Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

0 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

~

f \ \_ ,;;;. GREENVILLE DIVISION

JEFFERY PRESLEY, DENNIS BRUMFIELD, STEVEN FARRIS and MARCUS D. WILLIAMS, on their own behalf

\.•. ? ? ?(J~~

0-i,' - ~ r:: c\...t-~

p..t\LE.~

\3.

co'i\.:t:.

oe~\11

e't

and on behalf of those similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections; EMMITT SPARKMAN, Deputy Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections; LAWRENCE KELLY, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary; ERNEST LEE, Area III Warden, Mississippi State Penitentiary; KENTRELL LIDDELL, M.D., Medical Director, Mississippi Department of Corrections; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES (CMS), INC.; LARRY LINTON, Regional Vice President, CMS, Inc.; KEITH IVENS, M.D., Regional Medical Director, CMS, Inc.; FRED KLOPFER, M.D., Regional Mental Health Director, CMS, Inc.; WILLIAM STEIGER, Health Services Administrator, CMS-Parchman; JOHN BEARRY, M.D., Medical Director, CMS-Parchman; GAIL WILLIAMS, M.D., ChiefPsychiatrist, CMS-Parchman,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Preliminary Statement

1.

This class action is brought by prisoners confined in Unit 32 of Mississippi State

Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi. A supermaximum security facility, Unit 32 is a massive

complex of five buildings housing about 1000 men, almost all of them in segregation cells where

1

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 2 of 20
they are locked down 23 to 24 hours a day, in total isolation. The conditions ofconfinement in Unit 32 are so barbaric, the deprivation of medical and mental health care so extreme, and the defects in security so severe, that the lives and health ofthe men confined there- and the correctional staffwho work there - are at great and imminent risk. 2. Although Mississippi prison officials claim that they use Unit 32 to incarcerate the most dangerous and incorrigible offenders in the State, in the most secure and restrictive setting possible, the reality is quite different. The majority of the men housed in Unit 32- for years, sometimes for decades- do not have the kind ofcriminal history or institutional conduct that justifies incarceration under "supermax" conditions. Many prisoners were placed in Unit 32 for purely arbitrary reasons, or for no discernible reason at all, and have never had a meaningful opportunity to contest their placement there. Many are confined there because they are HIV-positive, have special medical needs, are severely mentally ill, or have requested protective custody. Even for those men whose history might warrant the most highly restrictive custody, there is no justification whatsoever for the horrifically brutal and dangerous conditions to which they are knowingly subjected by Defendant prison officials and their medical services contractors. 3. These conditions include profound isolation and unrelieved idleness; pervasive filth and stench; malfunctioning plumbing and constant exposure to human excrement; lethal extremes of heat and humidity; uncontrolled infestations of mosquitoes, spiders, horseflies and other insects;
grossly inadequate medical, mental health and dental care; the routine use by security staff of excessive force; and the constant pandemonium, night and day, of severely mentally ill prisoners screaming, raving and hallucinating in nearby cells. Security staffing in Unit 32 is so dangerously inadequate and incompetent that prison gang leaders, housed in other areas of Mississippi State
2

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 3 of 20
Penitentiary but assigned to work in Unit 32, are able to freely transact their gang business and recruit corrupt corrections officers to facilitate gang-related drug transactions, prostitution rings and extortion schemes. 4. All of these conditions, separately and in combination, cause those who live in Unit 32 intense suffering, and put them at substantial risk of physical injury, illness and premature death. These conditions are likely to cause serious mental illness to emerge in previously healthy prisoners, and psychosis, mania and mental breakdown to afflict less healthy prisoners. As a result of these deprivations, Unit 32 is a tinder-box- a catastrophe waiting to happen.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of state law of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States. The rights sought to be redressed are guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this controversy under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 6. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Mississippi under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The Plaintiffs are incarcerated there, the acts complained ofoccurred there, and some ofthe Defendants work there.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiffs Jeffery Presley, Dennis Brumfield, Steven Farris and Marcus D. Williams are prisoners in the custody ofthe Mississippi Department ofCorrections who are currently incarcerated in Unit 32 ofMississippi State Penitentiary.
3

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 4 of 20
8. Defendant Christopher Epps is the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). As Commissioner, Epps is responsible for MDOC's daily functioning and administration. He is sued in his official capacity. 9. Defendant Emmitt Sparkman is the Deputy Commissioner of Institutions ofMDOC. As Deputy Commissioner, Sparkman is responsible, together with the Commissioner, for the daily functioning and administration ofMDOC Institutions, including Mississippi State Penitentiary. He is sued in his official capacity. 10. Defendant Lawrence Kelly is the Superintendent of Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP). As Superintendent, Kelly is responsible for the daily functioning and administration ofMSP. He is sued in his official capacity. 11. Defendant Earnest Lee is the Area III Warden ofMSP, over Unit 32. As Area III Warden, Lee is responsible for the daily functioning and administration ofUnit 32. He is sued in his official capacity. 12. Defendant Kentrell Liddell, M.D., is the MDOC Medical Director. As Medical Director, Liddell is responsible for the administration and provision ofmedical, dental and mental health care services to individuals in MDOC's custody. She is also responsible for monitoring and overseeing the adequacy and quality of medical services provided by MDOC's contract health care provider, Correctional Medical Services, Inc. She is sued in her official capacity. 13. Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (CMS), is a for-profit private corporation incorporated and existing in the StateofMissouri and maintaining a principal place ofbusiness at 12647 Olive Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63141. CMS has contracted with MDOC to provide
4

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 5 of 20
medical, dental and mental health care services to prisoners in MDOC's custody at MSP and other correctional facilities throughout the State of Mississippi. 14. Defendant Larry Linton is, or was, Regional Vice President for CMS, in charge of overseeing its medical services contract with MDOC. Linton, or his successor in that position, is responsible for the overall administration of medical services to prisoners at MSP. 15. Defendant Keith Ivens, M.D., is, or was, Regional Medical Director for CMS. Ivens, or his successor in that position, is responsible for the quality and adequacy ofmedical services provided to prisoners at MSP. 16. Defendant Fred Klopfer, M.D., is Regional Mental Health Director for CMS. Klopfer is responsible for the quality and adequacy ofmental health care services provided to prisoners at MSP. 17. Defendant William Steiger is the Health Services Administrator for CMS-Parchman. Steiger is responsible for the daily administration and functioning of the medical services unit at MSP. 18. Defendant John Bearry, M.D., is the Facility Medical Director at CMS-Parchman. Bearry is responsible for the provision of medical services to individuals incarcerated at MSP. 19. Defendant Gail Williams, M.D., is the Chief Psychiatrist at CMS-Parchman. Williams is responsible for the provision of mental health services to individuals incarcerated at MSP. 20. At all relevant times, each of the individual CMS defendants was an agent of CMS acting on behalfofCMS and within the scope ofhis agency.
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT Permanent Enforced Idleness and Isolation 21. Unit 32 prisoners live in almost total isolation from other human beings and in a state of perpetual forced idleness. The men are confined to their cells for 23 to 24 hours a day, except for
5

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 6 of 20
five-minute showers three times a week and sporadic access to an outdoor exercise cage scarcely larger than a cell, in which they must remain fully shackled in hand-cuffs, leg-irons and waist-chains. Defendants routinely cancel even this absurdly limited opportunity for exercise. They actively discourage prisoners from going outside by subjecting them to arbitrary strip-searches and cell shakedowns before yard-call. The vast majority ofUnit 32 prisoners have no access to educational or vocational programs, prison jobs, religious services or fellowship, social interaction with other prisoners, or even such solitary pastimes as playing cards or hobby crafts. The men are permitted, at best, only two books from the library every three to four months and must wait months to exchange a single book. 22. Other than on death row, the men in Unit 32 are not permitted radios or televisions. Defendants have removed the built-in writing tables attached to the wall that were intended for writing and drawing. Reading, writing or any kind of sustained or focused thought is virtually impossible due to the constant screams, moans, curses, animal noises, maniacal laughter and hallucinatoryravings ofseverelymentally ill prisoners in adjacent cells, and because ofthe collective din ofprisoners pounding on cell bars and door frames- their only means to attract the attention of corrections officers. 23. The profound and long-term isolation, idleness, monotony and lack ofexercise cause severe deterioration of prisoners' mental and physical health. Those who remain in Unit 32 for any significant length oftime- and many remain for years, even decades- spiral into mental illness and despair. In this weakened condition, even the most self-controlled and rational prisoners become increasingly unable to control their responses to the noxious conditions in Unit 32.
6

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 7 of 20
Daneerously Deficient Security and Excessive Force 24. Chronic and severe shortages in security staffing and Defendants' failure to adequately train and supervise security staff put the lives of prisoners and prison employees in Unit 32 in constant peril. Corrections officers do not follow basic security precautions, and because security is so lax, prisoner-on-prisoner violence is commonplace. Some corrections officers sadistically bait and threaten prisoners, or gratuitously beat prisoners already in full restraint gear. If a Unit 32 prisoner expresses suicidal thoughts or needs to be moved for other reasons, "takedown teams" offour or five officers often forcibly extract the shackled prisoner from his cell, spray him with a chemical agent that causes vomiting and shortness ofbreath, and then assault him. 25. Sadistic abuse and excessive force by corrections staff create a serious risk of suicide in young or mentally ill prisoners. On November 24, 2003, Christopher Smiley, a youthful prisoner on psychiatric medications, threw a glass ofwater at a corrections officer. The officer screamed that she was going to kill him, and a take-down team of several officers was summoned. The officers gassed Smiley and - after putting him in full restraint gear- pushed, punched and dragged him into a hallway, where they severely beat him. Smiley was taken to a holding tank and then brought back to a punishment cell on the tier, where he spent the following night without any clothing or bedding, although the temperature dropped below freezing. Officers refused to give him his psychiatric medications and denied him several meals. The following day, on November 26, an officer told him "you'd better be gone when I come to work tonight." Smiley told ranking officers about the beating and threats and begged to be moved. They told him to set a fire if he wanted to be moved. That night, Smiley was found dead in his cell, hanging in the comer near the sink. A few weeks later, on
7

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 8 of 20
December 16, 2003, Patrick Presley, a prisoner who was in Unit 32 simply because he needed protective custody, was found hanged in his cell. 26. Prison gang leaders housed in other Units and assigned to work in Unit 32 take advantage of the lax security to freely transact gang business on the Unit. They recruit corrections officers to act as mail couriers, supply cell phones, and otherwise facilitate gang-related drug transactions, prostitution rings and extortion schemes. Some officers leave their posts to engage in sex with gang leaders. At least one officer has allowed a gang member to rifle through a sack ofoutgoing prisoner mail. 27. Staff shortages, staffincompetency and staff corruption have a disastrous effect on virtually every aspect of confinement in Unit 32 and contribute significantly to prisoners' lack of access to emergency medical and mental health care, to the intolerable level offilth and noise in the Unit, and to the vicious cycle of arbitrary punishment, frustration and despair that traps prisoners.
Grossly Inadequate Sanitation 28. Defendants expose Unit 32 prisoners to grossly unsanitary living conditions and deprive them of the means to maintain basic personal hygiene. This severe lack of sanitation makes the prisoners extremely susceptible to drug-resistant staph infection (MRSA), a highly contagious bacteria that rapidly spreads in institutional settings through dirty laundry and unsanitized surfaces. MRSA causes skin infections and boils and can lead to serious complications such as deep abscesses, pneumonia, endocarditis (infection of the heart), meningitis, bone infection and blood infection. MRSA is rampant in Unit 32 as it is in other Units at Parchman. The MSP infirmary at Unit 42 sees dozens of admissions for staph infections each month- at least one or two each day- many ofthem from Unit 32.
8

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 9 of 20
29. The plumbing is dysfunctional throughout Unit 32: almost every cell has a "ping-pong" toilet that pushes excrement and waste into the bowl in the adjoining cell when flushed. Cells, hallways and showers in Unit 32 are chronically filthy. An overwhelmingly strong stench pervades the Unit - some of it from filth on the tier, some of it from a cesspool adjacent to the buildings, some of it from the defective plumbing and ping-pong toilets, some of it caused by regular flooding that drenches prisoners' cells and soaks their mattresses and bedding with dirty water that is allowed to stand for days at a time. 30. Severely mentally ill prisoners throw food and excrement on the floor oftheir cells and into the hallways, which prison staff allow to decompose for days or even weeks. Correctional staff allow severely mentally ill prisoners to go without showers and to leave their toilets unflushed for weeks at a time, subjecting all other prisoners to the stench. 31. The Unit is virtually never disinfected or given any kind of meaningful cleaning. Correctional staff do not supervise the trusty prisoners assigned to clean the showers and halls, and rarely provide prisoners with supplies to clean their own cells, or else provide only filthy water and one bottle of disinfectant to clean scores of cells and toilets on multiple tiers. Many Unit 32 prisoners are routinely moved from cell to cell and forced to occupy cells left in horrendous condition by previous occupants who are mentally ill. Adequate cleaning supplies and equipment are not made available, so the new occupant must use his shower soap, towel and tee shirt to clean up the filth as best he can. 32. Unit 32 prisoners have no way ofadequately cleaning their bedding and clothes, making them specially vulnerable to drug-resistant staph infection. When bedding and clothing is sent to the prison laundry, it comes back stained, damp and foul-smelling. Ifprisoners attempt to do their own
9

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 10 of 20
laundry in their cells (in violation ofprison rules), they have no way ofgetting it clean and dry. They are given no change of sheets or bedding; when their bedding is wet or at the laundry, they must sleep on a bare, dirty plastic mattress. 33. Unit 32 prisoners are routinely served dangerously unsanitary food. The carts holding the stacked food trays are filthy; and the trays on which the food is served are cracked, encrusted with residue from other prisoners' meals, littered with insects, and soiled with bird droppings. The food trays are often left for hours in the hot sun before being served, causing the food to spoil. Sudden bouts of vomiting and diarrhea, likely caused by contaminated or spoiled food, afflict prisoners on a regular basis after meal service in Unit 32. 34. The air in Unit 32 is dank. Water pours into the cells from the outside when it rains. When mentally ill or disturbed prisoners flood their toilets, a frequent occurrence, the beds and clothing of prisoners in the cells below become soaked with water and waste. There are no floor drains in Unit 32 cells, and the prisoners are not given supplies to mop up the waste water; so the men are forced to live in foul standing water for prolonged periods, and endure their filthy soaked bedding and clothes until the next laundry day.
Daneerously Inadequate Shelter 35. The cells in Unit 32 provide inadequate shelter for the prisoners, who are confined to them for 23 to 24 hours a day. In wet weather, rain floods many ofthe cells, and in freezing weather the cells are very cold. From May to October, when the air temperature at Parchman routinely exceeds 90 degrees Fahrenheit for days at a time, often with extremely high humidity, the cells become dangerously hot and airless.
10

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 11 of 20
36. Cell ventilation is grossly inadequate. The large blowers stationed at the entrance to each tier provide virtually no air movement or cross-ventilation inside the cells, particularly those at the opposite end of the tier. 37. From May through September, Unit 32 swarms with clouds ofmosquitoes, gnats, horseflies and many other insects, which breed and harass prisoners every moment of the day and night. Swarms ofbeetles, mosquitoes and other insects cover the prisoners' bodies and enter their food and water. The mosquito and insect infestation is so severe that prisoners are forced, despite the sweltering heat, to close their windows and cover themselves entirely with clothes and bedding. 38. Cell temperatures in Unit 32 routinely reach well above 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer months, and the heat index soars well above 100 degrees. Prolonged exposure to high ambient temperatures and humidity poses a life-threatening medical risk. Heat-stroke is a medical emergency which, unless promptly and energetically treated, can result in convulsions, renal failure, circulatory collapse, permanent brain damage, or death. Excessive heat exposure also seriously exacerbates many preexisting respiratory, circulatory and other chronic illnesses. 39. The primary risk factors for heat-stroke during very hot weather are lack of access to air conditioning, advancing age, a number of commonplace chronic medical conditions that interfere with the body's abilityto control body temperature (including hyperthyroidism, heart disease, kidney disease, vascular insufficiency and obesity), and use of any of a large number ofwidely prescribed medications, including most psychiatric medications, anti-hypertensive medications, diuretics, antihistamines and heart medications. Many, perhaps most, Unit 32 prisoners have multiple risk factors and are thus highly vulnerable to heat-related illness.
11

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 12 of 20
40. Although thoroughly aware ofthe risks ofexcessive temperatures in Unit 32, and ofthe U.S. District Court's 2002 finding in Russell v. Johnson that fans, daily showers and ice are essential minimal measures to lessen these risks during the hot months, Defendants deliberately ignore these findings and refuse to provide such remedies to any prisoner in Unit 32 - other than those under a death sentence. Although death row prisoners now have electric fans in their cells pursuant to Court order, Defendants have confiscated hundreds offans from the rest ofUnit 32 and have plastered over the electric outlets in the cells.
Sleep Deprivation 41. Unit 32 prisoners are chronically sleep-deprived during the summer by the intense heat and humidity, lack ofventilation, and clouds ofmosquitoes and other biting and stinging insects; during freezing weather by lack of warm clothes and bedding; during rains, byrainwater pouring in through leaking walls; and at all times by the pandemonium of seriously mentally ill prisoners expressing their suffering and hallucinations in raving, screaming, moaning and cursing. 42. Defendants recently installed bright fluorescent lighting in most Unit 32 cells without also installing individual light switches in each cell, other than on death row. Prison staff on each tier centrally control the lighting in individual cells and, not infrequently, leave it on for most or all of the night, contributing further to prisoners' inability to sleep. Sleep deprivation has been shown to result in cognitive problems, memory deficits, confusion and anxiety, and intensifies psychiatric symptoms.
Abuse and Ne~:lect of Severely Mentally Ill Prisoners 43. Mental illness is widespread in Unit 32. Prisoners who come to Unit 32 in relatively sound mental health often develop serious mental illness as a result ofthe near-total isolation, idleness and
12

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 13 of 20
horrific conditions in the Unit. Those who come to Unit 32 with pre-existing, serious mental illness are often reduced to psychosis, mania or compulsive acts of self-abuse. Many prisoners on practically every tier of the five-building complex exhibit clear signs of advanced and untreated mental illness - hallucinating, constantly screaming and cursing, smashing their heads into walls, throwing food and feces, refusing to shower and ignoring basic personal hygiene, and engaging in compulsive flesh-cutting and other acts of self-harm. 44. There is no mental health screening process to prevent the transfer of mentally ill prisoners to Unit 32. In fact, Defendants appear to transfer the most severely mentally ill and psychotic prisoners to Unit 32 precisely because such prisoners can be most easily warehoused and ignored there. Unit 32 correctional staffare not trained to understand mental illness or identify mental health crises. It is common for prison staff to taunt, abuse and neglect severely mentally ill prisoners, allowing them to go without showers for months at a time, and without food for days at a time. 45. Prisoners receive no regular or adequate mental health evaluations once they are in Unit 32. When an evaluation is performed, it almost always occurs at cell-front and is wholly perfunctory, since the complete lack of privacy prevents prisoners from speaking openly; it is impossible to conduct a meaningful psychiatric evaluation in the noise and chaos of the tier. 46. Prisoners who are suicidal or at risk of self-harm and urgently need to see a mental health professional must navigate the same convoluted sick-call process used for medical complaints, in which requests for help are ignored for weeks. Many suicidal prisoners correctly conclude that their best chance of getting help is to prove they are a self-risk by hurting themselves. 47. Mentally ill prisoners who attempt to hurt themselves may be temporarily admitted to the Unit 42 infirmary for "observation." At times, Defendants have imposed a standing order that
13

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 14 of 20
prisoners admitted to the infirmary for suicidal impulses are to receive "no privileges" - meaning no clothes, hospital gown, mattress, bedding, soap or toilet paper. Many mentally ill prisoners have been held naked for days in a filthy bare cell in the psychiatric wing ofthe Unit 42 infirmary under the "no privileges" order. Psychiatric patients in the infirmary are monitored by video and not seen regularly by doctors or nurses. There are no activities, outdoor exercise or opportunities for human contact; the day room on the psychiatric wing is rarely used. 48. Prisoners with untreated mental health problems who compulsively hurt themselves or act out in other ways often wind up in the holding tank near the Unit 32 clinic, where they are stripped naked and left for an entire shift, or in "management isolation units" or "punishment cells" on the cell-block, where they may be left naked without medical or psychiatric intervention for days. Assignment to punishment cells, management isolation units, or the "special needs" tier is subject to no written guidelines or time limits and is largely punitive, designed for prisoners who have been identified as troublemakers. Many ofthese prisoners suffer from serious mental illness that has been exacerbated by the lack of adequate mental health care and the harsh conditions in Unit 32. 49. In the past, "punishment cells"- cells outfitted with solid doors rather than open-bar fronts -were scattered throughout Unit 32, at the front ofeach tier. Now Defendants are converting entire tiers and zones into isolation units, retrofitting every cell with a plexiglass or steel door that makes it impossible for the cell inhabitant to summon help or communicate with anyone. 50. As the Defendants are aware from the expert testimony at the Russell trial, solid cell-fronts create an intolerably high risk of lethal heat-stroke during the hot weather months, a risk that is particularly acute for prisoners who suffer from mental illness. Defendants have chosen to begin the process of installing solid doors in an area where they house the most vulnerable prisoners - the
14

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 15 of 20
"special needs psychiatric tier" in Delta Building. 51. Defendants created the special needs psychiatric tier following the U.S. District Court's 2003 order enjoining them from housing severely mentally ill prisoners on death row. Residents of the special needs tier do not, however, receive more frequent or meaningful attention from mental health staff; Defendants simply use this tier as a dumping ground for prisoners with mental illness, and to punish prisoners seen as "management problems" by housing them in close proximity to floridly psychotic prisoners. 52. For months, Defendants left a disturbed, deaf-mute prisoner in his cell on the special needs tier, without a mental health evaluation or any attempt to communicate with him. His cell became filthy and he was allowed to remain unwashed for weeks. Correctional staff threw things at him to get his attention, and when he threw things back, he was cited for rule violations. 53. In addition to the special needs tier, Defendants recently created at least one so-called "management isolation unit" in Alpha Building. All the cells in the management isolation unit have modified plexiglass cell-fronts. Like many prisoners in Unit 32, prisoners in management isolation suffer from serious medical or mental health problems- such as severe asthma, seizure disorders and suicidal ideation - that make it essential for them to be able to summon help quickly. Because of the solid cell-fronts and severe understaffing, however, such prisoners must yell, bang on walls and set fires to get the officers' attention. Cell fires, which are common throughout Unit 32, are a daily routine in the management isolation tier. The fires sometimes bum for ten minutes before officers respond. Thick smoke and extinguisher fumes travel the length ofthe tier and seep into the cells.
Inadequate Access to Medical, Mental Health and Dental Care 54. In April2003, the State ofMississippi engaged Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (CMS),
15

