dispositive motion, with supporting memorandum, shall be filed by 2/12/16. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
76 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Kelvin Perry, Joaquin Rocha, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal Thomas to compel Plaintiffs' expert access to IDOC facilities (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
77 NOTICE of Motion by Sheila A Bedi for presentment of motion to compel 76 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 8/17/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
78 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Motion hearing held on 8/17/2015. Plaintiff's motion to compel expert access to IDOC facilities 86 is entered and continued to 8/20/15 at 8:30 a.m. The parties are directed to follow up on the issues raised by the Court in open court. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
79 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: At the parties' request, motion hearing on plaintiffs' motion to compel 76 set for 8/20/15 is stricken and reset to 8/27/15 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 08/19/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 9 of 13

08/27/2015 08/27/2015 09/03/2015 09/09/2015
09/14/2015 09/16/2015 09/16/2015 09/21/2015 09/21/2015 09/22/2015
10/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/02/2015

80 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 8/27/2015. Parties advise the Court that a settlement conference will not be fruitful at this time. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
81 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing held and continued to 9/3/2015 at 8:30 a.m. Motion hearing held. Plaintiffs' motion to compel expert access to IDOC facilities 76 is entered and continued to 9/3/2015 at 8:30 a.m. Parties are directed to meet and confer regarding scheduling dates. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
82 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Motion hearing on plaintiff's continued motion to compel 76 held on 9/3/2015 and continued to 9/9/2015 at 01:00 PM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
83 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Motion hearing on plaintiff's continued motion to compel 76 held on 9/9/2015 and continued to 9/14/15 at 8:30 a.m. Fact discovery cutoff is extended to 11/9/15. Plaintiffs' expert disclosures by 11/23/15. Defendants' expert disclosures by 1/25/16. Plaintiff's rebuttal expert disclosures by 2/8/16. All expert discovery shall be completed by 3/18/16. Any potentially dispositive motion and motion for class certification shall be filed by 4/15/16. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
84 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Motion hearing held on 9/14/2015. Plaintiffs' continued motion to compel expert access to IDOC facility 76 is denied without prejudice as moot. Status hearing set for 9/17/2015 at 08:30 AM. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 09/14/2015)
85 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing set for 9/17/15 is stricken and reset to 11/2/2015 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
86 JOINT ORDER Regarding Plaintiffs' Expert's Access to Conduct Hearing Observations Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 9/16/2015:Mailed notice(kef, ) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
87 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Kelvin Perry, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal ThomasMOTION REQUESTING AN ORDER PROVIDING AN EXCEPTION TO THE EXPERT ACCESS ORDER AND PERMITING PLAINTIFFS EXPERT ACCESS TO PAROLE HEARINGS (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
88 NOTICE of Motion by Sheila A Bedi for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 87 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 9/22/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
89 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Motion hearing held on 9/22/2015. Plaintiffs' emergency motion requesting an order providing the exception access order and permitting plaintiffs' expert access to parole hearings 87 is granted in limited part. IDOC is ordered to allow Mr. Brady access to the parole hearings at Logan Correctional Center today, September 22, 2015. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
90 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Kelvin Perry, Joaquin Rocha, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal Thomas to compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
91 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of motion to compel, 90 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 11/2/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
92 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing held on 11/2/2015 and continued to 11/16/2015 at 08:45 AM. Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery 90 is granted in part and denied in part as moot as discussed in open court. Defendants' affidavits shall be filed by 11/12/15. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 11/02/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 10 of 13

11/16/2015 11/24/2015
12/10/2015 12/16/2015 12/22/2015 01/06/2016 01/06/2016
01/14/2016
02/16/2016 02/29/2016 03/01/2016

