UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION

PAMELA WALKER, Individually

)

and on behalf of all others similarly

)

situated,

)

PLAINTIFF

)

v.

)

)

FLOYD COUNTY, INDIANA

)

SERVE: Mark Seabrook

)

County Commissioner

)

City-County Building

)

311 West First Street

)

New Albany, Indiana 47150

)

)

-AND-

)

)

DARRELL MILLS, Individually

)

and in his official capacity as

)

Floyd County Sheriff

)

311 Hauss Square

)

New Albany, Indiana 47150

)

)

-AND-

)

)

JOHN and JANE DOES, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, )

Individually and in their official capacity )

as medical professionals, officers and

)

employees of the Floyd County Jail,

)

)

DEFENDANTS.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. __________

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. Introduction

1. Plaintiff Pamela Walker files this action in her individual capacity and on

behalf of all persons who, while incarcerated at the Floyd County Jail (“the Jail”) have

acquired infectious diseases as a consequence of Defendants' failure to protect such

inmates and their neglect and deliberate indifference.

2. On information and belief, numerous inmates of the Jail have been infected with infectious diseases such as virulent staph infections and cellulitis as a consequence of Defendants’ abject failure to protect such inmates, and their neglect and deliberate indifference. There are questions of law and fact in this case that are common to all of such inmates. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the class, and she will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
II. Jurisdiction and Venue 3. Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, seek actual and punitive damages from Defendants under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983, for gross and unconscionable violations of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed them by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343. Plaintiff and the other members of her class also seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages under the pendent jurisdiction of this Court, for negligence, gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As Floyd County, Indiana is the location of all acts pertinent to this suit, venue is proper in this Court.
III. Class Action 4. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), (2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class consists of all persons who, while incarcerated at the Jail, have acquired infectious diseases as a consequence of Defendants' failure to protect such inmates and their neglect and deliberate indifference. 5. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all class members. She is a member of the class and her claims are typical of the claims of all class members.
2

Plaintiff will aggressively pursue the interests of the entirety of the class. Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining injunctive relief and actual and punitive damages for the violations of her constitutional rights and privileges are consistent with and not antagonistic of those of any other person within her class.
6. Given the circumstances of her incarceration, as detailed below, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have a policy, custom and/or practice of failing to protect inmates from conditions that foster and persons that have infectious diseases, purposely deceiving infected inmates as to the nature and risks of their disease, incarcerating inmates with infected persons without such inmates' knowledge, and failing to train Jail employees or inmates or establish or require adherence to policies, customs and practices to prevent conditions that foster the growth and spread of the diseases and to prevent inmates from contracting the diseases.
7. Such conduct violates such inmates’ rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. §1983. The only question that remains to be resolved is whether Plaintiff and the members of the class are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, or to an award of compensatory and punitive damages and, if so, the extent of such an award.
8. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because:
a. A multiplicity of suits with consequent burden on the courts and Defendants should be avoided.
b. It may be virtually impossible for all class members to intervene as parties-plaintiff in this action.
c. Upon adjudication of Defendants’ liability, claims of the class members can be determined by this Court.
3

IV. Parties 9. Plaintiff is a resident of Floyd County, Indiana. 10. Defendant, Floyd County, Indiana, at all times mentioned herein, was responsible (a) for the conditions in the Jail, (b) for the establishment of policies either formally or by custom and practice for, and for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of, the officers and employees of the Jail. 11. Defendant, Darrell Mills, Sheriff of Floyd County, was responsible (a) for the conditions in the Jail, (b) for the establishment of policies either formally or by custom and practice for, and for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of, the officers and employees of the Jail. In addition, Defendant Hubbard may also have participated in the mistreatment of Plaintiff described below individually and/or in his official capacity. 12. Defendants John and Jane Does Nos. 1, 2 and 3, identities presently unknown, were at all times mentioned herein medical professionals, officers and/or employees of the Jail (a) directly responsible for (i) the care and custody of Plaintiff, (ii) the conditions of the Jail, and (iii) the policies, customs and practices pertaining thereto, and (b) who participated in the mistreatment of Plaintiff described below individually and/or in their official capacities.
V. Nature of Defendants’ Conduct 13. Defendants, individually and in conspiracy with one another, engaged in the conduct described below under color of the law of the State of Indiana and Floyd County. The offenses described below resulted from the failure of Defendants to employ qualified persons for positions of authority, and/or to properly or conscientiously train and supervise the conduct of such persons after their employment, and/or to properly fund ongoing Jail
4