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 16 of 20
a private for-profit health care services company, to provide medical, dental and mental health care to prisoners incarcerated at Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) and other MDOC facilities. Under the terms of its contract with CMS, and consistent with its obligations under state and federal law, MDOC remains responsible for the care and security of the prisoners in its custody and has the contractual right to review and approve CMS policies and procedures, monitor CMS' performance, and approve key CMS personnel. 55. The CMS and MDOC Defendants provide Unit 32 prisoners with grossly inadequate access to health care. Medical staff routinely ignore requests for urgent care by prisoners with dangerous and painful medical, dental and mental health problems. Prisoners often must submit multiple sickcall requests, over the course of several weeks, or badger correctional officers before they are able to see a doctor or nurse. Many prisoners who have been requesting medical attention for weeks wind up being taken away from Unit 32 by ambulance, after their condition has become so urgent and life-threatening that it can no longer be ignored by prison staff. 56. Defendants' medical stafffail to identifymanyprisoners with serious and chronic conditions; these prisoners do not get essential monitoring and ongoing care. The treatment that CMS and MDOC provide for chronic conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease, falls far below well-established standards of care that are widely accepted by the medical community. 57. CMS and MDOC medical staff fail to monitor prisoners with complex medical problems. Erratic prescription drug delivery and other lapses in treatment are routine. Medical staffoften deny patients accurate information about their own serious medical conditions and the results ofmedical tests, even when the results are abnormal, and do not explain to prisoners how to manage their illnesses.
16

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 17 of 20
58. Even for well-documented chronic illnesses, Defendants' medical staff force prisoners to plead for follow-up treatment and medication refills. Every time the patient does seek essential treatment or follow-up care for an acute or chronic illness, Defendants charge him a six-dollar co-pay - an exorbitant charge by prison standards that is clearly intended to (and does) discourage patients from seeking necessary care. 59. Bad medical record-keeping makes it essentially impossible for Defendants CMS and MDOC to deliver adequate health care to prisoners. Medical records are so disorganized and so poorly maintained that doctors, nurses and support staffsimply cannot make appropriate and timely treatment decisions, monitor care of chronically or acutely ill patients, or determine whether prescriptions have been timely delivered or reordered. 60. Defendants' system for refilling prescriptions in Unit 32 is so defective that significant and unnecessary disruptions in medication delivery are routine. For example, Unit 32 prisoners who are HIV-positive are repeatedly denied their HIV medications, sometimes for days at a time, although, as Defendants are well aware, continuity in taking prescribed HIV medication is essential in preventing viral resistance, and a lapse of even a few days can have extremely serious health consequences. Even for medications that are administered by nurses on a daily basis, such as most psychiatric drugs, entirely unnecessary disruptions in medication are common. Nurses often inform prisoners only a day or two in advance that their medication is about to run out, and then leave it to the prisoner to put in a request to see a doctor in order to authorize the refill. A two- to three-week medication gap almost always ensues. 61. In an effort to trim costs, Defendants CMS and MDOC actively discourage physicians at MSP from referring prisoners for off-site medical consultation, even when their medical conditions
17

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 18 of 20
are serious and life-threatening. Thus, critically ill prisoners who need to be seen by off-site specialists - such as cardiologists, surgeons and oncologists - are not referred; instead, these prisoners are admitted to the MSP infirmary at Unit 42, which has neither the staffnor the equipment to diagnose and treat critically ill prisoners. Defendants' failure to properly diagnose and treat critically ill prisoners through prompt referral to off-site specialists results in pain, suffering and increased medical complications for many prisoners, and premature death for some. 62. On information and belief, CMS and MDOC Defendants sometimes arrange for the transfer of seriously ill prisoners to private prison facilities in Mississippi, to hide evidence of Defendants' own inadequate medical care and to save the imminent cost of caring for such prisoners, whose health has worsened due to the lack of proper treatment. For example, prisoner Antonio Franklin came to Unit 32 in 2003 with congenital heart disease and a history ofthree open heart surgeries and a porcine valve replacement. Defendants were aware of his tenuous medical condition at the time of his intake. Franklin's heart function needs to be monitored closely and his medications adjusted regularly, because he is always at risk of aortic rupture and sudden death. By September 2004, Franklin was experiencing regular chest pain. On September 15, 2004, a CMS physician examined Franklin and noted that he needed an immediate off-site evaluation by a cardiologist by the end of the month. On December 1, Plaintiffs' counsel notified MDOC and CMS that Franklin still had not been seen by a cardiac specialist and his situation was urgent. Despite these warnings, the off-site evaluation was not performed until February 11, 2005. By late February, the results ofthe evaluation were still not found in Franklin's extremely disorganized medical chart, and there was a progress note from a staff physician indicating that he or she did not know why Franklin was even being followed. On information and belief, after many months of neglect and substandard medical care,
18

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 19 of 20
Defendants transferred Franklin to a private prison in April2005. 63. Defendants knowingly retain unqualified and incompetent doctors to provide medical and mental health care to Unit 32 prisoners. Two physicians at MSP are not approved to practice anywhere in Mississippi (or any state) except at Parchman. These doctors, who have never passed their medical boards, have a special license that allows them to work only at MSP under the "favorable recommendation" ofthe medical director. This special exemption- a limited institutional licensure- appears to have been created at the behest ofMDOC to cover these particular longtime employees, at least one ofwhom Defendants know to be dangerously incompetent. The Mississippi State Board ofMedical Licensure has disciplined and had previously restricted the medical licenses of three other physicians at MSP, including the CMS-Parchman Medical Director (due to habitual drug use), the Chief Psychiatrist (due to a history of patient sexual exploitation and sexual harassment), and a contract physician (due to medicare fraud involving the performance of unnecessary cardiac stent procedures and controlled substance abuse).
Arbitrary Placement and Indefinite Detention in Unit 32 64. The totality of conditions described above - profound isolation, complete physical and mental idleness, dangerously flawed security, the routine use of excessive force, extreme filth and lack of sanitation, malfunctioning toilets that cough up human excrement, constant exposure to insects and vermin, unbearable heat, grossly inadequate medical and mental health care, and the hellish proximity ofconstantly screaming and hallucinating prisoners whose madness goes untreated - in combination make Unit 32 the worst place to be incarcerated in Mississippi, perhaps in the nation. Compounding these horrors, the great majority ofthe ~en in Unit 32 remain there for years; some have been there for decades. Virtually all assignments to Unit 32 are for an indefinite period
19

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 20 of 20
- meaning no one knows when, or if, he is getting out. 65. Prisoners generally receive no advance notice or explanation before they are transferred to Unit 32, and it may be months before they a receive a classification hearing after arriving on the Unit. Many have been confined in Unit 32 for months or years without any clear understanding of why they were placed there. When classification reviews do occur, prisoners rarely receive advance notice - written or otherwise - of the hearing, much less of the evidence against them. The final decisionmak:er is not required to provide any reasons or factual basis for his or her decision, and no guidance is ever given as to what conduct is necessary to get out of Unit 32. Prisoners who remain free of significant rule violations for years are still not released from Unit 32. Prisoners whose case managers recommend they be upgraded and released find that those recommendations are overridden by higher-level prison officials, for reasons that are neither shared with the prisoner nor recorded. On information and belief, confinement in Unit 32 has the effect of denying otherwise eligible prisoners parole consideration and other types of earned time or early release. 66. The MDOC classification system- touted as an "objective" point system but impenetrable to most prisoners- gives essentially unlimited discretion to MDOC officials in determining custody levels and confinement status. Although Unit 32, like any supermax facility, was designed and intended to house the most dangerous offenders, MDOC places prisoners in Unit 32 for a variety of reasons, most ofwhich have nothing to do with legitimate security concerns. Many prisoners wind up in Unit 32 solely because they have special dietary or medical needs, because they are partially disabled, because they have requested or need protective custody, because they are HIV positive, or because they need (but do not get) significant mental health care. Many other prisoners are placed or remain indefinitely in Unit 32 for purely arbitrary reasons, or due to classification errors, or
20

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 1 of 9
because they cannot convince their unit case manager to schedule a reclassification hearing. 67. Prisoners may be assigned indefinitely to administrative segregation, and thus to Unit 32, because they are designated Security Threat Group (STG), for alleged gang membership; or High Security Risk (HSR), for being a presumed escape risk; or Management Isolation, because they are deemed to be a physical threat to staffand other prisoners. On information and belief, many ofthese assignments are factually erroneous or entirely unnecessary. For example, an elderly prisoner who could scarcely walk unassisted was kept on HSR status for years until his death due to an escape attempt many years before. There are virtually no written guidelines to govern these segregation categories; prisoners so designated are simply transferred to Unit 32, or to punishment cells within Unit 32, and are held for many months without any classification review whatsoever, or for many years without any meaningful opportunity to dispute their custody or segregation status. 68. Because ofthe often arbitrary, baseless, punitive and unreviewable nature of assignment to Unit 32, virtually every prisoner there despairs of ever getting out of lockdown. This total absence ofhope, as much as any other condition of confinement, inflicts pain and suffering, and contributes to the mental and physical deterioration of the men in Unit 32.
Named Plaintiffs 69. Jeffery Presley is 24 years old and has been housed in Unit 32 since 2003. Mr. Presley contracted a serious staph infection (MRSA) on his left knee on or about July 19,2004. By July21, 2004 his knee was swollen, red, itching and painful. A doctor at the Unit 32 clinic initially misdiagnosed Mr. Presley's condition as resulting from a brown recluse spider bite. Mr. Presley was given only topical antibiotic cream and five band-aids. Mr. Presley pleaded with correctional officers and hospital stafffor additional medical treatment over the next four days, as his knee grew
21

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 2 of 9
progressively worse, until it was grotesquely swollen and leaking blood. On July 25, 2005, after being held all night in the Unit 32 holding tank without medical attention, Mr. Presley was taken to the Unit 42 infirmary, where a doctor cut out a section ofhis leg and packed it with medicated string. He was sent back to Unit 32 with Tylenol. For days afterward, Mr. Presley was forced to hop up and down several flights of stairs at Unit 32, in order to have his dressing changed daily. His request to be moved to a downstairs cell was denied. In January 2005, Mr. Presley satisfied the requirements to be taken offHSR status, upgraded to B-custody, and moved out ofUnit 32. MDOC Defendants have denied him reclassification and transfer. He has not been provided with a written explanation for this decision. 70. Dennis Brumfield is 40 years old and has been housed in Unit 32 since 1997. In 2003, Mr. Brumfield was one ofa number ofnon-death row prisoners who filed grievances complaining about the totality of conditions in Unit 32, many of which were then being challenged on behalf of death row prisoners in Russell v. Johnson. Mr. Brumfield has been subjected to, and complained about, conditions including grossly inadequate sanitation, excessive heat and cold, lack ofexercise, vermin infestation, defective plumbing, ceiling leaks, inadequate treatment and housing of mentally ill prisoners, enforced isolation and idleness, harassment and excessive force by correctional officers, and ongoing sleep deprivation due to environmental conditions in the Unit. 71. Steven Farris is 23 years old and has been housed at Unit 32 since he was transferred there in 2001, at the age of 19, for allegedly plotting an escape. Mr. Farris had no opportunity to defend himself against the escape charge for almost two years and never saw the evidence against him. In 2003, Mr. Farris was one of a number ofnon-death row prisoners who filed grievances complaining about the totality of conditions in Unit 32, many ofwhich were then being challenged on behalf of
22

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 3 of 9
death row prisoners in Russell v. Johnson. Mr. Farris has been subjected to, and complained about, grossly inadequate sanitation, excessive heat and cold, lack ofexercise, vermin infestation, defective plumbing, ceiling leaks, inadequate treatment and housing of mentally ill prisoners, enforced isolation and idleness, harassment and excessive force by correctional officers, and ongoing sleep deprivation due to environmental conditions in the Unit. 72. Marcus D. Williams is 29 years old and has been housed in Unit 32 since 2003. Mr. Williams suffers from seizure disorder, hypertension and has a history of self-harm incidents and serious mental illness. During his time at Unit 32, he has received grossly inadequate medical and mental health care and has been subjected to egregiously punitive confinement in punishment cells, on the special needs psychiatric tier, and in the management isolation unit. Mr. Williams is currently being housed on the special needs tier, in a cell with a newly installed solid steel door, where he is kept without human contact for 23 or 24 hours a day. The lights in his cell are kept on 24-hours a day. The cell is virtually sound-proof and there is no intercom, so Mr. Williams is unable to summon help or medical attention if he needs it. Previously, Mr. Williams was housed behind a solid plexiglass door in the management isolation unit, where he resorted to setting fires after he was denied seizure medication three days in a row because the nurses kept showing up without a refill and confusing his chart with that of another prisoner.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 73. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies available to them on the matters alleged above by timely submitting all necessary grievance letters and appeal forms. 74. Jeffery Presley submitted a request for an administrative remedy on or about July 25, 2004, complaining ofinadequate medical care, unsanitary food service and environmental conditions, leaky
23

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 4 of 9
ceilings, defective plumbing, and regular harassment by correctional officers. Mr. Presley received a certificate of exhaustion dated November 15, 2004, stating that he has fulfilled the requirements of the Administrative Remedy Program (ARP). Mr. Presley also submitted a request for an administrative remedy on or about November 17,2004, complaining that he should be reclassified and transferred to general population. He received a certificate of exhaustion dated January 17, 2005. 75. Dennis Brumfield requested an administrative remedy for inadequate living conditions in Unit 32 on or about November 3, 2003. Mr. Brumfield specifically complained of the totality of conditions being litigated in Russell v. Johnson, on behalf of death row prisoners. He received a certificate of exhaustion dated January 15, 2004. 76. Steven Farris submitted a request for an administrative remedy on September 2, 2003 complaining of grossly inadequate conditions of confinement and inadequate due process in connection with periodic classification reviews. The Legal Claims Adjudicator rejected Mr. Farris' ARP request, indicating that a remedy had been requested for more than one incident. Mr. Farris subsequently wrote to the MSP Superintendent and twice to the MDOC Commissioner disputing this determination and arguing that it was unreasonable to require him to file separate ARP requests on the many deficient conditions in Unit 32, most of which were then being litigated in Russell v. Johnson, and that doing so would take him several years to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Superintendent and Commissioner responded to Mr. Farris' requests to intervene and reconsider his grievance on October 3, 2003 and February 10, 2004, respectively, declining to intervene. Mr. Farris has exhausted the administrative remedies reasonably available to him. 77. Marcus D. Williams filed an emergency grievance on March 2, 2005, requesting immediate
24

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 5 of 9
relief from the dangerous conditions to which he was being subjected in the Unit 32 management isolation unit, including total isolation, lack ofventilation, and inadequate medical and mental health care, as well as the lack of due process in connection with his placement in administrative segregation. The Legal Claims Adjudicator declined to grant emergency relief and accepted Mr. Williams' emergency grievance as a regular request for an administrative remedy. On information and belief, Mr. Williams has timely filed all necessary appeals ofthis ARP request; or, if he failed to do so, he was impeded by the egregiously punitive and restrictive conditions in which he has been housed for the last several months, in total isolation behind a solid steel cell-front, and by his mental illness and physical infirmities, which are not being properly treated or accommodated by Defendants. Under MDOC grievance procedures, which requires that the ARP process be completed within 90 days, Mr. Williams exhausted his administrative remedies on or about June 2, 2005. 78. On March 4, 2005, an emergency grievance was also filed by Plaintiffs' counsel on behalf ofMr. Williams, and two other prisoners in the management isolation unit, Terry Beasley and Marco Deshaw Williamson. Despite the urgent and life-threatening conditions detailed in the emergency grievance, the Legal Claims Adjudicator declined to address the matter under emergency review procedures and suggested that the grievance should be resubmitted as a regular grievance by the prisoners. Plaintiffs' counsel appealed this decision to the Commissioner, who concurred, on April 7, 2005, that the totality of conditions to which Mr. Williams and other prisoners were being subjected were not an emergency. Under MDOC grievance procedures, which require that the ARP process be completed within 90 days, this emergency request for an administrative remedy was exhausted on or about June 4, 2005. When Terry Beasley attempted to submit a regular grievance about the horrific conditions in the management isolation unit, as suggested by the Legal Claims
25

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 6 of 9
Adjudicator, a prison official rejected his ARP and told him that the ACLU had already filed a grievance on his behalf.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 79. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalfofthemselves and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2). 80. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, confined in Unit 32 of Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi. 81. There are currently approximately 1000 prisoners confined at Unit 32. The members ofthe class are too numerous, and the membership ofthe class too fluid, to permit joinder of all members. All class members are equally subject to the unconstitutional and unlawful conditions described in this Complaint, and common questions oflaw and fact exist as to all class members. These common questions include, but are not limited to, whether conditions of confinement for Unit 32 prisoners at Parchman violate their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; whether the systemically inadequate medical, mental health and dental care provided to Unit 32 prisoners violates their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and whether the procedures by which MDOC Defendants place and retain prisoners in Unit 32 fail to satisfy procedural due process, in violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory reliefwith respect to the class as a whole. 82. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical ofthose ofthe class. They do not have access
26

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 7 of 9
to minimally adequate medical and mental health care, and are exposed to the dangerous and inhumane conditions in Unit 32. They have not received procedural due process in their placement and continued confinement in Unit 32. 83. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The interests of Plaintiffs are consistent with those of the class, and they are represented by counsel who are experienced in class action, civil rights; and prison conditions litigation.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim- Eighth Amendment By consciously subjecting Plaintiffs to the grossly inhumane and dangerous conditions of confinement and to the extreme deprivations ofbasic medical and psychiatric care described herein, Defendants have acted, and continue to act, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' serious health and safety needs, and have violated their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Second Claim- Denial of Procedural Due Process By placing and retaining Plaintiffs in Unit 32, where the conditions ofconfinement impose on Plaintiffs atypical and significant hardships in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life, without affording Plaintiffs minimal notice, opportunity to be heard, and other basic procedural safeguards, Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, Plaintiffs due process, in violation oftheir rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: 1. Issue a judgment declaring that the actions of Defendants described herein are
27

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 8 of 9

unlawful and violate Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States; 2. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, their subordinates, agents,
employees, and all others acting in concert with them, from subjecting Plaintiffs to the conditions set forth in this Complaint;
3. Grant Plaintiffs theirreasonable attorney fees and costs pursuantto 42 U.S. C. § 1988 and other applicable law; and
4. Grant such other relief as the Court considers just and proper.

Date: June 21, 2005

BY:
MS Bar No. 2532 767 N. Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Tel. (601) 969-0802; fax (602) 969-0804
Margaret Winter Gouri Bhat THE NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU FOUNDATION, INC. 915 15th Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. (202) 393-4930; fax (202) 393-4931
Stephen F. Hanlon Cecily E. Baskir HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 955-3000; fax (202) 955-5564
Ranie Thompson MS Bar No. 101727 ACLU ofMississippi P.O. Box 2242

28

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/2005 Page 9 of 9 Tel. (601) 355-6464; fax (601) 355-6465
29

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 24-1 Filed 03/06/2006 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION _______________________________________

JEFFERY PRESLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 4:05-CV-00148 M-D

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________________

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

Background The Parties, through their counsel, have jointly moved the Court for preliminary approval of a proposed consent decree settling this litigation. The Parties stipulate, and the Court upon review of the record finds, as follows: Plaintiffs are members of a class consisting of approximately one thousand prisoners who are confined in Unit 32 of Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP), Parchman, Mississippi. On June 22, 2005, through their counsel the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mississippi ACLU, and Holland & Knight, LLP, they filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, requesting injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment with respect to the conditions of their confinement in Unit 32, and under the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and they moved for class certification. The case was assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerry A. Davis.

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 24-1 Filed 03/06/2006 Page 2 of 5
Defendants answered the Complaint on August 19, 2005, with general denials of every substantive allegation in the Complaint. They sought and were granted an extension of time in which to respond to the Motion for Class Certification, to November 1, 2005. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs’ counsel obtained discovery regarding certain key issues in the case, through tours and record reviews at Unit 32 by their medical and psychiatric experts. The Parties’ counsel were otherwise familiar with the facts underlying the Complaint through several years’ litigation, discovery, and ongoing monitoring of the injunction in Russell v. Johnson, Civil No. 1:02CV261-DD (N.D. Miss.), which concerns conditions of confinement and medical and mental health treatment for the subclass of death row prisoners confined to Unit 32.
On October 12, 2005, Judge Davis suggested that the parties meet to discuss settlement of the issues raised in the Complaint. Beginning on November 21, 2005 and continuing to the present, the Parties engaged in a number of lengthy discussions for the purpose of attempting to settle their disputes underlying this action. The Parties began negotiations at the Federal Courthouse in Aberdeen, Mississippi, at the urging and under the aegis of Judge Davis, and then continued negotiations on their own throughout December 2005 and January-February 2006.
Those negotiations resulted in a proposed Consent Decree on February 15, 2005, which is attached to this Order as Attachment 1. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly move the Court to preliminarily approve the terms of the proposed Consent Decree and to enter the following Order, which incorporates the proposed Consent Decree:
BASED ON THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE AND THE ENTIRE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT, THE COURT FINDS:
2

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 24-1 Filed 03/06/2006 Page 3 of 5
The proposed Consent Decree is the result of extensive arms-length negotiations between the Parties after very substantial exchanges of information. After reviewing the terms of the proposed Consent Decree in the context of the record in this action and controlling legal authority, the Court finds the proposed Consent Decree is sufficiently reasonable, adequate, fair, and consistent with relevant federal law to warrant preliminary approval and provision of notice to interested parties of a Fairness Hearing.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The proposed Consent Decree that appears as Attachment 1 to this Order is PRELIMINARILY APPROVED and incorporated into this Order. Final approval and entry of the Decree is subject to a hearing where the Court will hear objections to the proposed Consent Decree by interested parties. 2. For purposes of settlement, this case shall proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class represented by Plaintiffs (the “Settlement Class”) is defined as: “All prisoners who are now or will in the future be confined in Unit 32 of Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi.” Notice Procedures 3. Within ten days of the date of this Order, notice shall be hand delivered, by appropriate representatives of the Defendants, to each of the prisoners assigned to Unit 32. The manner of Notice described above, and the form of Notice attached here as Attachment 2, are hereby found to constitute the most effective and practicable notice under the circumstances, and to constitute due and sufficient notice for all other purposes to all persons entitled to receive notice required by due process and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 24-1 Filed 03/06/2006 Page 4 of 5
Fairness Hearing 4. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on April 28, 2006, at 9:30 AM, at the United States Courthouse, Aberdeen, Mississippi, at which time the Court shall consider the fairness of the proposed Consent Decree and whether the Court should approve it. 5. Any interested party may object to the proposed Consent Decree by filing an objection and, if he so desires, and in the discretion of the Court, by appearing at the Fairness Hearing. To be considered by the Court, any objections to final approval of the proposed Consent Decree must state the basis for the objection and must be filed in writing, along with all other papers the objector wishes the Court to consider, not later than April 10, 2006. Objections are filed by mailing them to the Clerk of the United States District Court, P.O. Box 190, Greenville, Mississippi, 38701-0190, and mailing a copy to Counsel for Plaintiffs, National Prison Project of the ACLU, 915 15th Street, N.W., Seventh Floor, Washington, D.C., 20005, and a copy to Counsel for Defendants, Leonard Vincent and Jim Norris, Mississippi State Penitentiary, P.O.. Box 38, Parchman, Mississippi 38738. In order for any attorney representing an objector to be heard at the Fairness Hearing, he or she must file a Notice of Appearance with the Court and serve counsel for all Parties by April 10, 2006. The Court will not permit anyone who fails to timely file and serve a written objection to raise such objection at the Fairness Hearing, except for good cause shown. Anyone who fails to object in the manner prescribed herein shall be deemed to have waived any such objection. 6. If objections are filed, the Parties’ counsel may engage in discovery concerning the objections prior to the Fairness Hearing. The Parties’ counsel shall serve on each other and file with the Court, at least three calendar days prior to the Fairness Hearing, any further documents in support of the proposed Consent Decree, including responses to any papers filed by interested Parties.
4

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 24-1 Filed 03/06/2006 Page 5 of 5 SO ORDERED in Aberdeen, Mississippi this 6th day of March, 2006. /s/ JERRY A. DAVIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 40-1 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

JEFFERY PRESLEY, ET AL

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

NO. 4:05CV148-M-D

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Having conducted a fairness hearing in this case, the court finds that the proposed

settlement of this case is fair, reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, the proposed approval of

the court’s order in this case is now approved as final. The notice of the proposed class action

settlement is attached as an exhibit to this order.