93 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 11/16/2015 and continued to 11/24/2015 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
94 ORDER: Status hearing held on 11/24/15 and continued to 12/14/15 at 8:30 a.m. Joint oral motion to extend fact discovery is granted. Fact discovery extended until 12/16/15. Plaintiff's expert disclosure report due by 12/23/15. Defendant's expert report due by 2/26/16. Plaintiff's rebuttal by 3/25/16. Close of expert disclosures by 4/22/16. Filing of dispositive motion and class certification by 5/20/16. Parties shall engage in settlement discussions before the next status hearing. Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 11/24/2015. Mailed notice (ph, ) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
95 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: At defendants' unopposed request, Status hearing set for 12/14/15 is stricken and reset to 12/16/2015 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
96 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 12/16/2015 and continued to 12/22/2015 at 08:30 AM. Parties are directed to meet and confer pursuant to Rule 26(f) and exhaust all settlement possibilities prior to the next status hearing. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
97 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 12/22/2015 and continued to 3/1/2016 at 08:30 AM. Parties are directed to contact the courtroom deputy, 312/435−5879, by 1/8/16 to inform the court whether or not the parties are interested in participating in another settlement conference.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
98 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable Maria Valdez for the purpose of holding proceedings related to: settlement conference.(kef, )Mailed notice. (Entered: 01/06/2016)
99 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: This case has been referred to Judge Valdez to conduct a settlement conference. The parties are ordered to appear for status on 1/14/2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1041 to set a settlement conference date. The Parties are further directed to consult with their respective clients before the status date to determine the dates of unavailability for a settlement conference that may be set within the next eight to twelve weeks. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted without a motion showing extreme hardship. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
100 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Magistrate Judge status hearing held on 1/14/2016. This case is set to 2/29/16 at 2:00 p.m. for settlement conference in Courtroom 1041. Judge Valdez requires full compliance with the Court's Standing Order on Settlement Conference found on Judge Valdez's website available at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov, or the parties can contact courtroom deputy, Lisa Provine, at (312)408−5135 for a copy. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Court's Standing Order may result in the unilateral cancellation of the settlement conference by the Court. Absent leave from the Court, cancellation will result if the Plaintiff fails to submit to chambers copies of the settlement letters four days prior to the settlement conference. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted without a motion showing extreme hardship. As stated in open Court, all updated settlement documents are to be delivered to Judge Valdez's chambers by close of business on 2/22/16. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
101 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Kelvin Perry, Joaquin Rocha, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal Thomas by Vanessa Del Valle Vanessa del Valle (Del Valle, Vanessa) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
102 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Settlement conference held. Settlement conference continued to March 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM. The parties are to continue to discuss the settlement issues and to exchange draft agreements. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
103 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 3/1/2016 and continued to 3/16/2016 at 01:00 PM. Expert discovery is stayed until 3/16/16. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 03/01/2016)

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 11 of 13

03/14/2016 03/16/2016 03/31/2016
04/05/2016 04/27/2016 05/19/2016
05/24/2016 05/24/2016 06/14/2016
06/15/2016 07/12/2016 07/19/2016 07/28/2016 08/11/2016 08/31/2016 09/21/2016 10/11/2016

104 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Settlement conference held on 3/14/2016. Parties unable to reach a settlement agreement. Status hearing set for 3/31/2016 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
105 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 3/16/2016 and continued to 4/5/2016 at 08:30 AM. Expert discovery is stayed until 4/5/16. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
106 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Magistrate Judge status hearing held on 3/31/2016. Case is set to 4/18/2016 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1041 for settlement conference. The parties are to submit their updated positions to the Court by 4/14/16. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted without a motion showing extreme hardship. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
107 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 4/5/2016 and continued to 4/27/2016 at 08:30 AM. Expert discovery is stayed until further order of the court. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
108 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 4/27/2016 and continued to 5/24/2016 at 08:30 AM. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
109 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Magistrate Judge status hearing held on 5/19/2016 regarding settlement discussions that were held on 4/18/2016. At the request of the parties, a settlement conference is set for 6/13/2016 at 11:00 a.m. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
110 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: On the Court's own motion, the settlement conference set for 6/13/2016 at 11:00 a.m. is hereby stricken and reset to 6/14/2016 at 4:00 p.m. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
111 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 5/24/2016 and continued to 6/15/2016 at 08:30 AM. The stay on expert discovery is extended to 6/15/16. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
112 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Settlement conference held on 6/14/2016. The parties addressed an outstanding issue and the Court has requested the parties to remain late to attempt to work out the remaining issues. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
113 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 6/15/2016 and continued to 7/12/2016 at 08:30 AM. Expert discovery is stayed until further order of the court. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
114 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 7/12/2016 and continued to 7/21/2016 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
115 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: At the parties' request, Status hearing set for 7/21/16 is stricken and reset to 7/28/2016 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
116 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 7/28/2016 and continued to 8/11/2016 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
117 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 8/11/2016 and continued to 8/31/2016 at 01:00 PM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
118 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 8/31/2016 and continued to 9/21/2016 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
119 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 9/21/2016 and continued to 10/17/2016 at 08:30 AM. Motion for preliminary approval shall be filed by 10/12/16. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
120 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: At the parties' request, motion for preliminary approval shall be filed by 10/24/16. Status hearing set for 10/17/16 is stricken and reset to 10/27/16 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 10/11/2016)