operations, and/or to promulgate appropriate operating policies and procedures either formally or by custom and practice to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of the State of Indiana. Defendants’ conduct was intentional or grossly negligent, and was indicative not only of deliberate indifference to, but active malice and a total and reckless disregard for the constitutional and common law rights of Plaintiff and the class, justifying an award of punitive damages in addition to the actual damages which Plaintiff and the class are entitled to recover.
VI. Facts 14. In the course and as a result of her incarceration in the Jail, Plaintiff acquired a virulent, penicillin-resistant staph infection. Plaintiff's infection is contagious and chronic, painful and disfiguring. Her infection can be transmitted to loved ones, fellow employees, customers and other persons with whom she comes in close contact unless serious precautions are taken. Her infection has had an extremely damaging impact upon her health, employability, insurability and relations with loved ones. Plaintiff, on admission to the Jail, was housed with other inmates who were already manifesting symptoms of the disease, and others have started manifesting symptoms of the disease, as well. At present, no reasonable estimation can be made of the number of persons incarcerated at the Jail who have become infected with this disease, and others, as a result of Defendants’ conduct. 15. Plaintiff's infection was a direct result of conditions in the Jail, and the policies, customs and practices of Defendants. Inmates, in violation of state law, are left to change the dressings on the infectious wounds of other inmates. Although the Jail's medical staff routinely dismisses the symptoms of Plaintiff's disease as mere "spider bites," they refuse
5

to enter the cells to treat infected inmates. Infected inmates are not isolated from healthy inmates. Inmates' requests for bleach to disinfect their cells have been rejected, although the Jail's staff gives the inmates biohazard bags for the disposal of soiled bandages. Inmates have been threatened with suspension of privileges if they did not cease their constant complaints about the situation.
16. Defendants have clearly failed to institute any policies, customs or practices, or to employ qualified persons, or to properly train Jail employees:
(a) to prevent or alleviate conditions in the Jail that foster and propagate infectious diseases; and
(b) to diagnose infectious diseases, to deal with infected inmates, or to prevent healthy inmates from contracting such diseases.
17. Defendants, as a consequence of their deliberate indifference to the health and welfare of Plaintiff and the class, not to mention their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, failed to protect Plaintiff and the class from infectious diseases, and knowingly and with deliberate indifference exposed them to such diseases, all in violation of clearly-established constitutional rights. It was unconscionable and outrageous for Defendants, among other things, to incarcerate Plaintiff in conditions and with infectious inmates, and to not provide Plaintiff with any warning or training in steps necessary to avoid acquiring the infection.
VII. Causes of Action A. Count I
18. Paragraphs 1-17 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 18.
6

19. Plaintiff's and the class’ treatment at the Jail, and the Jail's conditions, described above, were the result of a continuing pattern of misconduct and is the result of policies, procedures, customs and practices of Floyd County, either written or unwritten, that are systematically applied to the Jail and whenever an individual is incarcerated at the Jail. Such practices constitute an arbitrary use of government power, and evince a total, intentional and unreasonable disregard for and deliberate indifference to the health, wellbeing and constitutional and common law rights of persons incarcerated at the Jail, including Plaintiff and the members of the class, and the wholesale violations of those rights likely to result from the systematic pursuit of such policies, customs and practices.
20. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and her class, through Defendants’ failure to protect, and their deliberate indifference and intentional or grossly negligent conduct, were deprived without due process of law of their right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983.
21. Moreover, given the pre-existing law that clearly prohibited Defendants’ conduct, Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff and the members of her class were intentional, wanton and malicious, and were indicative of Defendants’ total and reckless disregard of and deliberate indifference to the rights of, and rise of harm to, Plaintiff and the other members of the class.
B. Count II 22. Paragraphs 1-21 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 22.
7