SO ORDERED this the 28th day of April, 2006.

/s/ Jerry A. Davis UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 40-2 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

JEFFERY PRESLEY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:05-CV-00148-M-D

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PRISONERS CONFINED IN UNIT 32 AT THE MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY IN PARCHMAN, MISSISSIPPI.
READ TinS CAREFULLY! IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS ! The Defendants have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The lawsuit was filed in June 2005 by the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Mississippi ACLU, and Holland & Knight, LLP, on behalf of four individual prisoners seeking relief for all prisoners confined in Unit 32 of the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Mississippi Department of Corrections subjects the prisoners in Unit 32 to inhumane living conditions and excessive force, deprives them of medical and mental health treatment, and denies them procedural due process in housing them in Unit 32. The Plaintiffs asked for an injunction guaranteeing improved conditions for all prisoners housed in Unit 32, and they asked to be allowed, through their lawyers, to have the suit recognized as a class action, so that any remedy they obtained would apply to all the prisoners in Unit 32.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE IS TO INFORM YOU OF: THE STATUS OF THE LAWSUIT, INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF YOUR RIGHTS
WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE, INCLUDING A PROPOSAL TO HAVE THE CASE RECOGNIZED AS A CLASS ACTION; AND
THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE WITH THE COURT ANY OBJECTIONS YOU MAY HAVE TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
Notice to Class

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 40-2 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 2 of 5

1.

asMmCTenlhtaidatsdelssieetisSms"muesetpipatpnulyoptermifsoauafSfefalttenlnahctptteteCrtPyioPlsolaoeFasunniesrnei.dtrtreeiisTgfrnfahwhtslite'ahsRr.CoPyuaoalirmerntesipePnolsaaofrhiwcnCahtvi,omveiritalawnwgP,irrileMlollecidcinesodsttvohiuseersareinfap2udlp3tluit(.hmrbee)eI(bCm2fe)otb.hcueeorrTtsnChhfooeianfus"etrShadtepeaitppntSrlpeeoUrtmvotnleveeidtenms3tae2Can"SlotaefCsttsltha"leesimss ent

2.

patCDDhnrPooeeedrncfpoSetrsopheneesoeetdnets.alPtd"aenDllmCatNtesioeoncohnntrSiaetssfeveeefCts,enttltlatawleeefDsntitmseltheler(ecertbcnrheCeeotdaenawet,issniniteistlhtd,iloBteeptlraeayrCiikndnsAoeogatudopngraolertenapernwycsetfiemiaooclnlorunecdinnnseolftsaeifiulntstloa,eseotCdstthbhehoirjteenoentlucCCseUtgeooitnnhohunitnetrsPDste3lldnaaet2hiewct)na.crDstetiiudIeemffi.efctssitrg'bhTethyleeohateaCewabsnpPoyetapuleeafrrrriiostfilnne,evatdgdepiifenpifbtrnsrhayfoteleoavmdncpeaeodersroum"atpCrlhbtoeoceosonrresudsdereotnr.f,t

3.

ctgsitsarTomryopidemahsoepoaltedcepplttemimlPhtfbameiereeideownenhJd,pnttuahsoitvftd,emhsoiagraoeerepensdrrbarey.dwoylSslwIvitieUpfelfetilmrslttmnlidlhoiseeeebtwomwnce3nchiteh2aesdnenarseopritsetnerwWtthbiirhtssoihyhoooauneeplnsutsoerehlaletidirnersdvsseodrBiemincnttntehotgeheleuUrIeedcsnldPiondCse,clnitsaooiteedtiauna3sniwrdhtls2tnideio.oioflnuctnflIfhtslhstedaeDaavwailTrbreenleiecenrwldi.lnretaeauianglneyalteIsiltwitflothnlyhteietrhelgdoeleimoqrrtlpoeeueatrsqoidsaorsusienapciirgyraoettehnlrssritemeaetarhdnmilDecedanCeteDintdfmvoedtieenoeenfasnsedhUettnaofantodnnuhltraitsetDshnitne3ehtteaosgn2ecld,irtttroheahoenrmfodiutsahagkehe

4.

No Money Damages Are Involved in damages, so whether or not this case money from the Defendants.

This Case. The lawsuit does not involve money settles or goes to trial, no class member will obtain

5.

eDcapEnourinfosutofhtprorrotoicrcrtsceoiteeztCdmechdooeCemuntpoorptrntoeomsfvloefoicnrtsnhotitieohmDtneoTepsrNcelcoirroaoemfnrenttsc,dhhePieoetrwlifCanotiinohtnDhsnetisiitsPfenhtfrnre'oUsitcptDCnetoriooesmtecuf3drsMn2esoeCiea.fsolnstnd(hitssehisefeiCnpnAtopeDinCcseewLescoUnsruaet)erlDdya. enthUcodarnvebtheder.eiecnirorTgtnehhptxeeripnotUeuecrreintnmesigtdsewijdnuoogrSfuisttlshadditeniebcsfeteiodenratol

6.

Terms of the Proposed require the Defendants

Consent Decree. The to do the following:

terms

of

the

proposed

consent

decree

would

(A) adequate

ensure that the cell to which a prisoner cleaning supplies and equipment;

is

moved

is

clean

prior

to

the

move

and

provide

(B) From May through September, ensure that each cell throughout Unit 32 is equipped

Notice to Class
2

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 40-2 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 3 of 5

with a fan, and provide a 32-ounce cup of ice to each prisoner in Unit 32 three times a day;

year

(C) Ensure round;

that

each

prisoner

is

allowed

to

take

a

shower

every

day,

six

days

per

week,

(D) Implement an effective mosquito eradication and pest control program; (E) Eradicate the problem of "ping-pong" toilets in every cell in Unit 32; (F) Make sure that the is adequate lighting in every cell;

(G) Make health needs;

sure

that

the

medical

services

provider

delivers

adequate

medical

care

for

serious

(H) Ensure that medical co-payments for services;

service

providers

do

not '

require

prisoners

to

make

unreasonable

(I) Provide appropriate care for patients with chronic diseases;

(J) Provide appropriate off-site patients in need of those services;

medical

consultation,

hospitalization,

and

specialty

care

for

(K) Provide adequate mental health care;

(L) Provide separate and apart

housing from all

foothr eprripsroinsoenrserwsitthhaptsisycahpopsriosparniadteseivnelrieghmt eonfttahlehieraslptheciilalnl enseseedss;

(M) Prevent excessive risk to prisoners of staph infection:

food

(N) Ensure that food portions are adequate,

atnradytshaartefoporodpiesrlsyercvleedanaetdapanpdrosparniaittiezeadndpsriaofre

to food service, temperatures;

that

later

(0) than

Allow July 1,

prisoners 2006;

out-of-cell

exercise

and

complete

the

new

exercise

pens

completed

no

(P) prisoners tolerated;

aRreeatshoonraobulyghelnysiunrveetshtaigt aatleldinacniddednotscuomf menatejodrafnodrctehabtytchoerurescetioofneaxlcsetsasfifvaegfaoinrcset

is

not

aapnprdipoearapnl(,pQoeat)aincldP;eraootvflitedhaeestafalalcspteurmaislio-bnaaensrnesuswaflohrroetvahireeewaassswsiigigtnhnmetdheentotstaUomnUeitnrii3gt2h3,t2as,noadfhnneooattriiscneegn,,toeapnnpcoeopdrtputoonridttuyenatitothy,btweoihtheard,

Notice to Class 3

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 40-2 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 4 of 5

taondlensso(trRess)etnFritocertnimvceeudlhatotoeusdaiennadgt.himmpalye,mtehnrot uaghplgaonowdhbeerheabvyiaolrl

prisoners who are assigned to and a step-down system, earn

Unit their

32 way

DasiTlntesahcoctelreuoesmdbeute.emanaiAnmtlloacaoforcftypohtyhpoeyeoftfoetthetrfhrmetmhePsePsroPorafoprntopodhposeosecepsdodernCdodCpoCiotonionossnsenesednsentnsotDetDftDettehlceceercrmerepeeeereSnohbtpeayitosstslwbfeeoermdiuetesinnnendagttttiAlttnoeag:mctrhheeeenedtam.cteotTnuhttaheliinsoPtnNrhlooiyspticoncosoeme.tdipcYCleeoodtuenomseesanynt ot
Margaret Winter I Gouri Bhat The National Prison Project of the ACLU 915 15th Street NW, Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20005.

7.

tttpRihhmreeeoaepscseoltoahtsntsaelssetd.mfwCoIeonronuSntrl,esedaetthtncnleheet meirDndisegeekncdtstrh.etoioesCfpacalrroaneosnssufceanlCciufruoas,tivureooenntarsh,aseiCbolslnhlecaaaasobssslueceCto,ctohnaourcnmonlduuesdageidelhndehatqahtushtirsaaicattlaelitrthaaeigennfuaddttleilparoyrmoneas,snsianiaasblntylwhdezeeecaldobplneptashdestaeittilihnsbo.etenenlrseeeonfsigtftsstthhooefof f

8.

No Effect claims for

on Cases damages

for Money brought by

Damages. Settlement

The proposed Consent Class members.

Decree

will

not affect any

9.

If You Have No Court approving

Objection to the Proposed Consent Decree. If you the proposed Consent Decree, you do not have to

have no objection do anything.

to

the

I 0.

opaIbrpfojpYeprcoootusvioeeOndtbhiCnieeocswnetsrtteitotlnienttmhgDe.eenPcTtrrhoeoeepf,oothysbeiojsdueccCmtaisooaennyssboeembncjtaueDusctstee.ccoyrIenofetuya.oionIubftjwyheoeicsutfhofbotleolroliaowenbviyjneergctehtai,ansytfoootnhurmetmoCauttohisouetnrst:teusrbhmmosuitoldtfhntehoet

(A) The case name and number: Presley v. Epps., Case No. 4:05-CV-00148

(B) Your full name and MDOC number; and

(C) What it is explanation of why

exactly that you object;

you

object

to

about

the

Settlement

Agreement;

with

an

the

For Clerk

your objection to of the Court with

baecocopnystiodePrleadinbtiyfftsh'ecJouudngsee,l,yaotuthmeufsotlmloawilini tg bayddMreasrscehs:2 8 , 2 0 0 6

to

Notice to Class 4

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 40-2 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 5 of 5

Clerk of the United States District Court AITENTION: PRESLEY V. EPPS P.O. Box 190
Greenville, Mississippi, 38701-0190

National Prison Project of the ACLU ATIENTION: PRESLEY V. EPPS 915 15111 Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C., 20005

Leonard Vincent I Jim Norris ATIENTION: PRESLEY V. EPPS MDOC Law Office P.O. Box 38
Parchman, Mississippi 38738

11.

cJMFwuoaidmilislrgspnehiresoodsslmisedpcHipaisdiee,heaeotsroaiftnrhdtighane:itcgsitAdohceenaftspweAerr,hporteprehtivoehlis2neee8rwtdh,oieCrn2pgno0ron0aots6lpelt,oontahstateeDp9dope:bCr3coj0roeveAnceetsMiietoshnn,eftsaipDnitrrhe,otahcapterdoeweUseqee.wduSrea.iCltflCeio,lboneaeudsncerodtonmHntaDoetriueemfaiscnesera,oeilenJn.u.aAdbIglbefeetrhDdeeaevnis,

12.

Questions About the Proposed Consent Decree. Consent Decree or the settlement of this case or this case, you may contact Plaintiffs' counsel by

If you have questions wish to review any of writing to:

about the proposed the documents in

Margaret Winter I Gouri Bhat The National Prison Project of the ACLU 915 15111 Street N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20005-2302

13.

sffbCHIauafuvovcettohnaohwrrsreiafeniaobClngvlfltoe,ogtDhurtotaheroebtetcoctlD·rheCleateoroetsiersuPaiswalrlm.tlaNilIidedlnofemebtttccihebfAiifadsevsptieroopsshani;rsadnoopewtovhrpdteoeetthaunotPnhalsdrdte,aopetbpPwhvpeoreerioslruonlepepvhdoiheifasseCttvelnhhdodeoeennCroPsaeonoesrisnonfsauutpsparerDopatnsaheneteaeccfdDlraer.eveeCteofchofrrawenaetcebsotae.l.unenlTIydtfthrd,Dhieeaaealcfccvtiadersesereieeobct,hienwseetihainolFte;lnat,opnriirrorianotttlephwbwsoaeistlsillsealebdntbeytelaeisdn,

Approved this 6111 day of March, 2006

lsi JERRY A. DAVIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Notice to Class 5

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 57 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION _______________________________________

JEFFERY PRESLEY, et al., 8 Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 4:05-CV-00148

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et al.,
Defendants. ________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND FOR OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF
TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH CONSENT DECREE PROVISIONS
ON MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE
EXPEDITED EVIDENTIARY HEARING REQUESTED

Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, hereby respectfully request that the Court hold Defendants in civil contempt of the April 28, 2006 Consent Decree after an evidentiary hearing, and direct that Defendants purge themselves of the contempt by promptly accomplishing the following:
Resolve medical staffing shortages; Suspend prisoner co-pay charges; Separate prisoners with mental illness from the other prisoners on Unit 32; Assign a qualified full-time mental health care provider to Unit 42 (the MSP in-patient unit); Cease the use of special management isolation cells to manage psychiatric crises; and
November 21, 2006 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental Health Care

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 57 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 2 of 3

In collaboration with Plaintiffs and their experts, formulate meaningful corrective action plans for each of the deficiencies identified in the experts’ audit reports, setting forth specific tasks; assigning responsibility for implementation; identifying the key individual responsible for each aspect of implementation; identifying the resources that will be required for implementation; and laying out an unambiguous time-line for implementation.
Plaintiffs further request that the Court order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable litigation costs, experts’ fees and attorneys’ fees; and that the Court order such further equitable relief as necessary to enforce compliance with the Consent Decree and to provide Plaintiffs constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.
Plaintiffs seek an expedited evidentiary hearing. The points and authorities supporting this Motion are set forth in the Memorandum and the Declaration of Margaret Winter, with exhibits, filed herewith. Respectfully submitted,

______________/s/___________________________ Margaret Winter Gouri Bhat THE NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU FOUNDATION, INC. 915 15th Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. (202) 393-4930; fax (202) 393-4931 mwinter@npp-aclu.org gbhat@npp-aclu.org

Stephen F. Hanlon LaKeytria Felder HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

November 21, 2006 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief to Compel

Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental Health Care

2

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 57 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 3 of 3
(202) 955-3000; fax (202) 955-5564 stephen.hanlon@hklaw.com lakeytria.felder@hklaw.com
John Williams MS Bar No. 102049 ACLU of Mississippi P.O. Box 2242 Jackson, MS 39225-2242 Tel. (601) 355-6464; fax (601) 355-6465 jwilliams@msaclu.org
Robert B. McDuff MS Bar No. 2532 767 N. Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Tel. (601) 969-0802; fax (601) 969-0804 rbm767@aol.com

November 21, 2006 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief to Compel

Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental Health Care

3

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION _______________________________________

JEFFERY PRESLEY, et al., 8 Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 4:05-CV-00148

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et al.,
Defendants. ________________________________________

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND FOR OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF
TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH CONSENT DECREE PROVISIONS
ON MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE
EXPEDITED EVIDENTIARY HEARING REQUESTED

Introduction Plaintiffs, representing a class of approximately one thousand prisoners confined in Unit 32 of Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, seek an expedited evidentiary hearing in this matter. Gross deficiencies in the medical and mental health care provided to the prisoners, and glaring violations of the remedial order in this case, are subjecting the prisoners to imminently lifethreatening risks and causing them needless suffering and irreparable medical and psychiatric injury.

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental Health Care

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 2 of 16

Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants, officials of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, on June 22, 2005, challenging dangerous and inhumane conditions of confinement and requesting injunctive relief. On February 20, 2006, the Parties signed a Consent Decree, which the Court approved and entered as an order on April 28, 2006 (Dkt. No. 24, attached here as Exhibit A) after a fairness hearing in compliance with Rule 23 (e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Parties stipulated that the remedies set forth in the Consent Decree were narrowly drawn, extended no further than necessary to correct the violations of Plaintiffs’ federal rights, and were the least intrusive means necessary to correct those violations. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree. Plaintiffs thereafter proceeded to monitor Defendants’ compliance.
Among the most urgent of the many pressing issues addressed by the Consent Decree were those relating to medical and mental health care.1 During pre-settlement discovery, Plaintiffs’

1
Paragraphs 6 of the Consent decree provides that Defendants “shall comply, and shall ensure that their medical services provider complies” with the mandatory ACA Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions (4th Ed.) and with the essential National Commission on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC) Standards for Health Services in Prison (2003);” that Plaintiffs’ expert will periodically audit the provision of care, and will furnish Defendants with a report identifying deficiencies; and that Defendants will submit a written plan to address any such deficiencies. In addition, Defendants are to ensure compliance with ACA Standard 4-4345 on medical co-payment fees; provide a chronic disease program that adequately identifies, monitors and treats patients with chronic diseases, consistent with NCCHC and ACA standards; ensure compliance with NCCHC and ACA and community standards on medical record-keeping; and provide off-site medical consultation, hospitalization, and specialty care for patients in need of those services, consistent with NCCHC and ACA Standards. Paragraph 7 of the Decree provides that “[e]ach prisoner confined to Unit 32 for at least a year shall be given a comprehensive mental health examination in private” annually; that “prisoners diagnosed with psychosis and severe mental health illnesses shall be housed separately and apart from all other prisoners and shall be housed appropriately in light of their individual treatment plans consistent with NCCHC Standard P-G-01 [Special Needs Treatment Plans]” that “medication levels of all prisoners receiving psychotropic medications shall be

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

2

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 3 of 16
medical expert Dr. John Robertson and their mental health expert Dr. Terry Kupers identified systemic deficiencies in medical and mental health care that were causing needless acute suffering, life-threatening injuries, imminent risks of injury, and poor medical outcomes, many of an irreversible nature. Consequently, one of Plaintiffs’ highest priorities has been to collaborate with Defendants in attempting to resolve those deficiencies.
Defendants have shown an interest in exploring the possibilities of collaboration. Commissioner Epps and Deputy Commissioner Sparkman have authorized MDOC’s capable and conscientious Medical Director, Dr. Kentrell Liddell, to communicate freely with Plaintiffs’ experts. Mr. Epps and Mr. Sparkman recently agreed, as a demonstration of their good faith, to implement an important mental health remedial measure that had been urged by Dr. Kupers (namely, to allow prisoners to control the light switch in their own cells). Parchman Superintendent Kelly and Unit 32 Warden Presley and their staff have fully accommodated Plaintiffs’ experts and counsel during audits. Defendants’ counsel have made consistent efforts to facilitate collaboration between the parties.
Unfortunately, despite the good intentions to which those actions attest, little substantive progress has been achieved towards compliance with the medical and mental health provisions of the Consent Decree. Problems of the utmost urgency remain to be resolved and Defendants have not taken the necessary steps to address those problems. The history of the parties’ efforts since the

monitored and assessed in accordance with appropriate medical standards, and that “[a]ll prisoners receiving mental health counseling or evaluation shall meet with the mental health professionals in a private setting.”