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 12 of 13

10/24/2016 10/24/2016
10/25/2016 10/27/2016
11/04/2016 12/05/2016 12/08/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 01/06/2017 01/13/2017
01/13/2017
01/13/2017 01/24/2017
01/25/2017

121 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Kelvin Perry, Joaquin Rocha, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal Thomas to certify class Responses due by 10/27/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Sheila, Bedi) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
122 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Kelvin Perry, Joaquin Rocha, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal Thomas to approve consent judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Proposed Settlement, # 2 Exhibit A−A Notice of Rights, # 3 Exhibit AB−Prelim Hearing Admonishment, # 4 Exhibit A−C Prelim Hearing Form, # 5 Exhibit A−D Final Hearing Admonishment, # 6 Exhibit B−Notice of Settlement)(Sheila, Bedi) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
123 AMENDED motion to approve consent judgment, 122 Amended Proposed Settlement Agreement (Sheila, Bedi) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
124 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing held on 10/27/2016. Joint motion for class certification 121 and joint motion for preliminary approval of proposed settlement agreement 122 are granted. Motion for final approval shall be filed by 1/13/17. Fairness hearing set for 1/25/2017 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
125 JOINT ORDER Regarding Notice to the Class and Deadlines Related to the Proposed Settlement and Fairness Hearing Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 11/4/2016:Mailed notice(kef, ) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
126 LETTER from Paul Chatman dated 12/2/2016. (Exhibit) (mc, ) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
127 NOTICE of formal objection to proposed settlement in the ongoing case # 13−cv−07572 (Exhibit) (mc, ) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
128 FILING of formal objection to proposed settlement in the ongoing civil action 13−cv−7572 by Donald Harper ;Notice (mc, ) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
129 SUPPORTING affidavit by Unknown Kevin J Jones (mc, ) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
130 OBJECTION by William Evans to class action proposed settlement. (Exhibit). (eg,) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
131 MOTION by Movant William Evans requesting to opt−out class action and file pro se my own lawsuit for the same pro se. (Exhibits). (eg,) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
132 OBJECTIONS to Proposed Settlement and Responses by Moises Morales, Joaquin Rocha, Montreal Thomas (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Sheila, Bedi) (Docket Text Modified on 1/9/2017 by Clerk's Office) (eaa, ). (Entered: 01/06/2017)
133 MOTION by Plaintiffs Moises Morales, Kelvin Perry, Joaquin Rocha, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal ThomasFinal Approval of the Settlement Agreement (Joint) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Final Settlement Agreement)(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
134 MEMORANDUM by Moises Morales, Kelvin Perry, Joaquin Rocha, Buchannan Shavonise, Montreal Thomas in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 133 in support of Joint Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
135 NOTICE of Motion by Alexa Van Brunt for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 133 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 1/25/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
136 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 1/24/2017: The Court denies all motions objecting to the proposed class action settlement [132−2] and denies class member William Evans' motion to opt out of the class 131 . [For further details, see Order.] Mailed notice(kef, ) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
137 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Fairness hearing held on 1/25/17. Joint motion for final approval of the class action settlement agreement 133 is granted. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement and finds that the Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). This case is hereby dismissed with prejudice. All pending dates and deadlines are stricken. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered:

Case: 1:13-cv-7572 As of: 08/06/2017 10:34 AM CDT 13 of 13

02/01/2017 02/21/2017

01/25/2017)
138 MAIL RETURNED, for document # 136 sent to William Evans returned as undeliverable, return to sender. New address found, re−mailed to 4025 E. 10th Ave., Gary, IN 47303 (ew, ) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
139 MAIL RETURNED, for document # 136 sent to William Evans returned as undeliverable, return to sender. No new contact information received. (ags, ) (Entered: 02/23/2017)