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

3

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 4 of 16

entry of the Consent Decree shows that the Court’s intervention is required if the medical and mental health provisions are to be implemented and the Plaintiff class protected from further irreparable injury. I. DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
APRIL 28, 2006 ORDER History of the Parties’ Efforts to Achieve Compliance With Consent Decree On May 16, 2006, shortly after the entry of the Consent Decree, Dr. Robertson and Plaintiffs’
counsel met with Dr. Liddell and Defendants’ counsel. The goal of the meeting was to open a dialog on reform of the medical and mental health care systems. The parties agreed at this meeting upon a process whereby Plaintiffs’ experts could communicate with Defendants’ experts in a timely way about significant emerging medical and psychiatric issues in individual class members’ cases. The parties also had a preliminary discussion on some of the most acute systemic problems identified by Plaintiffs’ experts. One particularly urgent agenda item was to discuss the terms of MDOC’s contract with its contract health care provider. MDOC’s two-year contract with Correctional Medical Services, Inc. was due to expire on July 1, 2006, and MDOC was in active negotiations with bidders for the new contract. Dr. Robertson, who has a decade of experience as the medical director for two state correctional medical systems, offered to assist MDOC in reviewing the terms proposed by bidders to help ensure that the new contract would not disadvantage MDOC in providing adequate medical and mental health care to the Presley class.
For example, Dr. Robertson pointed out that Wexford, Inc., sought terms that would allow Wexford to provide far less staffing than required to meet the needs of the population at Parchman, a six-month grace period to reach this already reduced level of staffing, and an additional 90 days

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

4

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 5 of 16

before any monetary penalties would go into effect. Based on those terms, there would be a potential nine-month period of extreme under-staffing, which would inevitably result in severe negative medical outcomes.
MDOC thereafter entered into a service contact with correctional health care service provider Wexford, Inc, effective July 1, 2006. Unfortunately, the contract to which MDOC finally agreed contained virtually all the terms which Dr. Robertson had warned MDOC would significantly handicap its ability to comply with the Consent Decree and to provide constitutionally adequate care to the prisoners.
In mid-July 2006, Dr. Robertson spent four days at Parchman meeting with MDOC and Wexford medical staff and administrators, reviewing medical records, touring the on-site medical facilities, and interviewing prisoners. At the end of August 2006, Dr. Kupers joined Dr. Robertson at Parchman in an audit of medical and mental health care. They met with MDOC’s on-site health care administrators as well as key medical staff for Wexford; they also reviewed medical and mental health records, toured Unit 32 and the Unit 42 medical unit, and interviewed prisoners. On August 31, 2006, Dr. Robertson and Dr. Kupers met at Department of Corrections headquarters in Jackson with Deputy Commissioner Sparkman, Dr. Liddell, and MDOC’s counsel to brief them on the major deficiencies they had found during the audit, and to engage in a collaborative exploration of possible remedies.
On September 8, 2006, Dr. Robertson and Dr. Kupers followed up this discussion with written reports, in compliance with paragraph 6 of the Consent Decree.2 See September 8, 2006 Robertson

2
Paragraph 6 provides that “[w]ithin 30 working days of the completion of each audit, Plaintiffs will

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

5

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 6 of 16

Report (attached here as Exhibit B) and September 8, 2006 Kupers Report (attached here as Exhibit C). The Reports outlined key findings, reiterated the urgent problems communicated to MDOC a week earlier during the meeting in Jackson, and made recommendations to assist MDOC in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree.
Deficiencies in Medical Care Identified in August 2006 Audit Dr. Robertson’s report gave priority to two items which he identified as being “of particular importance and urgency,” namely, the inappropriate imposition of prisoner co-pay fees for medical access and services, and the inadequacy of health care staffing. Dr. Robertson found multiple documented instances of inappropriate co-pay billings for prisoners’ sick-call requests for symptoms related to diagnosed conditions under active treatment, in violation of the Consent Decree. For example, Dr. Roberts found that MDOC charged the co-pay to known diabetics presenting with myriad symptoms of either dangerously high or low blood glucose levels; patients diagnosed Crohn’s Disease (an inflammatory disease of the intestine) presenting with rectal bleeding; HIV infected patients on treatment presenting with symptoms of progressive HIV disease; and prisoners requesting medication refills for previously prescribed medications that had run out. The problem was so pervasive that Dr. Robertson recommended that MDOC immediately suspend the co-pay system at Unit 32 pending a study to ensure that the co-pay system is functioning in compliance with NCCHC and ACA standards, that the written policy offers clear guidance to site

furnish Defendants and their medical care provider with a report identifying deficiencies, if any. Within 45 working days after receipt of that report, Defendants will submit a written plan to address any such deficiencies.”

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

6

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 7 of 16

medical staff, and that on-site medical staff have the training and understanding necessary to ensure the policy is appropriately administered.
Dr. Robertson found a two-fold problem with medical staffing: inadequate training and expertise of on-site medical staff, and an inadequate number of full time employees providing services. For example, Dr. Robertson found that under the new contract with Wexford, there has been a 47% reduction in the nursing staff , without any parallel reduction in the overall number of patients or their medical acuity. Dr. Robertson characterized this shortfall as “a completely unsustainable situation of crisis proportion.” He also stressed his great concern that, despite his warning, MDOC had entered into a contract with Wexford which essentially gives Wexford a sixmonth grace period to reach the staffing levels mandated by the contract, and an additional 90 days before any monetary penalties would go into effect. Dr. Robertson stated that “[t]he result of a potential nine-month period of extreme under-staffing puts the system at high risk to experience serious and medically significant shortfalls in health services delivery. .... For the prisoners, it inevitably means unnecessary suffering and exposure to the most severe negative medical outcomes. The urgency of the situation cannot be sufficiently stressed.” Dr. Robertson recommended that MDOC immediately work with Wexford to set short-term, intermediate and strategic guidelines for staffing and that MDOC rigorously monitor staffing patterns.
In addition to these two issues, Dr. Robertson identified many other major deficiencies, including failure to provide off-site consultations with specialists; failure to provide chronic disease management; woefully substandard medical record keeping; and, of critical importance, Defendants’ failure to provide MDOC’s Medical Director and her office of medical compliance with the essential

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

7

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 8 of 16

central-office support and on-site resources to allow her to properly monitor the contract with Wexford and assure delivery of services.
Dr. Robertson supplemented his Report with a letter of the same date (Exhibit D), summarizing some of the individual cases who were at serious risk because of the severe staffing shortfall and who required close follow up (for example, a prisoner diagnosed with prostate cancer who was not receiving treatment). The requisite follow-up was not provided.
Deficiencies in Mental Health Care Identified in August 2006 Audit Dr. Kupers’ report detailed an almost total failure of compliance with the mental health provisions of the Consent Decree. Essentially no progress has been made in complying with the key requirement that prisoners “diagnosed with psychosis and severe mental health illnesses shall be housed separately and apart from all other prisoners and shall be housed appropriately in light of their individual treatment plans[.]” Severe under-staffing is crippling virtually every aspect of care. Only a very small fraction of prisoners have received the annual psychiatric examinations mandated by the Consent Decree; services for mentally ill prisoners continue to be grossly lacking; crisis treatment is “grossly substandard and unacceptable;” “there is absolutely no intermediate care available to prisoners in Unit 32,” and there are insufficient professional staff to provide the necessary outpatient care. Dr. Kupers found that the psychiatric wings of the Unit 42 medical facility provided even worse conditions than Unit 32 for mentally ill patents in crisis. It is commonplace for prisoners with serious mental illness to be issued disciplinary tickets for disturbed behaviors that are obviously driven by mental illness, and prisoners with mental illness are disproportionately subjected to use

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

8

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 9 of 16

of force, including immobilizing gas and cell extractions. Dr. Kupers found that “a vicious cycle” has been created, “wherein prisoners suffering from mental illness become more disturbed in isolated confinement at Unit 32, their illness leads them to break rules – either they act out in response to hallucinated voices or they try to harm themselves – then they are subjected to use of force (gassing, [cell] extractions) and forced to undergo even harsher conditions such as the special management isolation cells where their mental illness is further exacerbated and they breakdown or attempt to harm themselves anew.” He found that the current policy and practice of housing prisoners in psychiatric crises in “special management isolation cells,” where they are subjected to especially harsh restrictions and exaggerated isolation, “will predictably cause deterioration in the prisoners’ psychiatric condition, likely accompanied by further misbehavior, ... further punishments and no effective treatment.”
Dr. Kupers found that communication between staff and mentally ill prisoners remains a serious problem. There are no call buttons in the cells, and prisoners consistently report that the custody staff do not make frequent rounds. In many cases, prisoners who have flooded the range or set fires explain that they did so because they could not figure out a better way to summon help. Dr. Kupers also found that prisoners’ lack of any control over the lights in their cell was exacerbating mental illness and intensifying the kind of despair that can lead to suicide attempts.
Dr. Kupers recommended, among other things, that MDOC resolve staffing shortages; provide more training for custody staff about mental illness and suicide; cease the use of special management isolation cells and additional deprivations to manage psychiatric crises; improve the crisis care at Unit 42 by (at the very least) assigning a qualified full-time mental health care provider

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

9

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 10 of 16

on Unit 42's psychiatric wing; and pursue any of the multiple available options for accomplishing the objective of separating prisoners with mental illness from the other prisoners on Unit 32.
Dr. Kupers supplemented his report with a separate letter by letter dated September 15, 2006 (Exhibit E) listing a number of acutely psychotic and suicidal prisoners needing urgent and ongoing psychiatric intervention and separation from the population at Unit 32. Dr. Kupers requested that Defendants keep him informed as to their follow-up with these patients. Although Defendants agreed to provide such follow-up information, they did not do so.
Defendants’ Response to the Monitors’ Reports and Recommendations On October 10, 2006, Defendants responded to Dr. Robertson’s and Dr. Kupers’ reports by letter captioned “MDOC Written Plan to Correct Alleged Deficiencies at Unit-32” (Exhibit F). In vague and general terms, Defendants stated that MDOC had begun to review Sick Call requests prior to charging a co-pay fee; that it would suspend co-pay (at some unspecified future time) if it found that inmates are being charged unfairly ; that it had advised Wexford that no inmate should be charged for on-going, chronic or unresolved health care concerns; that Wexford “has presented a plan” to address the problem of staff vacancies and that MDOC will continue to monitor staffing patterns; that continuity of care with specialty consults has “significantly improved;” that chronic disease management “has improved significantly,” that a “significant reorganization of the medical record keeping process is underway;” that Defendants do not feel call buttons or intercoms are warranted because “[w]e do standard 15 minute rounds everywhere and more frequently as required;”3 and that

3Defendants’ statement reflects official policy, but the practice, according to consistent reports from the plaintiff class, is quite different.

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

10

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 11 of 16

MDOC “is in the process of developing a step-down unit for the mentally ill consistent with the parties prior discussions.”
Defendants’ response to Dr. Kupers’ recommendation that prisoners be permitted to control their own cell light deserves special mention. To show their good faith, Deputy Commissioner Sparkman recommended to Commissioner Epps, and Commissioner Epps authorized, individual light switches in each of the cells at Unit-32.4 This is a significant and welcome decision.
Plaintiffs’ Request to Defendants for a Genuine Corrective Action Plan On October 19, 2006, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a response to MDOC’s Written Plan. See Exhibit F. Plaintiffs’ monitors expressed their dismay that “in its present form MDOC’s response provide[ed] an inadequate basis for productive discussion, collaboration, and monitoring, and fails to meet the requirements of the consent decree in Presley v. Epps, which requires Defendants to submit a written plan to address any deficiencies identified in Plaintiffs’ post-audit reports.” Plaintiffs noted that there is a broad consensus among correctional health care professionals about the general approach and format for effective corrective action plans, and that MDOC’s October 10 response did not qualify as a genuine plan to correct deficiencies, since it neither listed specific tasks, assigned responsibility for implementation, identified the resources required for implementation, nor spelled out a time frame for implementation. Plaintiffs explained that, at a minimum, a meaningful and effective corrective action plan must identify the problem requiring remedy; specify the necessary remedial steps, spell out the resources required to implement the plan, identify the key persons

4Defendants have stated that they will attempt to implement this reform by January 2007.

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

11

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 12 of 16

responsible for implementation, and lay out an unambiguous time line for beginning implementation, intermediate steps, and full compliance.
Dr. Robertson and Dr. Kupers offered to assist MDOC in developing an appropriate and responsive corrective action plan to address the identified needs of the system. Plaintiffs urged MDOC to accept this offer of assistance in the same spirit of cooperation in which it was offered, pointing out that Dr. Robertson and Dr. Kupers have many years of combined experience in helping to formulate and implement corrective action plans in correctional health care settings (in fact, Dr. Robertson’s experience includes ten years as medical director of two prison systems under court oversight).
Defendants never responded to or otherwise acknowledged Plaintiffs’ offer to assist MDOC in creating a corrective action plan to correct the deficiencies identified in the August 2006 audit. Meanwhile, class members continue to be seriously injured and their lives continue to be put at grave risk by the deficiencies that Plaintiffs’ experts identified. The Court’s intervention is required to assist the parties in implementing the Consent Decree and to protect the plaintiff class from further irreparable injury. II. DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT WARRANTS SANCTIONS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT
“Federal courts are not reduced to approving consent decrees and hoping for compliance. Once entered, a consent decree may be enforced.” Frew v. Hawkins, 504 U.S. 431, 440 (2004). A Court has the “inherent power to enforce compliance with [its] lawful orders through civil contempt.” Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990) (quoting Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966)). The rules generally applicable to civil contempt apply with equal force to consent

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

12

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 13 of 16

decrees. See United States v. City of Jackson, 359 F.3d at 732 (citing Frew v. Hawkins, 504 U.S. .at. 440).
“Sanctions for civil contempt are meant to be wholly remedial and serve to benefit the party who has suffered injury or loss at the hands of the contemnor.” Petroleos Mexicanos v. Crawford Enters., 826 F.2d 392, 399 (5th Cir.1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). The purpose of a civil contempt sanction is “to coerce the contemnor into compliance with a court order, or to compensate another party for the contemnor's violation.” Lamar Fin. Corp. v. Adams, 918 F.2d 564, 566 (5th Cir.1990).
In a civil contempt proceeding, “the movant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) a court order was in effect, (2) the order required specified conduct by the respondent, and (3) the respondent failed to comply with the court's order. United States v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 359 F.3d 727, 731 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 228 F.3d 574, 581 (5th Cir.2000)). The issue is whether a party is in compliance with a court order, not whether the party acted in good faith. The Fifth Circuit has consistently held that good faith is not a defense to a finding of civil contempt. See City of Jackson at 735 (collecting cases); see also McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949) (“The absence of wilfulness does not relieve from civil contempt ... . Since the purpose is remedial, it matters not with what intent the defendant did the prohibited act.”).5

5
Of course, “[w]here compliance is impossible, neither the moving party nor the court has any reason to proceed with the civil contempt action. It is settled, however, that in raising this defense, the defendant has a burden of production.” United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983) (citing McPhaul v. United States, 364 U.S. 372, 379 (1960); Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56 , 75-76 (1948); Oriel v. Russell, 278 U.S. 358, 366 (1929)). A defendant does not meet his burden of

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

13

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 14 of 16
Defendants’ conduct more than meets the legal standard for civil contempt. As set forth in the reports of Plaintiffs’ monitors, and as the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing will prove, Defendants have failed to comply with the medical and mental health provisions of the April 28 Decree. The deficiencies in Defendants’ system for delivering medical and mental health care and their treatment of mentally ill prisoners have produced a completely unsustainable situation of crisis proportion.
CONCLUSION The Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court set this motion for evidentiary hearing; enter findings following hearing that Defendants have failed to comply with the Consent Decree’s provisions on medical and mental health care; hold Defendants in civil contempt of the Court’s April 28 Decree; and direct that Defendants purge themselves of the contempt by promptly accomplishing the following: Resolve medical staffing shortages; Suspend prisoner co-pay charges; Separate prisoners with mental illness from the other prisoners on Unit 32; Assign a qualified full-time mental health care provider to Unit 42 (the MSP in-patient unit); Cease the use of special management isolation cells to manage psychiatric crises; and In collaboration with the Plaintiffs and their experts, formulate meaningful corrective action plans for each of the deficiencies identified in the experts’ audit reports, setting forth specific tasks;

offering evidence that compliance is impossible by offering evidence or denials which the court finds incredible in context. Maggio, supra, at 75-76.

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

14

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 15 of 16

assigning responsibility for implementation; identifying the key individual responsible for each aspect of implementation; identifying the resources that will be required for implementation; and laying out an unambiguous time-line for implementation.
Plaintiffs further request that the Court order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable litigation costs, experts’ fees and attorneys’ fees; and that the Court order such further equitable relief as necessary to enforce compliance with the Consent Decree and to provide Plaintiffs constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care. Respectfully submitted,

______________/s/___________________________ Margaret Winter Gouri Bhat THE NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU FOUNDATION, INC. 915 15th Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. (202) 393-4930; fax (202) 393-4931 mwinter@npp-aclu.org gbhat@npp-aclu.org
Stephen F. Hanlon LaKeytria Felder HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 955-3000; fax (202) 955-5564 stephen.hanlon@hklaw.com lakeytria.felder@hklaw.com
John Williams MS Bar No. 102049 ACLU of Mississippi P.O. Box 2242 Jackson, MS 39225-2242

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

15

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 58 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 16 of 16
Tel. (601) 355-6464; fax (601) 355-6465 jwilliams@msaclu.org
Robert B. McDuff MS Bar No. 2532 767 N. Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Tel. (601) 969-0802; fax (601) 969-0804 rbm767@aol.com

November 21, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other

Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental

Health Care

16

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

JEFFERY PRESLEY, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:05CV148-JAD

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT DECREE ON MENTAL HEALTH CARE,
USE OF FORCE AND CLASSIFICATION

The parties enter into this Supplemental Consent Decree on Mental Health Care, Use of Force, and Classification in order to supplement the Consent Decree previously entered April 28, 2006 and the Supplemental Consent Decree on Medical Care entered April 16, 2007.

MENTAL HEALTH 1. After December 1, 2007, Unit 32 will not be used for long-term housing of prisoners with Severe Mental Illness, other than those on Death Row. For purposes of this Order “long term” means more than 14 days. “Prisoners with Severe Mental Illness” means those with an Axis I diagnosis of a major mental illness (for example Schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder), Bipolar Disorder, Depressive Disorder or other serious Mood Disorder; prisoners who are significantly disabled by mental retardation or an organic brain disorder; and prisoners who are significantly disabled by any other mental disorder (for

1

example, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder or any disorder characterized by repetitive self-harm.
2. Prisoners in Unit 32 with Severe Mental Illness requiring inpatient level of care will be housed at East Mississippi Correctional Facility or in another facility where they can receive the full range of appropriate treatment programs and the level of care consist with their individualized treatment plans. The parties have not reached an accord on whether Defendants will facilitate access by Plaintiffs’ lawyers and experts to these facilities for purposes of monitoring; Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendants to facilitate such access is pending before the Court.
3. Defendants will designate a space at Unit 32 exclusively for use as a Mental Health Step-Down Unit. The Mental Health Step-Down Unit will be used to house mentally ill prisoners who require an intermediate level of psychiatric care (intermediate between inpatient and outpatient treatment, roughly equivalent to residential treatment and partial hospitalization in the community). These prisoners will be involved in mental health treatment and will not be in administrative segregation status. The care provided will include an individualized multidisciplinary treatment plan, based on an assessment of the patient’s needs, and a statement of short- and long-term goals and the methods by which these goals will be pursued. When clinically indicated, and in light of consultation between mental health and security staff, the treatment plan will give patients access to the range of treatment, supportive and rehabilitative services
2

(such as individual and group counseling, a range of psychiatric rehabilitation programs and self-help groups) that mental health specialists deem appropriate. The step-down unit will be staffed by at least one full-time psychologist and such other mental health treatment and nursing personnel as are needed. After one year of operation the mental health step-down program at Unit 32 will be re-evaluated for staff and/or location changes.
4. Prisoners in suicidal or other psychiatric crisis will be housed and provided appropriate observation and treatment at Unit 32 in a crisis stabilization area inside the Step-Down Unit. Twenty-four-hour nursing coverage (which may include coverage by the nursing staff at Unit 42) will be available to prisoners in the crisis stabilization area. The prisoners in this area will have out-of-cell time and will participate in individual and group treatment consistent with orders from the supervising psychiatrist. Prisoners will spend no more than fourteen days in the crisis stabilization area, after which they will either be released back to their cells, or to the Mental Health Step-Down Unit, or sent to East Mississippi Correctional Facility, or other housing appropriate for their condition.
5. Defendants will ensure that security staff persons successfully complete a 40-hour training course for working with mentally ill prisoners prior to working in the Mental Health Step-Down Unit. Only those officers successfully trained will be assigned work in the Mental Health Step-Down Unit.
3

6. Defendants will retain or cause to be retained at least five full-time mental health professionals, with at least masters’ degrees in mental health, to provide services to the prisoners housed in Unit 32. Defendants will ensure that at least three such mental health professionals are in place by the time the Court enters this Order; that at least four are in place by January 1, 2008; and that at least five are in place by March 1, 2008. At least one of these full-time mental health professionals shall be a licensed therapeutic mental health clinician, trained in crisis intervention work, with at least a Masters degree.
7. No later than December 1, 2007, Defendants will ensure that there are least two full-time psychiatrists on site at MSP dedicated exclusively to providing mental health services to prisoners at MSP.
USE OF FORCE 8. Physical force (including chemical sprays) will not be used against any prisoner unless his actions are creating an immediate threat of serious self-injury, or of physical injury to another person, or of property damage causing a threat to security, and not unless reasonable efforts to use verbal persuasion and other nonphysical methods of gaining control have been attempted and have failed. Force likely to cause serious bodily injury may never be used except to prevent escape or an immediate threat of serious physical injury to another person and when a lesser use of force would not eliminate that threat.
4

9. Defendants agree that audio-visual recording of all use of force incidents in Unit 32, of adequate quality to allow review of the incident, must be the norm, and that only in the most exceptional circumstances should it be impracticable to make such recordings. To accomplish this goal, Defendants will add at least 41 security cameras to Unit 32 for a total of 341, and will develop protocols and procedures to ensure that adequate audio-videotaping of use of force in Unit 32 is the norm through the identification of improvements in equipment, equipment placement, record keeping, staff training, and regulations. They will also implement procedures for generating monthly reports on use of force in Unit 32.
10. Except in emergency circumstances where no delay is possible because of the risk of serious bodily injury or damage to property creating a threat to security, the Shift Commander or Warden will be notified and his or her consent obtained before force is used. Whenever possible, the Shift Commander or Warden will visit the prisoner before consenting to the use of force, to determine if force is necessary. Likewise, except in emergency circumstances, a mental health professional will be consulted or summoned before force is used, to try to make the use of force unnecessary. A log will be maintained recording the efforts made to obtain the presence of the Shift Commander or Warden and a mental health professional prior to the use of force.
11. Defendants will develop protocols and procedures in consultation with Plaintiffs’ mental health monitor to ensure the involvement of a mental health
5

professional prior to use of force on prisoners with Severe Mental Illness at Unit 32.
12. All Unit 32 prisoners who have been exposed to OC spray or other chemical agents will be immediately removed from the contaminated area, will promptly be permitted to shower, and will be examined by medical staff cell-side to see if transport to the clinic is needed. Any contaminated cell will be decontaminated before a prisoner is returned to it. If emergency circumstances creating an imminent threat to security prevent staff from immediately removing prisoners from contaminated areas, Defendants will at the very least promptly provide the prisoners who have been exposed to the chemical agents with an adequate supply of appropriate decontaminating agents.
CLASSIFICATION 13. Prisoners may be held in long-term administrative segregation only when (A) they have behaved violently and aggressively while incarcerated, (B) they are actively involved in disruptive gang activity, (C) they have escaped or attempted to escape from within a security perimeter and/or custody or direct supervision, (D) they have committed a felony while on escape from a community correctional facility, or (E) the Commissioner or his designee determines, based on specific objective criteria set forth in writing, that there is a significant risk that the prisoner will cause physical injury to prison staff, other prisoners, or members of
6

the public if he is housed in general population, even at the highest security level.. “Long term” administrative segregation means longer than sixty days.
14. Prisoners will not be housed in administrative segregation based solely on their classification scores or for refusing to work or program.
15. Prisoners will not be housed in administrative segregation solely because they escaped from a youth facility or community correctional facility.
16. Prisoners will not be housed in administrative segregation solely because they are subject to a felony detainer, even if for a serious crime, from another jurisdiction.
17. Prisoners will not be housed in administrative segregation solely because they were convicted of a serious crime and have tested positive for marijuana.
18. Prisoners will not be housed in administrative segregation solely because they need protective custody. Prisoners needing protection will be housed and accorded access to visits, canteen, and other privileges consistent with their custody levels.
19. Prisoners with Severe Mental Illness will not be housed in administrative segregation at Unit 32 for longer than fourteen days.
7

20. Prisoners who are not high-level gang members will not be placed in longterm administrative segregation solely because they are affiliated with a gang. Prisoners will be placed in long-term administrative segregation based on gang affiliation only if they are confirmed leaders, enforcers or disruptive core members of gangs designated by MDOC as security threat groups. Defendants will provide prisoners with a means for renouncing affiliation with a security threat group that does not require prisoners to provide identities of gang members as a condition for renunciation.
21. The process for admission to and release from administrative segregation will be centralized. A Warden who wishes to recommend that an inmate be housed in administrative segregation must submit to the Central Classification Office for review a referral form documenting the reason for the referral. If the Central Classification Office agrees with the recommendation, it will forward the referral form to the Commissioner or his designee for final review and approval. Emergency admissions will be permitted but the referral form must be submitted at the time of admission and the review process must be completed within seven calendar days of the emergency admission.
22. Prisoners in administrative segregation who remain free of serious rules violations and who have satisfactorily participated in any recommended rehabilitative programs that were made available to them will, within two years at
8

the latest, be released from administrative segregation and will be housed in general population housing at the appropriate security level, unless: (A) the prisoner murdered another person while incarcerated; (B) the prisoner planned or participated in a major riot; (C) the prisoner escaped from a secured perimeter or from custody or direct supervision and while on escape caused serious physical injury to another; or (D) the Commissioner or his designee determines, based on specific objective criteria set forth in writing, that there is a significant risk that the prisoner will cause physical injury to prison staff, other prisoners, or members of the public if he is housed in general population, even at the highest security level. Defendants will maintain a current list of all prisoners in administrative segregation with the date of and reason for placement, date of last review, and, in case where the prisoner is being held in administrative segregation pursuant to subparagraph D, above, the written statement of the objective criteria relied upon.
23. By January 31, 2008, Defendants will develop a formal policy establishing a program whereby all prisoners in administrative segregation can through good conduct earn increased privileges and access to programs.
24. Defendants represent that as of the date of this agreement there are a total of 152 cells in Unit 32 with solid-front doors. Fifty of these solid-front cells are occupied as of the date of this agreement. Defendants agree that the current total of 152 solid-front doors in Unit 32 is adequate for existing security needs, and that they will not increase the total of solid-front doors except on notice to
9

Plaintiffs and when shown to be necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or maintain security. Medical staff will make daily visits to any prisoner housed behind solid steel doors and mental health staff will visit at least weekly or more often as needed to ensure that the prisoner’s mental and medical health needs are being met. Defendants will review prisoners’ confinement in solid-front cells every sixty days and will house prisoners in these cells no longer than necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or maintain security.
25. Defendants will afford each Unit 32 prisoner notice of and documentation for all MDOC decisions that result in his initial placement and continued confinement in administrative segregation. Each Unit 32 prisoner in administrative segregation will be formally reviewed every ninety days to determine the need, if any, for further confinement in administrative segregation and the level of privileges to be afforded the prisoner, including but not limited to canteen, visits, telephone, recreational and congregate recreational activity, and access to educational and rehabilitative programs. At each such review Defendants will issue a written assessment of the prisoner’s progress, and if continued confinement in administrative segregation is ordered the written assessment will detail the basis for the prisoner’s further retention in administrative segregation and the specific actions the prisoner can take to be considered for release at subsequent reviews.
10

26. By June 1, 2008, Defendants will provide program space and staffing at Unit 32 for day room use, dining hall, education and other rehabilitative services, and recreational and congregate recreational activities (both indoors and outdoors) for eligible Unit 32 inmates.

MISCELLANEOUS 27. The relief set forth in this Supplemental Consent Decree is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, and is the least intrusive means necessary to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs. The Court further finds, based on the evidence regarding current conditions at Unit 32, that the relief set forth above is otherwise appropriate pursuant to the standard set forth in 18 USC § 3626(a).

28. The Parties agree that the terms of this Supplemental Consent Decree shall be submitted to the Court for approval and that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms thereof.

SO ORDERED, this

day of

2007.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

Agreed: Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Defendants

Dated: November 13, 2007 Dated: November 13, 2007

12

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION _______________________________________

JEFFERY PRESLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 4:05-CV-00148

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et al.,
Defendants. ________________________________________

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH CONSENT DECREE PROVISIONS
ON EXCESSIVE FORCE AND TO CONSOLIDATE WITH PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH CONSENT DECREE PROVISIONS
ON TREATMENT OF THE MENTALLY ILL
Introduction
Plaintiffs, representing a class of approximately one thousand prisoners confined in Unit 32
of Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman,1 move the Court to order Defendants to comply
with the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the April 28, 2006 Consent Decree, which provides:
Defendants shall take reasonable measures to ensure that all incidents of major force

1Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants, officials of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, on June 22, 2005, challenging dangerous and inhumane conditions of confinement and requesting injunctive relief. On April 28, 2006, the Court entered a Consent Decree,(Dkt. No. 24), after a fairness hearing in compliance with Rule 23 (e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree. Plaintiffs thereafter proceeded to monitor Defendants’ compliance.
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Treatment of the Mentally Ill

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 2 of 13

by correctional staff against prisoners are thoroughly investigated and documented and that the use of excessive force is not tolerated. The Parties agree to work together in good faith to prepare a written plan to effectuate the goals of this paragraph, and to present the agreed-upon plan to the Court for approval. (Dkt. No. 24). Plaintiffs further request that the Court consolidate this motion with Plaintiffs’ pending motion on treatment of prisoners with mental illness (Dkt. No. 57). Plaintiffs seek expedited hearing since MDOC’s routine violation of Paragraph 11 of the Consent Decree and of its own policy on the use of force, combined with the lack of reasonably adequate mental health treatment, the psychosis-inducing effect on the mentally ill of permanent administrative segregation, and the culture of excessive force in Unit 32, create an imminent risk of serious injury to all Presley class members, and especially to those with serious mental illness.
The Use of Excessive Force in Unit 32 Unit 32, a super-maximum security facility, is a massive complex of five buildings housing about 1000 men, most of them in segregation cells where they are locked down 23 to 24 hours a day, in total isolation. The June 2005 Complaint in this case alleged in detail how a combination of conditions in Unit 32 – including the profound isolation and unrelieved idleness of solitary confinement, the routine use of excessive force by security staff, and the gross deprivation of basic mental health care – are likely to cause serious mental illness to emerge in previously healthy prisoners, to cause psychosis and complete mental breakdown in less healthy prisoners, and to subject all the men confined there, as well as the men and women who work there, to substantial risk of physical injury, illness and premature death. Although Unit 32 is supposedly used to incarcerate the most dangerous and incorrigible offenders in the State, in the most secure and restrictive setting possible, the Complaint alleged

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

2

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 3 of 13

that in reality the vast majority of the men housed in Unit 32 – for years, sometimes for decades – do not have the kind of criminal or institutional history that would justify incarceration under “supermax” conditions. Many prisoners were placed in Unit 32 for purely arbitrary reasons, or for no discernible reason at all, and have never had a meaningful opportunity to contest their placement there. Many are confined there because they have special medical needs, are severely mentally ill, or have requested protective custody. Even for those men whose history might warrant the most highly restrictive custody, there is no justification whatsoever for the horrifically brutal and dangerous conditions to which they are subjected. (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, Paras. 1-3).
The Complaint also alleged that chronic and severe shortages in security staffing and Defendants’ failure to adequately train and supervise security staff put the lives of prisoners and prison employees in Unit 32 in constant peril; that corrections officers do not follow basic security precautions; that some corrections officers sadistically bait and threaten prisoners, or gratuitously beat prisoners already in full restraint gear; and that “takedown teams” often forcibly extract shackled prisoners from their cells, spray them with a chemical agent that causes vomiting and shortness of breath, and then assault them. (Para. 24). The Complaint alleged that sadistic abuse and excessive force by corrections staff create a serious risk of suicide in young or mentally ill prisoners (Para. 25) and provided examples.2

2The Complaint gave the example of Christopher Smiley, a youthful prisoner on psychiatric medications, who on November 25, 2003 threw water at a corrections officer. The officer screamed that she was going to kill him, and a take-down team of several officers was summoned. The officers gassed Smiley and – after putting him in full restraint gear – pushed, punched and dragged him into a hallway, where they severely beat him. Smiley was taken to a

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

3

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 4 of 13
In July 2006, Plaintiffs’ psychiatric monitor, Dr. Terry Kupers, carried out an audit of the treatment of mentally ill prisoners at Unit 32, and thereafter submitted a report to Defendants. (See Dkt. No. 59, Exhibit C). Dr. Kupers’ report detailed Defendants’ almost total failure to comply with the mental health provisions of the Consent Decree.
Among many other unresolved problems, Dr. Kupers found that it is commonplace for prisoners with serious mental illness to be issued disciplinary tickets for disturbed behaviors that are obviously driven by mental illness, and for prisoners with mental illness to be routinely subjected to use of force, including immobilizing gas and cell extractions. (See Dkt. No. 59, Exhibit C, p. 4). Dr. Kupers found that “a vicious cycle” has been created, “wherein prisoners suffering from mental illness become more disturbed in isolated confinement at Unit 32, their illness leads them to break rules – either they act out in response to hallucinated voices or they try to harm themselves – then they are subjected to use of force (gassing, [cell] extractions) and forced to undergo even harsher conditions such as the special management isolation cells where their mental illness is further exacerbated and they breakdown or attempt to harm themselves

holding tank and then brought back to a punishment cell on the tier, where he spent the following night without any clothing or bedding, although the temperature dropped below freezing. Officers refused to give him his psychiatric medications and denied him several meals. The following day, on November 26, an officer told him “you’d better be gone when I come to work tonight.” Smiley told ranking officers about the beating and threats and begged to be moved. They told him to set a fire if he wanted to be moved. That night, Smiley was found dead in his cell, hanging in the corner near the sink. A few weeks later, on December 16, 2003, Patrick Presley, a prisoner who was in Unit 32 simply because he needed protective custody, was found hanged in his cell.

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

4

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 5 of 13
anew.” (Dkt. No. 59, Exhibit C, p. 4). Dr. Kupers made recommendations to Defendants on how they might resolve these issues.3
On November 21, 2006, Plaintiffs brought a motion for an evidentiary hearing . See Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental Health Care (Dkt. No. 5760). On April 4, 2007, an evidentiary hearing commenced on Plaintiffs’ contentions that mentally ill prisoners are denied basic psychiatric care, routinely subjected to gassing with chemicals and other use of excessive force for disturbed behaviors triggered by their mental illness; and that a large percentage of prisoners who are being incarcerated in administrative segregation in Unit 32 have serious mental illness which is being severely exacerbated by the harsh conditions of administrative segregation.4 Plaintiffs’ evidence included the testimony of Defendants’ psychiatrist Dr. Parveen Kumar, who is responsible for treating the mentally ill prisoners in Unit 32; the testimony of several prisoner witnesses; and the testimony of Dr. Kupers.
The evidence showed that in Unit 32 Defendants do not follow their own policy on use of force, which provides that “[i]t is the policy of MDOC to restrict the use of physical force to

3Dr. Kupers recommended, among other things, that MDOC resolve staffing shortages; provide more training for custody staff about mental illness and suicide; cease the use of special management isolation cells and additional deprivations to manage psychiatric crises; improve the crisis care at Unit 42 by (at the very least) assigning a qualified full-time mental health care provider on Unit 42's psychiatric wing; and pursue any of the multiple available options for accomplishing the objective of separating prisoners with mental illness from the other prisoners on Unit 32.

4The issues on medical care were resolved on April 4, 2007 in a Supplemental Consent Decree, which the Court entered as an order on April 16, 2007. (Dkt. No. 70).

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

5

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 6 of 13
instances of justifiable self-defense, protection of others, protection of property, prevention of escapes, and to maintain or regain control, and then only as a last resort and in accordance with appropriate statutory authority. In no even is physical force justifiable as punishment.” 5 MDOC policy permits the use of chemical agents against prisoners only “to prevent serious injury to the offender or others, to prevent substantial property damage, to prevent loss of life or to prevent escape.”6 Dr. Kupers gave multiple examples of mentally ill prisoners in Unit 32 being repeatedly and gratuitously sprayed with chemicals and otherwise punished, rather than treated for the mental illness that drove their disruptive behaviors.
Among many other examples, Dr. Kupers cited the case of James Coffield, a seriously mentally ill inmate in Unit 32 who was severely brain damaged in March 2006 in a botched suicide attempt and who now remains in a permanent vegetative state. MDOC mental health records documented Mr. Coffield’s long history in Unit 32 of bizarre and disruptive behaviors, which the MDOC psychiatrist characterized as merely “manipulative,” and which security staff punished with increasingly harsh force, including repeated gassing with chemicals – until last March, when Mr. Coffield was found in his cell hanging by his neck. Dr. Kupers testified that the very same conditions that resulted in the Coffield tragedy exist to this day in Unit 32, and that

5Mississippi Department of Corrections Policy Number 16-13, “Use of Force” (effective date 11-01-2006), page 1. MDOC policy also requires that “[a]ppropriate medical treatment by certified personnel will be provided to all individuals exposed to chemical agents,” and that “immediately after exposure to chemical agents, institutional staff should transport offenders to the clinic for examination.” Id. at 2.

6Mississippi Department of Corrections SOP Number 16-13-01, “Use of Force” (effective date 11-01-2006), page 2.

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

6

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 7 of 13
there are dozens more “Coffields” waiting to happen unless those conditions are changed. The Latest Documented Example of Excessive Force Against a Mentally Ill Prisoner On April 25, 2007, new evidence emerged lending further support to Dr. Kupers’ findings.
Kevin King, a mentally ill inmate in Unit 32,7 claimed that he had been severely beaten by an officer the day after he was discharged from the psychiatric ward in Unit 42.
According to Mr. King, he was in the shower stall in Unit 32-A when Officer Takeo Clark signaled for the shower door to be opened, then rushed into the shower and beat Mr. King on top of the head with a pair of handcuffs until King’s head and upper body were drenched in blood. After Mr. King had been beaten, shackled, led out of his cell, and made to kneel with his hands cuffed behind him, Correctional Officer Stevie Anderson sprayed pepper spray into the wound. Videotape and photographic evidence tend strongly to support Mr. King’s version of events, and to refute Defendants’ version.
MDOC photographs taken immediately after the incident show Mr. King’s scalp opened at the top of his skull, with lacerations so deep that the crown of the head appears deformed by a sharp bloody protrusion. See Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F. There are multiple lacerations around his eyes, see Exhibit B, and his head, face and shirt are drenched in blood. See Exhibits E, F. Officer Clark’s version of the incident was that Mr. King emerged from the shower and assaulted

7MDOC records produced in discovery show that Mr. King is on the mental illness

caseload, that he has been diagnosed with impulse control disorder, that he has been prescribed

Thorazine, and that he has been admitted to the psychiatric hospital at least twice. He was most

recently discharged from the psychiatric hospital on February 12, 2007, the day before he was

beaten by Officer Clark.

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

7

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 8 of 13

him, so he hit Mr. King with a closed fist to subdue him. Officer Clark received a few small scratches. See Exhibits G, H, I.
The MDOC Corrections Investigation Division Report of Investigation, relying on videotape of the incident recorded by a stationary security camera, concluded that Officer Clark’s account of the incident was false in a number of material points,
[as] substantiated by video footage depicting [Officer] Trainee Clark appearing to be radioing to the tower officer to open the shower door. Once the door opened, Trainee Clark stood in the doorway of the shower, and then appeared to lunge forward toward Inmate King. It did not appear that Trainee Clark attempted to restrain Inmate King, prior to the shower door opening, nor did it appear that Inmate King attempted to exit the shower once the door opened. However, the report concluded, “since there are no cameras in the showers, investigators were unable to determine what actually occurred inside.” Accordingly, despite the investigative findings that Officer Clark had lied repeatedly lied about the incident, and the photographic evidence that Officer Clark had severely beaten Mr. King without any plausible correctional excuse, MDOC sustained a disciplinary charge against Mr. King for assault on an officer; while making no findings as to whether excessive force had been used. Officer Clark was allowed to resign – and hence will presumably be eligible in future for re-employment in MDOC. Even though the videotape does not show what happened between Officer Clark and Mr. King inside the cell from which Mr. King emerged with his scalp slit open, the videotape does capture what occurred immediately after the beating. Contrary to what Officer Anderson told MDOC investigators – that after King was on the floor in restraint gear Officer Anderson had to use pepper spray because King “jumped from the floor” – the videotape corroborates Mr. King’s

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

8

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 9 of 13

account that after he was beaten, placed in restraint gear, and made to kneel on the ground, Officer Anderson gratuitously pepper-sprayed him. (See Exhibit J, Declaration of Lawrence Caldwell). MDOC’s investigative report does mention that Officer Anderson used pepper spray against King when King was in restraint gear on the floor, but the report simply ignores the videotape evidence refuting Anderson’s justification for using chemicals against an incapacitated prisoner.8
Like James Coffield a year earlier, Mr. King has no doubt been a “problem” inmate: According to MDOC records, in 2004 - 2005 he was charged with approximately sixty rules violations ranging from beating on the cell floor, being loud and boisterous, and refusing to remove his arm from his tray slot, to setting fires, flooding the tier, destroying a mattress and other state property, throwing urine at staff, striking other inmates, striking an officer, threatening an officer, rolling his wheelchair towards an officer, and taking an overdoes of pills. However, also like Mr. Coffield, Mr. King has a documented history of mental illness. MDOC’s own psychiatrist has diagnosed him with Impulse Control Disorder, admitted him to the psychiatric ward, and prescribed him powerful anti-psychotic medication. The disturbed and destructive behaviors for which MDOC has repeatedly punished him are in all likelihood a manifestations of serious untreated mental illness. Just as in the Coffield case, MDOC’s psychiatrist characterized these disruptive behaviors as mere “manipulation.”

8See MDOC Corrections Investigation Division: Report of Investigation 07-MSP-025, p.

4 ("When [Officer Anderson] entered the building, Trainee Clark had Inmate King on the floor,

in handcuffs. Officer Anderson stated that he and Charles Westmoreland, CO-IV, placed Inmate

King in restraint gear. [Officer Anderson] stated that, when Inmate King was on the floor, Inmate

King jumped from the floor, and he sprayed Inmate King with one (I) burst of Oleoresin

Capsicum (OC) Spray.")

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

9

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 10 of 13
MDOC’s Failure to Adequately Document Use of Force In the past twelve months since the Consent Decree was entered, Plaintiffs’ counsel has received complaints from many Unit 32 prisoners about MDOC’s continuing use of excessive force. Plaintiffs have reported a number of these incidents to Defendants and have requested disclosure of the documentation of such incidents, including the videotapes of the incidents, as required by MDOC policy, which provides, “ when possible, all use of force incidents will be videotaped (video camera with audio recording capabilities) to protect the rights of all involved on the incident.” MDOC Policy No. 16-13, “Use of Force,” id. at 4. Unfortunately, it appears that adequate documentation and investigation of excessive force claims seldom if ever occur, in large part because the videotaping required by MDOC policy is not taking place. Security cameras are placed in such a way that the interior of the cells are entirely hidden from view, what occurs inside the cell when officers enter is never recorded, and contrary to MDOC policy no sound recording is made. (See Exhibit J, Caldwell Declaration.) In the absence of effective use of video recordings, MDOC’s internal investigations of excessive force claims necessarily rely for the most part on the statements of correctional staff. As shown in the February 2007 Kevin King incident, even where MDOC’s own internal investigation concludes that security staff lied about material matters in the course of the investigation, any possible doubt is resolved in staff’s favor. Indeed, in the King incident, MDOC’S investigative report of the incident concludes that “since there are no cameras in the showers, investigators were unable to determine what actually occurred inside.”

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

10

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 11 of 13

Efforts to Resolve the Matter Without Court Intervention

Prior to the filing of this Motion, Plaintiffs notified counsel for Defendants and attempted

to negotiate an informal resolution without involving the Court, pursuant to Paragraph 17 of the

Consent Decree.

On April 4, 2007, at the close of Plaintiffs’ presentation of their evidence on mental health

issues and use of excessive force against mentally ill prisoners, the Court summoned the parties’

counsel to chambers and strongly urged them to attempt to reach an agreement on how to

remedy the serious problems that had been presented. The parties agreed to attempt to negotiate

an agreement on remedies, and to meet again with the Court on April 6 for further mediation.

The evidence that had emerged at the hearing showed that the problems relating to

treatment of mentally ill prisoners, use of excessive force, and arbitrary classification to

administrative segregation are inextricably intertwined. Accordingly, Plaintiffs drafted a

proposed Supplemental Consent Decree addressing all of these issues and presented it to

Defendants for discussion.

On April 6, 2007, counsel for the parties met at the courthouse and had preliminary

discussions of Plaintiffs’ proposal. Defendants’ counsel agreed to present the proposal to their

clients. Counsel then met again in chambers with the Court, who directed the parties to return on

June 1, 2007 for the continuation of the evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion, unless the

parties were able in the interim to reach an agreement on remedies. On May 1, 2007, not having

had any response from Defendants regarding their settlement proposal, Plaintiffs sent Defendants

an updated draft and requested a response by May 11, 2007. Defendants have yet to respond.

MDOC’s ongoing violation of Paragraph 11 of the Consent Decree and of its own policy on

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

11

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 12 of 13

the use of force, combined with the lack of reasonably adequate mental health treatment, the psychosis-inducing effect on the mentally ill of permanent administrative segregation, and the culture of excessive force in Unit 32, create an excessive and imminent risk of serious injury to all Presley class members, and especially to those with serious mental illness.

CONCLUSION The Court should consolidate the present motion with Plaintiffs’ pending motion on mental health care, hold an expedited hearing, and enter an order compelling Defendants to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 11 of the Consent Decree that “all incidents of major force by correctional staff against prisoners are thoroughly investigated and documented and that the use of excessive force is not tolerated,” and that the Parties “ work together in good faith to prepare a written plan to effectuate the goals of this paragraph, and to present the agreed-upon plan to the Court for approval.”

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Margaret Winter

Margaret Winter Gouri Bhat THE NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU FOUNDATION, INC. 915 15th Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. (202) 393-4930; fax (202) 393-4931 mwinter@npp-aclu.org gbhat@npp-aclu.org

Stephen F. Hanlon

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

12

Case 4:05-cv-00148-JAD Document 74 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 13 of 13
LaKeytria W. Felder HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 955-3000; fax (202) 955-5564 stephen.hanlon@hklaw.com lakeytria.felder@hklaw.com
John S. Williams MS Bar No. 102049ACLU of Mississippi P.O. Box 2242 Jackson, MS 39225-2242 Tel. (601) 355-6464; fax (601) 355-6465 jwilliams@msaclu.org
Robert B. McDuff MS Bar No. 2532 767 N. Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Tel. (601) 969-0802; fax (601) 969-0804 rbm767@aol.com

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive

Force and to Consolidate With Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on

Treatment of the Mentally Ill

13

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

JEFFERY PRESLEY, ET AL. VS. CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:05CV148-JAD
DEFENDANTS

SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT DECREE FOR MEDICAL CARE

MEDICAL 1. Defendants will immediately revise their medical co-payment policy and procedure to clarify that they will not charge prisoners co-payment fees for any of the following medical encounters or treatments: A. encounters initiated by medical, security or administrative staff B. encounters resulting from referrals from other medical staff C. encounters relating to the monitoring or treatment of chronic conditions, including Chronic Care clinic visits D. encounters for medical emergencies, as determined by qualified medical staff E. encounters for medication refills, lab work, x-rays, diagnostic tests, specialty care, or other ancillary, secondary or tertiary services F. encounters or treatment in a hospital or infirmary G. follow-up visits

H. encounters for mental health monitoring or treatment if a mental health professional determines the prisoner has a mental disorder for which monitoring or treatment is appropriate
2. Defendants will establish a procedure, separate from the ARP program, whereby prisoners who believe they have been incorrectly charged co-pay can request and receive prompt review of a co-pay charge by the Office of Medical Compliance, an explanation for the Chief Medical Officer’s decision, prompt reimbursement of any copay charge which the Office of Medical Compliance finds should have been waived, and a record confirming reimbursement.
3. Defendants will distribute to all prisoners and include in the Inmate Handbook the revised co-pay policy and procedure, including the statement, “If you believe that you have been charged co-pay incorrectly, you may write to the MDOC Chief Medical Officer and explain why you believe you should not have been charged co-pay. The Chief Medical Officer will send you a letter notifying you of the decision and an explanation for why the charge was or was not correct. If the MDOC Chief Medical Officer agrees that you should not have been charged co-pay, MDOC will promptly refund the co-pay to your account and provide you with written confirmation that your account has been reimbursed.”
4. Defendants will retain or cause to be retained no later than May 15, 2007 an additional full-time physician for Unit-32.
5. Defendants will retain or cause to be retained an additional eight full-time Registered Nurses (RNs) at MSP to fill existing FTE vacancies at MSP. These vacancies shall be reduced by two full-time RNs no later than May 15, 2007; an additional two full-

time RNs by June 15, 2007; an additional two full-time RNs by July 15, 2007; and an
additional two full-time RNs by August 15, 2007.
6. Defendants will retain or cause to be retained twelve full-time Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) to fill existing LPN vacancies at MSP. These vacancies shall be reduced by three full-time LPNs no later than May 15, 2007; an additional three full-time LPNs by June 15, 2007; an additional three full-time LPNs by July 15, 2007; and an additional three full-time LPNs by August 15, 2007.
7. No later than September 15, 2007, Defendants will implement improvements in their paper medical records of inmates housed in the Mississippi State Penitentiary and particularly at Unit-32 that will meet community standards of medical record keeping. No later than June 30, 2008, Defendants will implement an electronic medical record system that meets community standards of medical record keeping.
8. The Parties agree that the stipulated remedies set forth in this Supplemental Consent Decree are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of Federal rights, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal rights.
9. The Parties agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Supplemental Consent Decree.
SO ORDERED, this the 16th day of April, 2007.

/s/ Jerry A. Davis U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Agreed: /s/ Margaret Winter _______________________________ Counsel for Plaintiffs

April 16, 2007

_s/Leonard C. Vincent____________ April 16, 2007 Counsel for Defendants

 
 CCaassee44::0055--ccvv-0-000114488-J-AJADD DDocoucmumenetn8t89-20 FFilieledd1111/1/135/2/2000077 PPagaege1 1ofo1f211

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

JEFFERY PRESLEY, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:0SCV148-JAD

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT DECREE ON MENTAL HEALTH CARE,
USE OF FORCE AND CLASSIFICATION

The parties enter into this Supplemental Consent Decree on Mental Health Care, Use of Force, and Classification in order to supplement the Consent Decree previously entered April 28, 2006 and the Supplemental Consent Decree on Medical Care entered April 16, 2007.

MENTAL HEALTH 1. After December 1,2007, Unit 32 will not be used for long-term housing of prisoners with Severe Mental lllness, other than those on Death Row. For purposes of this Order "long term" means more than 14 days. "Prisoners with Severe Mental lllness" means those with an Axis I diagnosis of a major mental illness (for example Schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder), Bipolar Disorder, Depressive Disorder or other serious Mood Disorder; prisoners who are significantly disabled by mental retardation or an organic brain disorder; and prisoners who are significantly disabled by any other mental disorder (for

1

CCaassee44:0:055-c-cvv-0-0014184-8J-AJDAD DoDcoucmuemnet n8t89-20 FFilieledd1111/1/135/2/2000707 PaPgaege2 o2fo1f211
example, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder or any disorder characterized by repetitive self-harm.
2. Prisoners in Unit 32 with Severe Mental Illness requiring inpatient level of care will be housed at East Mississippi Correctional Facility or in another facility where they can receive the full range of appropriate treatment programs and the level of care consist with their individualized treatment plans. The parties have not reached an accord on whether Defendants will facilitate access by Plaintiffs' lawyers and experts to these facilities for purposes of monitoring; Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendants to facilitate such access is pending before the Court.
3. Defendants will designate a space at Unit 32 exclusively for use as a Mental Health Step-Down Unit. The Mental Health Step-Down Unit will be used to house mentally ill prisoners who require an intermediate level of psychiatric care (intermediate between inpatient and outpatient treatment, roughly equivalent to residential treatment and partial hospitalization in the community). These prisoners will be involved in mental health treatment and will not be in administrative segregation status. The care provided will include an individualized mUltidisciplinary treatment plan, based on an assessment of the patient's needs, and a statement of short- and long-term goals and the methods by which these goals will be pursued. When clinically indicated, and in light of consultation between mental health and security staff, the treatment plan will give patients access to the range of treatment, supportive and rehabilitative services
2

CCaassee44::0055--ccvv-0-000114488-J-AJADD DDocoucmumenetn8t89-20 FFilieledd1111/1/135/2/2000077 PPagaege3 3ofo1f211
(such as individual and group counseling, a range of psychiatric rehabilitation programs and self-help groups) that mental health specialists deem appropriate. The step-down unit will be staffed by at least one full-time psychologist and such other mental health treatment and nursing personnel as are needed. After one year of operation the mental health step-down program at Unit 32 will be re-evaluated for staff and/or location changes.
4. Prisoners in suicidal or other psychiatric crisis will be housed and provided appropriate observation and treatment at Unit 32 in a crisis stabilization area inside the Step-Down Unit. Twenty-four-hour nursing coverage (which may include coverage by the nursing staff at Unit 42) will be available to prisoners in the crisis stabilization area. The prisoners in this area will have out-of-cell time and will participate in individual and group treatment consistent with orders from the supervising psychiatrist. Prisoners will spend no more than fourteen days in rhe crisis stabilization area, after which they will either be released back to their cells, or to the Mental Health Step-Down Unit, or sent to East Mississippi Correctional Facility, or other housing appropriate for their condition.
5. Defendants will ensure that security staff persons successfully complete a 40-hour training course for working with mentally ill prisoners prior to working in the Mental Health Step-Down Unit. Only those officers successfully trained will be assigned work in the Mental Health Step-Down Unit.
3

Caassee44::0055--ccvv-0-000114488-J-AJADD DDocoucmumenetn8t89-20 FFiilleedd1111//1135/2/2000077 PPagaege4 4ofo1f211
6. Defendants will retain or cause to be retained at least five full-time mental health professionals, with at least masters' degrees in mental health, to provide services to the prisoners housed in Unit 32. Defendants will ensure that at least three such mental health professionals are in place by the time the Court enters this Order; that at least four are in place by January 1,2008; and that at least five are in place by March 1, 2008. At least one of these full-time mental health professionals shall be a licensed therapeutic mental health clinician, trained in crisis intervention work, with at least a Masters degree.
7. No later than December 1, 2007, Defendants will ensure that there are least two full-time psychiatrists on site at MSP dedicated exclusively to providing mental health services to prisoners at MSP.
USE OF FORCE 8. Physical force (including chemical sprays) will not be used against any prisoner unless his actions are creating an immediate threat of serious self-injury, or of physical injury to another person, or of property damage causing a threat to security, and not unless reasonable efforts to use verbal persuasion and other nonphysical methods of gaining control have been attempted and have failed. Force likely to cause serious bodily injury may never be used except to prevent escape or an immediate threat of serious physical injury to another person and when a lesser use of force would not eliminate that threat.
4

CCaassee44:0:055-c-cvv-0-000114488-J-AJADD DDocoucmumenetn8t89-20 FFilieledd1111/1/135/2/200077 PPagaege5 5ofo1f211
9. Defendants agree that audio-visual recording of all use of force incidents in Unit 32, of adequate quality to allow review of the incident, must be the norm, and that only in the most exceptional circumstances should it be impracticable to make such recordings. To accomplish this goal, Defendants will add at least 41 security cameras to Unit 32 for a total of 341, and will develop protocols and procedures to ensure that adequate audio-videotaping of use of force in Unit 32 is the norm through the identification of improvements in equipment, equipment placement, record keeping, staff training, and regulations. They will also implement procedures for generating monthly reports on use of force in Unit 32.
10. Except in emergency circumstances where no delay is possible because of the risk of serious bodily injury or damage to property creating a threat to security, the Shift Commander or Warden will be notified and his or her consent obtained before force is used. Whenever possible, the Shift Commander or Warden will visit the prisoner before consenting to the use of force, to determine if force is necessary. Likewise, except in emergency circumstances, a mental health professional will be consulted or summoned before force is used, to try to make the use of force unnecessary. A log will be maintained recording the efforts made to obtain the presence of the Shift Commander or Warden and a mental health professional prior to the use of force.
11. Defendants will develop protocols and procedures in consultation with Plaintiffs' mental health monitor to ensure the involvement of a mental health
5

CCaassee44:0:055-c-cvv-0-000114488-J-AJADD DDocoucmumenetn8t89-20 FFilieledd1111/1/135/2/2000077 PPagaege6 6ofo1f211
professional prior to use of force on prisoners with Severe Mental Illness at Unit 32.
12. All Unit 32 prisoners who have been exposed to OC spray or other chemical agents will be immediately removed from the contaminated area, will promptly be permitted to shower, and will be examined by medical staff cell-side to see if transport to the clinic is needed. Any contaminated cell will be decontaminated before a prisoner is returned to it. If emergency circumstances creating an imminent threat to security prevent staff from immediately removing prisoners from contaminated areas, Defendants will at the very least promptly provide the prisoners who have been exposed to the chemical agents with an adequate supply of appropriate decontaminating agents.
CLASSIFICATION 13. Prisoners may be held in long-term administrative segregation only when (A) they have behaved violently and aggressively while incarcerated, (B) they are actively involved in disruptive gang activity, (C) they have escaped or attempted to escape from within a security perimeter and/or custody or direct supervision, (D) they have committed a felony while on escape from a community correctional facility, or (E) the Commissioner or his designee determines, based on specific objective criteria set forth in writing, that there is a significant risk that the prisoner will cause physical injury to prison staff, other prisoners, or members of
6

CCaassee44:0:055-c-cvv-0-000114488-J-AJADD DDocoucmumenetn8t89-20 FFilieledd1111/1/135/2/200077 PPagaege7 7ofo1f211
the public if he is housed in general population, even at the highest security level.. "Long term" administrative segregation means longer than sixty days.
14. Prisoners will not be housed in administrative segregation based solely on their classification scores or for refusing to work or program.
15. Prisoners will not be housed in administrative segregation solely because they escaped from a youth facility or community correctional facility.
16. Prisoners will not be housed in administrative segregation solely because they are subject to a felony detainer,even if for a serious crime, from another jurisdiction.
17. Prisoners will not be housed in administrative segregation solely because they were convicted of a serious crime and have tested positive for marijuana.
18. Prisoners will not be housed in administrative segregation solely because they need protective custody. Prisoners needing protection will be housed and accorded access to visits, canteen, and other privileges consistent with their custody levels.
19. Prisoners with Severe Mental Illness will not be housed in administrative segregation at Unit 32 for longer than fourteen days.
7

CCaassee44::0055--ccvv-0-000114488-J-AJADD DDocoucmumenetn8t89-20 FFiileledd1111/1/135/2/2000077 PPagaege8 8ofo1f211
20. Prisoners who are not high-level gang members will not be placed in longterm administrative segregation solely because they are affiliated with a gang. Prisoners will be placed in long-term administrative segregation based on gang affiliation only if they are confirmed leaders, enforcers or disruptive core members of gangs designated by MDOC as security threat groups. Defendants will provide prisoners with a means for renouncing affiliation with a security threat group that does not require prisoners to provide identities of gang members as a condition for renunciation.
21. The process for admission to and release from administrative segregation will be centralized. A Warden who wishes to recommend that an inmate be housed in administrative segregation must submit to the Central Classification Office for review a referral form documenting the reason for the referral. If the Central Classification Office agrees with the recommendation, it will forward the referral form to the Commissioner or his designee for final review and approval. Emergency admissions will be permitted but the referral form must be submitted at the time of admission and the review process must be completed within seven calendar days of the emergency admission.
22. Prisoners in administrative segregation who remain free of serious rules violations and who have satisfactorily participated in any recommended rehabilitative programs that were made available to them will, within two years at
8

CCaassee44:0:055-c-cvv-0-0104184-8J-AJDAD DoDcoucmuemnet n8t89-20 FFilieledd1111/1/135/2/020707 PaPgaege9 o9fo1f211
the latest, be released from administrative segregation and will be housed in general population housing at the appropriate security level, unless: (A) the prisoner murdered another person while incarcerated; (B) the prisoner planned or participated in a major riot; (C) the prisoner escaped from a secured perimeter or from custody or direct supervision and while on escape caused serious physical injury to another; or (D) the Commissioner or his designee determines, based on specific objective criteria set forth in writing, that there is a significant risk that the prisoner will cause physical injury to prison staff, other prisoners, or members of the public if he is housed in general population, even at the highest security level. Defendants will maintain a. current list of all prisoners in administrative segregation with the date of and reason for placement, date of last review, and, in case where the prisoner is being held in administrative segregation pursuant to subparagraph D, above, the written statement of the objective criteria relied upon.
23. By January 31,2008, Defendants will develop a formal policy establishing a program whereby all prisoners in administrative segregation can through good conduct earn increased privileges and access to programs.
24. Defendants represent that as of the date of this agreement there are a total of 152 cells in Unit 32 with solid-front doors. Fifty of these solid-front cells are occupied as of the date of this agreement. Defendants agree that the current total of 152 solid-front doors in Unit 32 is adequate for existing security needs, and that they will not increase the total of solid-front doors except on notice to
9

CCaassee44:0:055-c-cvv-0-00011448-8J-AJADD DoDcoucmuemnet n8t89-20 FFilieledd1111/1/135/2/200707 PaPgaege101o0fo1f211
Plaintiffs and when shown to be necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or maintain security. Medical staff will make daily visits to any prisoner housed behind solid steel doors and mental health staff will visit at least weekly or more often as needed to ensure that the prisoner's mental and medical health needs are being met. Defendants will review prisoners' confinement in solid-front cells every sixty days and will house prisoners in these cells no longer than necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or maintain security.
25. Defendants will afford each Unit 32 prisoner notice of and documentation for all MDOC decisions that result in his initial placement and continued confinement in administrative segregation. Each Unit 32 prisoner in administrative segregation will be formally reviewed every ninety days to determine the need, if any, for further confinement in administrative segregation and the level of privileges to be afforded the prisoner, including but not limited to canteen, visits, telephone, recreational and congregate recreational activity, and access to educational and rehabilitative programs. At each such review Defendants will issue a written assessment of the prisoner's progress, and if continued confinement in administrative segregation is ordered the written assessment will detail the basis for the prisoner's further retention in administrative segregation and the specific actions the prisoner can take to be considered for release at subsequent reviews.
10

CCaassee44:0:055-c-cvv-0-00014184-8J-AJDAD DoDcoucmuemnet n8t89-20 FFilieledd1111/1/135/2/2000707 PaPgaege111o1fo1f211

26. By June 1, 2008, Defendants will provide program space and staffing at Unit 32 for day room use, dining hall, education and other rehabilitative services, and recreational and congregate recreational activities (both indoors and outdoors) for eligible Unit 32 inmates.

MISCELLANEOUS 27. The relief set forth in this Supplemental Consent Decree is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, and is the least intrusive means necessary to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs. The Court further finds, based on the evidence regarding current conditions at Unit 32, that the relief set forth above is otherwise appropriate pursuant to the standard set forth in 18 USC § 3626(a).

28. The Parties agree that the terms of this Supplemental Consent Decree shall be submitted to the Court for approval and that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms thereof.

~tiy 11M SO ORDERED, this

of

2007.

11

 
 Case: 4:05-cv-00148-DAS Doc #: 136 Filed: 08/02/10 1 of 7 PageID #: 1207

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

JEFFERY PRESLEY, et al.

Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 4:05-cv-00148

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et al.,

Defendants

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES

1. The above-captioned case is dismissed without prejudice by stipulation of the

parties on the terms set forth herein. Defendants represent that it is their intention to

relocate the entire current population of Unit 32 to appropriate housing within the MDOC

or a facility contracted with the MDOC to provide for care of MDOC prisoners.

Plaintiffs have entered into this Agreement in reliance on Defendants' representations.

2. Defendants agree that within one year from the entry of this Order, they will

correct alleged deficiencies in the system of delivery of medical and mental health

treatment to class members by undertaking certain improvements in the delivery of care,

as set forth below in paragraph 3 of this Agreement.

3. The improvements in the delivery of care which Defendants agree to

implement are as follows:

With respect to mental health care, Defendants agree:

A, They will no longer house any persons with serious mental illness

at Unit 32 and they will transfer all persons with serious mental

illness to East Mississippi Correctional Facility or, in the rare and

Case: 4:05-cv-00148-DAS Doc #: 136 Filed: 08/02/10 2 of 7 PageID #: 1208
extraordinary case where a seriously mentally ill prisoner cannot safely be housed at EMCF, then another appropriate facility. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "serious mental illness" refers to the definition of severe mental illness set forth in paragraph I of the Supplemental Consent Decree entered by the Court in this action on November 15, 2007. B. They will ensure that services to address the mental health needs of all prisoners meet generally accepted professional standards. C. They will maintain sufficient staffing levels of qualified health care professionals to provide care for prisoners' mental health needs that meets generally accepted professional standards. D. They will provide timely access to psychiatrists and other mental health care providers and they will provide a face-to-face encounter when a request for care reports a clinical symptom or a desire for a change in treatment. E. They will ensure that encounters with mental health care providers occur in a clinical setting that ensures audio privacy and confidentiality. F. They will ensure that all encounters with patients are timely and adequately documented in the medical record Progress notes and other documentation of care will be kept in accordance with accepted professional standards.

Case: 4:05-cv-00148-DAS Doc #: 136 Filed: 08/02/10 3 of 7 PageID #: 1209
G. They will ensure monitoring of patients on psychotropic medications in accordance with the community standard of care. Medications and pharmacy services will comply with community standards.
H. They will develop appropriate treatment protocols to address the needs of Unit 32 patients suffering acute psychiatric crises including, when indicated, constant observation in a room designed to facilitate such observation. Unit 32 inmates that are patients housed in Unit 42 or another unit for crisis management will have reasonable out-of-cell time daily and access to a variety of treatment modalities as clinically indicated. Unit 42 or any other unit designated for crisis management will not be used to house patients requiring an inpatient level of care longer than necessary to stabilize and transfer.
I. They will provide timely access to an inpatient level of care for patients for whom such care is clinically indicated.
With respect to medical care, Defendants agree: J. They will provide timely and adequate access to care to meet
prisoners' serious medical needs, and ensure that services meet generally accepted professional standards; K. Sick call services and acute care will include adequate patient assessments, physical examinations, and treatment plans. Referrals

Case: 4:05-cv-00148-DAS Doc #: 136 Filed: 08/02/10 4 of 7 PageID #: 1210
to mid-level or advanced level providers will be made timely as clinically indicated. L. All care provided will be properly documented in the medical record in accordance with community standards. M. They will develop policies and procedures to provide sufficient operational guidance to staff providing health care services, including a written set of physician-approved nursing protocols; N. They will maintain sufficient numbers of qualified health care professionals to meet prisoners' medical needs and sufficient security staffing to ensure timely patient escorts to clinics. Defendants will ensure that all persons providing medical treatment possess licensure and/or certification that permit them to practice within the State of Mississippi and that such persons practice only within the scope of their training and licensure. 0. Patients with chronic conditions will be seen in chronic care clinics at a frequency determined by their level of disease controL Treatment will be in accordance with nationally accepted clinical guidelines. P. Patients will receive ordered medications timely and without interruption. Medications will be administered and documented in accordance with accepted nursing standards.

Case: 4:05-cv-00148-DAS Doc #: 136 Filed: 08/02/10 5 of 7 PageID #: 1211
Q. Defendants will conduct quality improvement activities and adequate clinical performance reviews. All clinical staff will be properly supervised.
4. Defendants agree that on reasonable notice Plaintiffs and their experts will have unimpeded access to facilities, staff, inmates, and medical records at Mississippi State Penitentiary and any other MDOC facility to which Defendants transfer Presley class members for purposes of monitoring Defendants' progress in correcting the alleged deficiencies in the delivery of medical and mental health care identified in paragraph 3 of this Agreement.
5. Within one year from the date of this Order, Plaintiffs may file a motion requesting that this case be restored to the Court's active docket, based on the findings of Plnintiffs' experts that Defendants have not substantially remedied the alleged deficiencies in medical and mental health care described in paragraph 3 of this Settlement Agreement. If the Plaintiffs file such a motion supported by the experts' findings, the case will be restored to the Court's active docket and the case will be set down for an e\iidentiary hearing on whether there exist current and ongoing violations with respect the Piklintiffs' right to constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.
6. If Plaintiffs do not file the motion described in paragraph 6 within the prescribed time period, or if the motion is filed but the Court finds after evidentiary hearing that there is no current and ongoing violation of Plaintiffs' right to constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care, the case will be finally dismissed with prejudice.

Case: 4:05-cv-00148-DAS Doc #: 136 Filed: 08/02/10 6 of 7 PageID #: 1212

7. The Court will retain jurisdiction of the case until it is finally dismissed pursuant to the terms of this Order, and to determine the reasonable amount of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs, pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the original Consent Decree entered in this case on April 28, 2006.

this_£_ of~ IT IS SO ORDERED,

day

2010.

I

~~ CONSENTED TO:

..

Gabri her THE NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU FOUNDATION, INC. 915 15th Street, N.W., Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. (202) 393-4930; fax (202) 393-4931 mwinterr@npp-aclu.org

Stephen F. Hanlon Laura Fernandez HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 955-3000; fax (202) 955-5564 st~phen.hanlon@.hklaw ,com

Robert B. McDuff MS Bar No. 2532 767 N. Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Tel. (601) 969-0802; fax (601) 969-0804
rbmcdutf.~mcdufflaw.com

Case: 4:05-cv-00148-DAS Doc #: 136 Filed: 08/02/10 7 of 7 PageID #: 1213
APPROVED AS TO FORM: sf Leonard C. Vincent UEONARD C. VINCENT
r-.looc GENERAL COUNSEL
MS Bl\.R NO. 6615 ;fames M. Norris J MES M, NORRJS SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATIURNEY GENERAL MS BAR NO. 3882

 
 Case: 4:05-cv-00148-DAS Doc #: 138 Filed: 01/14/11 1 of 2 PageID #: 1216

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

JEFFERY PRESLEY, et al.

v.

No.

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et al.,

PLAINTIFFS 4:05CV148-JAD DEFENDANTS

STIPULATED ORDER AWARDING FEES AND EXPENSES Plaintiffs, Jeffery Presley, et al, as a prevailing part y in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, has sought an award of legal fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, in a sum exceeding $323,000. The parties to this p roceeding, acting through their counsel, have stipulated that this fee and expense claim m ay be c ompromised and resolved on the following terms, and accordingly the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. The Plain tiffs hereby are awarded ag ainst all Defendants, only in their
official capacities as officials of the State of Mississippi, the sum of two hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars ($295,000.00). 2. Payment of said award pursuant to th e terms of this Order will f ully and completely resolve all monetary c laims of any kind am ong the parties to this action for legal w ork and ex penses fro m Nove mber 2007, u ntil September 15, 2010. 3. This Order is expressly conditi oned upon the following: (a) the Mississippi Legislature will fund th e above p ayment during the 201 1 Regular Legislative Session; and (b) Payment then will actu ally be m ade in due course and without unreasonable delay.

Case: 4:05-cv-00148-DAS Doc #: 138 Filed: 01/14/11 2 of 2 PageID #: 1217
4. If either condition specified in paragraph 3 fails, paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Order shall become void and of no e ffect, and upon determ ining that such a failure of condition has occurred the Court shall decide the fee matter on the basis of the presently filed pape rs. In that decision, the am ount specified in paragraph 1 above shall be entirely disregarded as a product of compromise and settlement.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of January, 2011.
/s/ JERRY A. DAVIS_______________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SO STIPULATED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
_s/ Stephen F. Hanlon_____________ Stephen F. Hanlon Laura Fernandez HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 955-3000; fax (202) 955-5564 stephen.hanlon@hklaw,com

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
s/James M. Norris__________________ JAMES M. NORRIS SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MS BAR NO. 3882 Post Office Box 36 Parchman, Mississippi 38738 (662) 745-66ll, Ext. 4159 Fax: (662) 745-2959 jnorris@mdoc.state.ms.us

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
JEFFERY PRESLEY, et a1., Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et aI., Defendants.
CONSENT DECREE
Background Plaintiffs are members of a class of approximately one thousand prisoners who are confined in Unit 32 of Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP), Parchman, Mississippi. They filed suit against the Defendants, officials of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, on June 22,2005, requesting injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment, and moved for class certification. The tern1S of this Consent Decree are intended to address concerns set forth in the allegations of the Complaint. The Parties met at an initial settlement conference on November 22, 2005 in the Federal Courthouse in Aberdeen, Mississippi. The Parties, in the interests of judicial economy and the rational use of the Parties' limited resources, agree to a partial settlement of the litigation on the following terms: Stipulations and Settlement Terms (1) Defendants shall ensure that the cell to which a prisoner is moved is clean prior to the move. Adequate cleaning supplies and equipment shall be provided prisoners in order that they lTIay
February 15, 2006 Consent Decree, Parties' Final Draft

clean their cells at least weekly or more frequently as may be required to provide for basic

sanitation and hygiene.

(2) During the months of May through September~ the Defendants will ensure that each cell

throughout Unit 32 is equipped with a fan. During those months~ a 32-ounce cup of ice will

be made available to each prisoner in Unit 32 three times a day. Defendants will ensure that

each prisoner in Unit 32 may take one shower a day, six days per week~ year round.

(3) Defendants shall implelnent and maintain an effective mosquito eradication and pest control

program.

(4) Defendants shall eradicate the problem of "ping-pong" toilets in Unit 32.

(5) Defendants shall provide lighting in each cell equal to 20 foot-candles.

(6) Defendants shall comply, and shall ensure that their medical services provider complies, with

the mandatory ACA Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions (4th Ed.) and with the

essential National Commission on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC) Standards for Health

Services in Prison (2003); and shall be fully accredited by these organizations at all times.

effectuate the goals of this paragraph, Plaintiffs ~ expert will periodically audit the provision

of care. Defendants will require their medical services provider to cooperate fully with these

audits. Within 30 working days of the completion of each audit, Plaintiffs will furnish

Defendants and their medical care provider with a report identifying deficiencies, if any.

Within 45 working days after receipt of that report, Defendants will submit a written plan to

address any such deficiencies. In addition:

(a)

Defendants shall ensure compliance with ACA Standard 4-4345 on medical

co-payment fees;

February 15, 2006 Consent Decree, Parties' Final Draft

2

(b)

Defendants shall provide a chronic disease program that adequately identifies,

monitors and treats patients with chronic diseases, consistent with NCCHC

Standard P-G-02 and ACA Standard 4-4359;

(c)

Defendants shall ensure compliance with NCCHC Standard P-H-01 and ACA

Standard 4-4413 and with community standards on medical record-keeping;

(d)

Defendants shall provide off-site medical consultation, hospitalization, and

specialty care for patients in need of those services, consistent with NCCHC

Standard P-D-05 and ACA Standard 4-4348.

(7) Each prisoner confined to Unit 32 for at least a year shall be given a comprehensive mental

health examination in private, unless the prisoner refuses to be restrained consistent with

MDOC policy and procedure, in which case the prisoner shall be examined in his cell. These

comprehensive examinations shall be conducted on a yearly basis. Those prisoners diagnosed

with psychosis and severe mental health illnesses shall be housed separately and apart frOlTI all

other prisoners and shall be housed appropriately in light of their individual treatment plans

consistent with NCCHC Standard P-G-01 [Special Needs Treatment Plans]. The medication

levels of all prisoners receiving psychotropic medications shall be monitored and assessed in

accordance with appropriate medical standards. All prisoners receiving mental health

counseling or evaluation shall meet with the mental health professionals in a private setting.

(8) Defendants shall take appropriate measures to prevent excessive risk to prisoners of infection

with multi-drug resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), consistent with ACA guidelines

and essential NCCHC Standards.

(9) Defendants shall ensure that food trays are properly cleaned and sanitized prior to food service,

February 15, 2006 Consent Decree, Parties' Final Draft

3

that food portions are adequate, and that food is served at appropriate and safe temperatures. (10) Defendants shall allow prisoners out-of-cell exercise consistent with the ACA Standards for
Adult Correctional Institutions. The Defendants agree to have new exercise pens completed no later than July 1,2006. (11) Defendants shall take reasonable measures to ensure that all incidents of major force by correctional staff against prisoners are thoroughly investigated and documented and that the use of excessive force is not tolerated. The Parties agree to work together in good faith to prepare a written plan to effectuate the goals of this paragraph, and to present the agreed-upon plan to the Court for approval. (12) In assigning prisoners to Unit 32 from any other housing assignment in MDOC, Defendants shall provide the prisoner with prior notice of the factual bases for the assignment to Unit 32, a hearing with the opportunity to appear in person and to submit a written statement to the decision-maker, a statement of the reasons for any assignment to Unit 32 following hearing, and an opportunity to appeal. Prisoners retained in Unit 32 are entitled to at least a semiannual review of their retention there, with the same rights of notice, opportunity to be heard, and appeal. The Parties agree to work together in good faith to prepare a written plan to effectuate the goals of this paragraph, and to present the agreed-upon plan to the Court for approval. (13) Defendants will formulate and implement a plan, clearly communicated to prisoners, whereby all prisoners who are assigned to Unit 32 and not sentenced to death may, through good behavior and a step-down system, earn their way to less restrictive housing. The Parties agree to work together to prepare a written plan to effectuate the goals of this paragraph, and to

February 15, 2006 Consent Decree, Parties' Final Draft

4

present the agreed-upon plan to the Court for approval. (14) The Parties agree that the stipulated remedies set forth in this Consent Decree are narrowly
drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of Federal rights, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal rights. (15) The Parties agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree. (16) Plaintiffs' counsel and experts, with proper advance notice, shall have reasonable access to Unit 32, the MSP hospital, records, prisoners and staff to monitor for compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree. (17) Prior to the filing of any motion challenging the adequacy of compliance with this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs shall first notify counsel for Defendants and attempt to negotiate an informal resolution without involving the Court. (18) Reasonable attorney fees, expert fees, and costs directly incurred in enforcing the terms of this Consent Decree may be awarded by the Court. (19) The Parties stipulate to the certification of the class of all prisoners who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in Unit 32. (20) The Parties stipulate that nothing in this Consent Decree constitutes either an admission of liability or any evidence of liability with respect to individual suits for damages.
~ Date: Z / IS/ (!)

By: Counsel for Defendants

Date:

February 15, 2006 Consent Decree, Parties' Final Draft

5

SO ORDERED, this __ day of _ _ _ _ _, 2006.
JERRY A. DAVIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

February 15, 2006 Consent Decree, Parties' Final Draft

6

 
 Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 1 of 16
CLOSED,CONSENT
U.S. District Court Northern District of Mississippi (Greenville Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:05−cv−00148−DAS

Presley et al v. Epps et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/22/2005 Date Terminated: 04/28/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jeffery Presley

represented by Gabriel B. Eber NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU FOUNDATION 915 15th St., NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202−393−4930 Email: geber@npp−aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LaKeytria W. Felder HOLLAND &KNIGHT, LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 100 Washington, DC 20006−6801 (202) 419−4952 Email: lakeytria.felder@hklaw.com TERMINATED: 07/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC. − DC National Prison Project 915 15th Street, NW, Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20005 (202) 393−4930 Email: mwinter@npp−aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ranie T. Thompson ACLU OF MISSISSIPPI P.O. Box 2242 Jackson, MS 39225 601−355−6464 Email: rthompson@msaclu.org TERMINATED: 11/21/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff ROBERT B. MCDUFF, ATTORNEY 767 North Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 (601) 969−0802 Email: rbm@mcdufflaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 2 of 16

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F. Hanlon HOLLAND &KNIGHT, LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 100 Washington, DC 20006−6801 (101) 828−1871 Email: stephen.hanlon@hklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dennis Clay Brumfield

represented by Gabriel B. Eber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gouri Bhat AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC. − DC National Prison Project 915 15th Street, NW, Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20005 202−393−4930 Email: gbhat@npp−aclu.org TERMINATED: 11/19/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LaKeytria W. Felder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ranie T. Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/21/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F. Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Steven Farris

represented by

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 3 of 16

Gabriel B. Eber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gouri Bhat (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LaKeytria W. Felder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ranie T. Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/21/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F. Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marcus D. Williams on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated

represented by Gabriel B. Eber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gouri Bhat (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LaKeytria W. Felder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 4 of 16
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranie T. Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/21/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen F. Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Christopher Epps Commissioner, MS Department of Corrections

represented by Charles Baron Irvin ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE P.O. Box 220 550 High Street Jackson, MS 39205 (601) 359−3680 Fax: (601) 359−2003 Email: cirvi@ago.state.ms.us LEAD ATTORNEY
John L. Clay MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE P. O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205−0220 (601) 359−3680 TERMINATED: 11/19/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Marshall Norris MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS P O Box 38 Parchman, MS 38738 (662) 745−6611 Email: jnorris@mdoc.state.ms.us
Leonard Charlton Vincent MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS P O Box 38 Parchman, MS 38738 (662) 745−6611 Email: lvincent@mdoc.state.ms.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pelicia Everett Hall ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE P.O. Box 220

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 5 of 16

550 High Street Jackson, MS 39205 (601) 359−3680 Fax: (601) 359−2003 Email: phall@ago.state.ms.us TERMINATED: 06/13/2011

Defendant
Emitt Sparkman Deputy Commissioner, MS Department of Corrections

represented by Charles Baron Irvin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

John L. Clay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Marshall Norris (See above for address)

Leonard Charlton Vincent (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pelicia Everett Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2011

Defendant
Lawrence Kelly Superintendent, MS State Penitentiary

represented by Charles Baron Irvin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

John L. Clay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Marshall Norris (See above for address)

Leonard Charlton Vincent (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pelicia Everett Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2011

Defendant
Ernest Lee Area III Warden, MS State Penitentiary

represented by Charles Baron Irvin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

John L. Clay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Marshall Norris

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 6 of 16

(See above for address)

Leonard Charlton Vincent (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pelicia Everett Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2011

Defendant
M.D. Kentrell Liddell Medical Director, MS Department of Corrections

represented by Charles Baron Irvin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Clay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/19/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Marshall Norris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard Charlton Vincent (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pelicia Everett Hall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/13/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Correctional Medical Services (CMS), Inc. TERMINATED: 08/05/2005

Defendant
Larry Linton Regional Vice President, CMS, Inc. TERMINATED: 08/05/2005

Defendant
M.D. Keith M. Ivens Regional Medical Director, CMS, Inc. TERMINATED: 08/05/2005

Defendant
M.D. Fred Klopfer Regional Mental Health Director, CMS, Inc. TERMINATED: 08/05/2005

Defendant
William Steiger Health Services Administrator, CMS−Parchman TERMINATED: 08/05/2005

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 7 of 16
Defendant M.D. John Bearry Medical Director, CMS−Parchman TERMINATED: 08/05/2005
Defendant M.D. Gail Williams Chief Psychiatrist, CMS−Parchman TERMINATED: 08/05/2005

Date Filed 06/22/2005 06/22/2005 06/22/2005
06/22/2005 06/22/2005 07/18/2005 07/18/2005 07/18/2005 07/18/2005 07/29/2005 07/29/2005
07/29/2005 07/29/2005
08/01/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants, Filing fee $ 250, receipt number 80409, filed by Steven Farris, Marcus D. Williams, Jeffery Presley, Dennis Clay Brumfield. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(dmd, USDC)
2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Michael P. Mills and Magistrate Judge Eugene M. Bogen. (dmd, USDC)
3 Summons Issued as to Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell, Correctional Medical Services (CMS), Inc., Larry Linton, Keith M. Ivens, Fred Klopfer, William Steiger, John Bearry, Gail Williams. (dmd, USDC)
4 MOTION to Certify Class by all plaintiffs. (dmd, USDC)
5 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 4 MOTION to Certify Class. (dmd, USDC)
Per Magistrate Judge Bogen's instructions, case Reassigned to Judge Jerry A. Davis. Judge Eugene M. Bogen no longer assigned to the case. (dmd, USDC)
Case Reassigned to Judge Jerry A. Davis. Judge Michael P. Mills no longer assigned to the case. (dmd, USDC) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/18/2005 (dmd, USDC).
Case Reassigned to Judge Michael P. Mills. Inadvertently assigned to Davis. (dmd, USDC)
Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jerry A. Davis. (dmd, USDC)
6 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Charles McBride, Esq. on June 22, 2005 by Margaret Winter on behalf of Steven Farris, Marcus D. Williams, Jeffery Presley, Dennis Clay Brumfield. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter)(Winter, Margaret)
7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Margaret Winter on behalf of Steven Farris, Marcus D. Williams, Jeffery Presley, Dennis Clay Brumfield. Correctional Medical Services (CMS), Inc. waiver sent on 6/22/2005; Larry Linton waiver sent on 6/22/2005; Keith M. Ivens waiver sent on 6/22/2005; Fred Klopfer waiver sent on 6/22/2005; William Steiger waiver sent on 6/22/2005; John Bearry waiver sent on 6/22/2005; Gail Williams waiver sent on 6/22/2005. (Winter, Margaret) Modified on 8/2/2005 (dmd, USDC).
8 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Leonard Vincent, Esq. on June 22, 2005 by Margaret Winter on behalf of Steven Farris, Marcus D. Williams, Jeffery Presley, Dennis Clay Brumfield. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter)(Winter, Margaret)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Margaret Winter on behalf of Steven Farris, Marcus D. Williams, Jeffery Presley, Dennis Clay Brumfield, Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell Christopher Epps waiver sent on 6/22/2005; Emitt Sparkman waiver sent on 6/22/2005; Lawrence Kelly waiver sent on 6/22/2005; Ernest Lee waiver sent on 6/22/2005; Kentrell Liddell waiver sent on 6/22/2005. (Winter, Margaret)
10 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice ; Attorney Gouri Bhat, by all plaintiffs. (Winter, Margaret)

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 8 of 16

08/02/2005
08/02/2005
08/02/2005
08/04/2005
08/08/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005
08/19/2005 08/19/2005
09/14/2005
10/12/2005 12/05/2005 12/13/2005 12/21/2005 01/19/2006 02/21/2006 03/06/2006
03/10/2006 03/22/2006 03/23/2006 03/23/2006

NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 8 Request for Waiver of Service, 9 Waiver of Service Executed; attorney to refile with correct pdf documents attached. (dmd, USDC)
11 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Leonard Vincent, Esq. on June 22, 2005 by Margaret Winter on behalf of Steven Farris, Marcus D. Williams, Jeffery Presley, Dennis Clay Brumfield. Waiver of Service due by 8/22/2005. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter)(Winter, Margaret)
12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Margaret Winter on behalf of Steven Farris, Marcus D. Williams, Jeffery Presley, Dennis Clay Brumfield (Winter, Margaret) Modified on 8/2/2005 (dmd, USDC).
13 NOTICE by Margaret Winter on behalf of Steven Farris, Marcus D. Williams, Jeffery Presley, Dennis Clay Brumfield Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Certain Defendants (Winter, Margaret)
14 Pro Hac Vice Fee Paid : $ $25.00, receipt number 81010 for Gouri Bhat. (dmd, USDC)
15 ORDER granting 10 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Gouri Bhat. Signed by Judge Jerry A. Davis on 8/19/2005. (jkj, USDC)
16 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 4 MOTION to Certify Class by Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell. (Clay, John)
17 ANSWER to Complaint by Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell.(Clay, John)
18 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Leonard Charlton Vincent on behalf of Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell (Vincent, Leonard)
19 ORDER granting defendants' 16 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to plaintiffs' 4 MOTION to Certify Class. Responses due by 11/1/2005. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 9/14/05. (lpm, USDC)
20 NOTICE of Settlement Conference set for 11/22/2005 at 10:00 AM in Aberdeen Courtroom 3 before Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis. (egs, USDC)
21 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice ; Attorney Margaret Winter, by all plaintiffs. (Winter, Margaret)
22 ORDER granting 21 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Margaret Winter. Signed by Judge Jerry A. Davis on 12/13/2005. (jkj, USDC)
Pro Hac Vice Fee Paid for Margaret Winter: $ 25.00, receipt number 82238 (nsm, USDC)
37 Objection by Trent Eason. (nsm, USDC) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
23 NOTICE OF FAIRNESS HEARING set for 3/30/2006, at 10:00 a.m. in Aberdeen, before Judge Jerry A. Davis in his chambers (jkj, USDC)
24 ORDER on Joint Ore Tenus Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Jerry A. Davis on 3/6/2006. (Attachments: # 1)(jkj, USDC)
25 ORDER finding as moot 4 Motion to Certify Class . Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 3/10/06. (lpm, USDC)
26 NOTICE of Fairness Hearing reset for 4/28/2006 at 09:30 AM in Aberdeen Courtroom 3 before Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis. (egs, USDC)
27 Objection to Settlement Agreement (gpk, USDC) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
32 Objection by Quincy Smothers to Class Action Suit by the ACLU. (nsm, USDC) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 9 of 16

03/23/2006 03/23/2006 03/23/2006 03/23/2006 03/27/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/29/2006 03/31/2006 04/26/2006 04/28/2006 04/28/2006 05/01/2006 05/17/2006 05/18/2006 05/24/2006 05/26/2006
06/06/2006 06/13/2006 06/26/2006 07/17/2006 07/20/2006 08/23/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 10/17/2006

33 Objection on Behalf of STG Members/Leaders. (nsm, USDC) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
34 Objection to the Proposed Consent Decree by Dempsey Bruner. (nsm, USDC) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
35 Objection to the Proposed Concent Decree by Reginald Reed. (nsm, USDC) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
36 Objections to Consent Decree by Bertram McManis. (nsm, USDC) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
28 Objection to Settlement Agreement by Alchello House(gpk, USDC)
29 Objections by Nathaniel Hughes to the Proposed Consent Decree. (gpk, USDC)
30 Objections to the Settlement Agreement by Fasaha Al 'Fatah. (gpk, USDC) Modified on 3/28/2006 (mhg, USDC).
31 Objection to Proposed Consent Decree by Keith Brooks. (nsm, USDC) Modified on 3/30/2006 (nsm, USDC). (Entered: 03/30/2006)
38 Objection to Settlement and Proposed Consent Decree Agreement by Rockie D. Pickens. (jb, USDC) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
39 MOTION for Settlement Approval by all plaintiffs. (Bhat, Gouri)
40 ORDER granting 39 Motion for Settlement . Signed by Judge Jerry A. Davis on 4/28/06. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (egs, USDC)
41 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jerry A. Davis : Motion Hearing held on 4/28/2006. (Court Reporter Deborah White.) (egs, USDC)
42 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jerry A. Davis. (dmd, USDC) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
43 Remark: Mail received from Lonnie Banks on 5/12/2006) forwarded to plaintiffs' counsel. (jkj, USDC)
44 Remark: Received mail from LaCarter S. Moore #65766 and forwarded to plaintiffs' counsel. (jkj, USDC)
45 Remark: Received mail from H. Trent Eason on 5/19/2006. Forwarded to plaintiffs' counsel via cm/ecf. (jkj, USDC)
46 ORDER denying pleadings attached. The redress petitioner Lonnie Banks is seeking may be sought through an individually filed lawsuit. Original documents returned to petitioner. Signed by Judge Jerry A. Davis on 5/26/2006. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(jkj, USDC)
47 Remark: Letter from Roger Morrison, MSP # 26705, received on 6/2/2006. (jkj, USDC)
48 Remark: Received correspondence from John Frierson, MSP #77329 for review by plaintiffs' counsel. (Attachments: # 1 2 of 3# 2 3 of 3) (jkj, USDC)
49 Remark: Received mail from Lonnie Banks on 1/23/2006. (jkj, USDC)
50 Remark: Received correspondence from Jimmy Turner #57300. (jkj, USDC)
51 Remark: Received correspondence from Jonathan Anderson #R6470. (jkj, USDC)
52 Remark: Received correspondence from Jimmy Turner #57300. (jkj, USDC)
53 Remark: Received correspondence from Ulysses Bownes, #20115. (jkj, USDC)
54 Remark: Received correspondence from Jimmy Turner #57300. (jkj, USDC)
55 Remark: Received correspondence from Cedric King. (jkj, USDC)
56 Remark: Received correspondence from Jeffrey Presley. (jkj, USDC)

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 10 of 16

11/21/2006 11/21/2006 11/21/2006
11/21/2006 11/22/2006
12/06/2006
12/12/2006
01/30/2007 02/01/2007 03/19/2007 03/30/2007 04/04/2007 04/04/2007 04/04/2007 04/16/2007 05/18/2007 05/18/2007

57 MOTION for Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental Health Care by all plaintiffs. (Bhat, Gouri)
58 MOTION for Contempt Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs 57 Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief by all plaintiffs. (Bhat, Gouri) Modified on 11/22/2006 (gpk, USDC).
59 MOTION for Contempt Declaration of Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs Motion 57 for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief, and attached Exhibits A−F by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Bhat, Gouri) Modified on 11/22/2006 (gpk, USDC).
60 MOTION for Contempt[ 57] Certificate of Service by all plaintiffs. (Bhat, Gouri) Modified on 11/22/2006 (gpk, USDC).
NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 57 MOTION for Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental Health Care Supporting Documents 58 , 59 , 60 filed as Motions. (gpk, USDC)
61 RESPONSE to Motion re 57 MOTION for Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants? Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental Health Care filed by Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter from Leonard Vincent, Esq.)(Clay, John)
62 REPLY to Response to Motion re 57 MOTION for Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants? Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental Health Care filed by Jeffery Presley. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration of Counsel# 2 Exhibit G# 3 Exhibit H# 4 Exhibit I# 5 Exhibit J# 6 Exhibit K# 7 Exhibit L# 8 Certificate of Service)(Bhat, Gouri)
63 NOTICE of Telephonic Conference set for 2/1/2007 at 01:30 PM in Judge Davis Chambers before Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis. (egs, USDC)
64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jerry A. Davis : Telephone Conference held on 2/1/2007. (egs, USDC)
65 NOTICE of Hearing: Evidentiary Hearing set for 4/4/2007 at 10:00 AM in Aberdeen Courtroom 3 before Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis. (egs, USDC)
66 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Steven Farris and Marcus D. Williams for April 4, 2007. (egs, USDC)
67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jerry A. Davis : Evidentiary Hearing held on 4/4/2007. (Court Reporter Rita Sisk.) (egs, USDC) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
68 Witness List to Evidentiary Hearing held on 4/4/07. (egs, USDC) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
69 Exhibit List to Evidentiary Hearing held on 4/4/07 (Exhibits on file in the Clerk's Office). (egs, USDC) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
70 Supplemental Consent Decree for Medical Care . Signed by Judge Jerry A. Davis on 4/16/07. (egs, USDC)
71 First MOTION to Continue Follow−Up Conference Scheduled June 1, 2007 by Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell. (Vincent, Leonard)
72 ORDER granting 71 Motion to Continue Follow−Up Conference presently set for June 1, 2007, until further order. Signed by Judge Jerry A. Davis on 5/18/2007. (jkj, USDC)

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 11 of 16

05/21/2007 05/21/2007 05/21/2007 05/21/2007 05/30/2007 06/27/2007 06/29/2007 08/21/2007 09/24/2007
09/28/2007

73 MOTION to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive Force and to Consolidate With Plaintiffs' Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Treatment of the Mentally Ill by all plaintiffs. (Winter, Margaret)
74 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 73 MOTION to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive Force and to Consolidate With Plaintiffs' Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Treatment of the Mentally Ill. (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) (Winter, Margaret)
75 AFFIDAVIT re 73 MOTION to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive Force and to Consolidate With Plaintiffs' Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Treatment of the Mentally Ill (Declaration of Lawrence Caldwell). (Winter, Margaret)
76 EXHIBIT re 74 Memorandum in Support, 75 Affidavit, 73 MOTION to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive Force and to Consolidate With Plaintiffs' Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Treatment of the Mentally Ill. (Winter, Margaret)
77 RESPONSE to Motion re 73 MOTION to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive Force and to Consolidate With Plaintiffs' Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Treatment of the Mentally Ill filed by Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit) (Clay, John)
78 Remark: Received two letters from Steven Farris, #R5580. (jkj, USDC)
79 NOTICE by Margaret Winter on behalf of Steven Farris (Winter, Margaret)
80 NOTICE of Settlement Conference/ Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for contempt set for 11/15/2007 at 10:00 AM in Aberdeen Courtroom 3 before Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis. (egs, USDC)
81 MOTION To Schedule an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Classification and Related Issues re 74 Memorandum in Support, 60 MOTION for Contempt Certificate of Service, 67 Evidentiary Hearing, 76 Exhibits to Other Document, 59 MOTION for Contempt Declaration of Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs? Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief, and attached Exhibits A−F MOTION for Contempt Declaration of Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs? Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief, and attached Exhibits A−F, 57 MOTION for Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief to Compel Defendants? Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Medical and Mental Health Care, 75 Affidavit, 58 MOTION for Contempt Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs? Motion for Civil Contempt Sanctions and for Other Equitable Relief, 61 Response to Motion, 62 Reply to Response to Motion, 65 Notice of Hearing, 77 Response to Motion, 73 MOTION to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Excessive Force and to Consolidate With Plaintiffs' Pending Motion to Compel Compliance With Consent Decree Provisions on Treatment of the Mentally Ill, 80 Notice of Hearing by Jeffery Presley. (Winter, Margaret)
82 RESPONSE to Motion re 81 MOTION To Schedule an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Classification and Related Issues re 74 Memorandum in Support, 60 MOTION for Contempt Certificate of Service, 67 Evidentiary Hearing, 76 Exhibits to Other Document, 59 MOTION for Con MOTION To Schedule an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Classification and Related Issues re 74 Memorandum in Support, 60 MOTION for Contempt Certificate of Service, 67 Evidentiary Hearing, 76 Exhibits to Other Document, 59 MOTION for Con MOTION To Schedule an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Classification and Related Issues re 74 Memorandum in Support, 60 MOTION for Contempt Certificate of Service, 67 Evidentiary Hearing, 76 Exhibits to Other Document, 59 MOTION for Con MOTION To Schedule an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Classification and Related Issues re 74 Memorandum in Support, 60 MOTION for Contempt Certificate of Service, 67 Evidentiary Hearing, 76 Exhibits to Other Document, 59

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 12 of 16

10/19/2007 10/29/2007
11/05/2007 11/08/2007
11/13/2007
11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 11/27/2007 11/29/2007 12/04/2007 12/07/2007

MOTION for Con MOTION To Schedule an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Classification and Related Issues re 74 Memorandum in Support, 60 MOTION for Contempt Certificate of Service, 67 Evidentiary Hearing, 76 Exhibits to Other Document, 59 MOTION for Con MOTION To Schedule an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Classification and Related Issues re 74 Memorandum in Support, 60 MOTION for Contempt Certificate of Service, 67 Evidentiary Hearing, 76 Exhibits to Other Document, 59 MOTION for Con filed by Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell. (Clay, John)
83 MOTION for Discovery FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT EPPS TO PERMIT ENTRY UPON LAND PURSUANT TO RULE 34 (a) (2), F. R. CIV. P. by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Residential Services Agreement Between MDOC and EMCF Authority) (Winter, Margaret)
84 RESPONSE to Motion re 83 MOTION for Discovery FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT EPPS TO PERMIT ENTRY UPON LAND PURSUANT TO RULE 34 (a) (2), F. R. CIV. P. MOTION for Discovery FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT EPPS TO PERMIT ENTRY UPON LAND PURSUANT TO RULE 34 (a) (2), F. R. CIV. P. filed by Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite of Court's Orders) (Clay, John)
Pro Hac Vice Fee Paid for LaKeytria W. Felder: $ $100.00, receipt number 86002 (order motion and oral order at Evidentiary hearing held 4/4/2007 before Mag Judge Davis) (dlh, USDC)
85 REPLY to Response to Motion re 83 MOTION for Discovery FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT EPPS TO PERMIT ENTRY UPON LAND PURSUANT TO RULE 34 (a) (2), F. R. CIV. P. MOTION for Discovery FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT EPPS TO PERMIT ENTRY UPON LAND PURSUANT TO RULE 34 (a) (2), F. R. CIV. P. filed by Steven Farris, Marcus D. Williams, Jeffery Presley, Dennis Clay Brumfield. (Hanlon, Stephen)
86 NOTICE by Margaret Winter on behalf of Steven Farris NOTICE OF FILING EXPERT REPORTS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Austin November 2007 Classification Report# 2 Exhibit Austin January 2007 Classification Report# 3 Exhibit Austin August 2007 Classification Report# 4 Exhibit McGinnis 2007 Use of Force Report# 5 Exhibit McGinnis 2007 Use of Force Incidents Chart# 6 Exhibit McGinnis 2007 Security Staffing Review# 7 Exhibit McGinnis 2007 Recommended Staffing Roster# 8 Exhibit McGinnis 2007 STG Report) (Winter, Margaret)
87 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum Issued as to Steven Farris for 11/15/07. (egs, USDC)
88 NOTICE by Margaret Winter on behalf of Steven Farris NOTICE OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT DECREE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PARTIES' PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT DECREE ON MENTAL HEALTH, USE OF FORCE, AND CLASSIFICATION) (Winter, Margaret)
89 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jerry A. Davis : Settlement Conference held on 11/15/2007. (Court Reporter Rita Sisk.) (egs, USDC)
90 Supplemental Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Jerry A. Davis on 11/15/07. (egs, USDC)
91 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum for Steven Farris Returned Executed on 11/15/2007. (rcm) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
92 MOTION for Attorney Fees Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Experts' Fees and Other Litigation Costs by all plaintiffs. (Winter, Margaret)
93 RESPONSE to Motion re 92 MOTION for Attorney Fees Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Experts' Fees and Other Litigation Costs filed by Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell. (Clay, John)
TRANSCRIPT of Settlement Conference/Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt held on 11/15/07 before Judge Jerry A. Davis. Court

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 13 of 16

01/28/2008 01/28/2008
01/28/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008 02/19/2008 07/21/2008 07/21/2008 09/16/2008 07/30/2009 07/30/2009 10/29/2009 11/18/2009
11/18/2009 11/23/2009 12/02/2009 12/16/2009

Reporter: Rita Sisk. (kmt, USDC)
94 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 92 MOTION for Attorney Fees Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Experts' Fees and Other Litigation Costs by all plaintiffs. (Hanlon, Stephen)
95 AFFIDAVIT re 94 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit NPP Attorneys' Hours and Fees# 2 Exhibit NPP Litigation Expenses# 3 Exhibit 2004 − 2006 NPP Fees and Expenses) (Hanlon, Stephen)
96 AFFIDAVIT re 94 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. (Hanlon, Stephen)
97 AFFIDAVIT re 94 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit HKAttorneys' Hours and Fees# 2 Exhibit HKLitigation Expenses# 3 Exhibit Laffey Matrix) (Hanlon, Stephen)
98 AFFIDAVIT re 94 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. (Hanlon, Stephen)
99 AFFIDAVIT re 94 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ACLU of MS Attorney Hours and Fees# 2 Exhibit ACLU of MS Litigation Expenses) (Hanlon, Stephen)
100 AFFIDAVIT re 94 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. (Hanlon, Stephen)
Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Margaret Winter. (Copy of Roger Morrison's correspondence to the court along with a copy of the court's memo to Roger Morrison) (jb, USDC)
101 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Charles Baron Irvin on behalf of Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell (Irvin, Charles)
102 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Pelicia Everett Hall on behalf of Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell (Hall, Pelicia)
103 ORDER denying 83 Motion for Discovery; denying 92 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis on 9/16/08. (egs, USDC)
104 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney LaKeytria W. Felder by all plaintiffs. (Felder, LaKeytria)
105 ORDER granting 104 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiffs. Attorney LaKeytria W. Felder terminated. Signed by Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis on 7/30/2009. (jkj, USDC)
106 DECLARATION by Levonzel Anderson. (tab, USDC)
107 MOTION Motion for Termination of Relief Under 18 U.S.C.A. §3626(b) by Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Sparkman, # 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Dr. Perry, # 3 Exhibit Accreditation Reports) (Norris, James)
108 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 107 MOTION Motion for Termination of Relief Under 18 U.S.C.A. §3626(b) MOTION Motion for Termination of Relief Under 18 U.S.C.A. §3626(b). (Norris, James)
109 MOTION for Extension of Time by all plaintiffs. (Winter, Margaret)
110 ORDER granting 109 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs granted until 12/16/2009, to respond to defendants' motion for termination of relief. Signed by Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis on 12/2/2009. (jkj, USDC)
111 RESPONSE in Opposition re 107 MOTION Motion for Termination of Relief Under 18 U.S.C.A. §3626(b) MOTION Motion for Termination of Relief Under 18 U.S.C.A. §3626(b) filed by Steven Farris. (Winter, Margaret)

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 14 of 16

12/16/2009
01/26/2010 01/26/2010 01/27/2010 01/27/2010 01/27/2010 01/28/2010 02/26/2010 03/24/2010 04/01/2010 04/13/2010 06/04/2010
06/04/2010
06/24/2010 07/02/2010 07/08/2010 07/14/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010

112 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 107 MOTION Motion for Termination of Relief Under 18 U.S.C.A. §3626(b) MOTION Motion for Termination of Relief Under 18 U.S.C.A. §3626(b) : Motion Hearing set for 2/9/2010 AT 10:00 AM in Oxford Courtroom 2 before Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis. (egs, USDC)
113 MOTION to Continue Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Termination of Relief by all plaintiffs. (Hanlon, Stephen)
114 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice ; Attorney Gabriel B. Eber, by Jeffery Presley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing) (McDuff, Robert)
115 RESPONSE in Opposition re 113 MOTION to Continue Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Termination of Relief filed by Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell. (Norris, James)
116 ORDER granting 113 Motion to Continue hearing. Signed by Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis on 1/27/2010. (egs, USDC)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion: Motion Hearing reset for 4/21/2010 at 10:00 AM in Oxford Courtroom 2 before Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis. (egs, USDC)
Pro Hac Vice Fee Paid for attorney Gabriel B. Eber: $ 100.00, receipt number MSN300000849 (jtm, USDC)
117 ORDER granting 114 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Gabriel B. Eber representing plaintiffs. Signed by Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis on 2/26/2010. (jkj, USDC)
118 NOTICE of Settlement Conference set for 4/12/2010 at 10:00 AM in Oxford Visiting Judge Chambers before Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis. (egs, USDC)
119 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Designation of Experts for April 21, 2010 Hearing by James Marshall Norris on behalf of Christopher Epps, Emitt Sparkman, Lawrence Kelly, Ernest Lee, Kentrell Liddell to Plaintiffs. (Norris, James)
120 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 107 for Termination of Relief Under 18 U.S.C.A. §3626(b) : Motion Hearing reset for 6/3/2010 at 10:00 AM in Oxford Visiting Judge Chambers before Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis. (egs, USDC)
121 MOTION to Dismiss as written: Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Agreement of the Parties to Seek Order of Dismissal withouth Prejudice by Jeffery Presley. (Attachments: # 1 Agreement, # 2 Notice to Class, # 3 Proposed Order) (Winter, Margaret)
122 ORDER Preliminarily Approving Parties' Agreement to Seek Dismissal without Prejudice. Signed by Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis on 6/4/2010. (egs, USDC) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/10/2010: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2) (mhg, USDC).
123 Objection to Settlement filed by Derrell Green, #83854 re: 122 Order. (jkj, USDC)
124 Objection to Settlement filed by Timmy Hoops, #81233 re: 122 Order. (jkj, USDC) (tab, USDC).
125 Objection to Settlement filed by Eddie Lee Howard, Jr., #30856 re: 122 Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit−A, MSP Offender Request Form) (jkj, USDC)
126 Objection to Settlement filed by Robert Bounds, #79634 re: 122 Order. (jkj, USDC)
127 Objection to Settlement filed by Devin Bennett, #L4820 re: 122 Order. (jkj, USDC)
128 Objection to Settlement filed by Kelvin L. Jordan, #66570 re: 122 Order. (jkj, USDC)
129 Objection to Settlement filed by Richard G. Jordan, #30990 re: 122 Order. (jkj, USDC)

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 15 of 16

07/19/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/22/2010 07/23/2010 08/02/2010 08/02/2010 08/13/2010 11/12/2010 01/14/2011 06/10/2011 08/02/2011 08/03/2011 08/05/2011
08/05/2011
08/18/2011 08/18/2011
10/19/2011
10/20/2011

130 Objection to Settlement filed by Angelo Bullard, #L1003 re: 122 Order. (jkj, USDC)
131 Objection to Settlement filed by Charles R. Crawford, #82068 re: 122 Order. (jkj, USDC)
132 Objection to Settlement filed by Kenneth Davis, #64881 re: 122 Order. (jkj, USDC)
133 Objection to Settlement filed by H. Trent Eason, #47551 re: 122 Order. (jkj, USDC)
134 Objection to Settlement filed by Roy Harper, #42168 re: 122 Order. (jkj, USDC)
135 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis: Fairness Hearing held on 8/2/2010. (Court Reporter Heather Deloach.) (egs, USDC) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
136 ORDER of Dismissal without prejudice by Agreement of the Parties. Signed by Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis on 8/2/2010. (egs, USDC) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
137 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Dennis Clay Brumfield, Steven Farris, Jeffery Presley, Marcus D. Williams. (Hanlon, Stephen)
ORDER denying as moot 137 Motion for Attorney Fees upon being advised by the parties that the issues of attorney fees has been resolved [NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED]. Signed by Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis on 11/12/2010. (jkj, USDC)
138 STIPULATED ORDER Awarding Fees and Expenses. Signed by Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis on 1/14/2011. (jkj)
139 Protective Order. Signed by Mag. Judge Jerry A. Davis on 6/10/2011. (egs)
140 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Experts' Fees, and other Litigation Expenses by Jeffery Presley. (Winter, Margaret)
Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders. Jerry A. Davis no longer assigned to the case. (mhg)
141 MOTION to Amend/Correct 140 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Experts' Fees, and other Litigation Expenses Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Experts' Fees, and Other Litigation Expenses and for Leave to File Supporting Memorandum by September 20, 2011 by Jeffery Presley. (Winter, Margaret)
142 ORDER re 141 MOTION to Amend/Correct 140 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Experts' Fees, and other Litigation Expenses Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees filed by Jeffery Presley, 140 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Experts' Fees, and other Litigation Expenses filed by Jeffery Presley. Plaintiffs given until 9/20/2011 to file their Memorandum Brief regarding the above motions. Signed by Mag. Judge David A. Sanders on 8/5/2011. (jkj)
143 MOTION for Extension of Time by All Plaintiffs. (Eber, Gabriel)
144 ORDER granting 143 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs given until 10/20/2011 to file their brief and other supporting documents re: [Doc.140] Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, etc. Signed by Mag. Judge David A. Sanders on 8/18/2011. (jkj)
145 MOTION for Extension of Time Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expert Fees, and Other LItigation Expenses by Jeffery Presley. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Eber, Gabriel)
146 ORDER granting 145 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff granted until November 9, 2011 to submit their brief, declarations, and other documents in support of the motion for fees and expenses. Signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case: 4:05-cv-148 As of: 07/15/2014 10:19 AM CDT 16 of 16

11/08/2011 11/08/2011
11/08/2011 11/08/2011 11/08/2011
11/08/2011 11/09/2011 01/05/2012 01/10/2012
01/13/2012

David A. Sanders on 10/20/2011. (def)
147 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by All Plaintiffs. (Eber, Gabriel)
148 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 141 MOTION to Amend/Correct 140 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Experts' Fees, and other Litigation Expenses Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees . (Eber, Gabriel)
149 AFFIDAVIT re 148 Memorandum in Support, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7) (Eber, Gabriel)
150 AFFIDAVIT re 148 Memorandum in Support, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Eber, Gabriel)
151 AFFIDAVIT re 148 Memorandum in Support, Gabriel Eber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18) (Eber, Gabriel)
152 AFFIDAVIT re 148 Memorandum in Support, Carl Takei. (Eber, Gabriel)
153 ORDER granting 147 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Mag. Judge David A. Sanders on 11/9/2011. (egs)
154 ORDER. Defendants to file response to motion for attorneys fees by January 20, 2012. Any reply to be filed by January 31, 2012. Signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 1/5/2012. (def)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 141 MOTION to Amend/Correct 140 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Experts' Fees, and other Litigation Expenses Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, 140 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Experts' Fees, and other Litigation Expenses. Responses due by 1/20/2012 Replies due by 1/31/2012. (def)
155 NOTICE of Settlement re Claim for Fees and Expenses 141 by Gabriel B. Eber on behalf of Dennis Clay Brumfield, Steven Farris, Jeffery Presley, Marcus D. Williams (Eber, Gabriel)