23. The injuries to Plaintiff and the classes were the result of Defendants' conscious, knowing and wilful violation of applicable provisions of Indiana's Constitution, laws and regulations.
C. Count III 24. Paragraphs 1-23 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 24. 25. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants, without justification, negligently or intentionally inflicted upon Plaintiff and the class severe mental and emotional distress.
D. Count IV 26. Paragraphs 1-25 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 26. 27. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants were negligent and grossly negligent, and violated the standards applicable to their professions, all to the damage of the Plaintiff and the class.
VIII. Damages 28. Paragraphs 1-27 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 28. 29. As a consequence of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the class have been infected with diseases that will have a substantial and deleterious impact on their health, their employment, their insurability, and their relations with their loved ones.
8

30. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the members of the classes have sustained medical expenses and lost wages, past and future, experienced unnecessary pain, suffering and disfigurement and severe and unjustified mental and emotional distress, and are entitled to recover actual damages. Furthermore, Defendants’ violations of the constitutional and common law rights of the Plaintiff and the class were knowing, intentional, cruel, malicious and evinced a total and reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the class entitling them to recover punitive damages from Defendants in order to deter such conduct in the future.
IX. Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction 31. Paragraphs 1-30 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 31. 32. In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiff and the class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment deeming unconstitutional any and all ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs or practices which resulted in their incarceration under conditions in which they could acquire infectious diseases, and further request that this Court permanently order Defendants to refrain from following or enforcing such ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs or usages, to conform their conduct to the requisites of the Constitutions of the United States and Indiana, and to applicable Indiana laws and regulations, and to alleviate all jail conditions that contributed to the damages sustained by Plaintiff and the classes. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the class she represents request (a) that this action proceed as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and (b) a trial by jury, and further request that she and all members of the class (c) be awarded actual and punitive damages,
9

(d) be granted the declaratory and injunctive relief requested herein, and (e) be awarded all costs, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and all other relief to which they are entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory A. Belzley Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 1400 PNC Plaza 500 West Jefferson Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (502) 540-2300 Telephone (502) 585-2207 Facsimile
116022v1
10

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION [FILED ELECTRONICALLY]

PAMELA WALKER and BRENT HOUSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
PLAINTIFFS
v.
FLOYD COUNTY, INDIANA
-AND-
DARRELL MILLS, individually and in his official capacity as Floyd County Sheriff
-AND-
RANDY HUBBARD, individually and in his official capacity as former Floyd County Sheriff
-AND-
STEVE KNIGHT, individually and in his official capacity as Floyd County Jail Commander
-AND-
JOHN and JANE DOES, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, individually and in their official capacities as medical professionals, officers and employees of the Floyd County Jail,
DEFENDANTS.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )CASE NO. 4:07-CV-0014-SEB-WGH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT I. Introduction
1. Plaintiff, Pamela Walker, a former inmate of the Floyd County Jail ("the Jail"), files this action in her individual capacity and on behalf of all persons who, while incarcerated at the Jail have acquired infectious diseases as a consequence of Defendants' failure to protect such inmates and Defendants' neglect and deliberate indifference.
2. Plaintiff, Brent Houser, a current inmate of the Jail, files this action in his individual capacity and on behalf of all persons who, while incarcerated at the Jail have acquired infectious diseases as a consequence of Defendants' failure to protect such inmates and Defendants' neglect and deliberate indifference.
3. On information and belief, numerous inmates of the Jail have been infected with infectious diseases such as virulent staph infections and cellulitis as a consequence of Defendants’ abject failure to protect such inmates and Defendants' neglect and deliberate indifference. There are questions of law and fact in this case that are common to all of such inmates. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the class, and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
II. Jurisdiction and Venue 4. Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, seek actual and punitive damages from Defendants under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983, for gross and unconscionable violations of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed them by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343. Plaintiffs and the other members of their class also seek declaratory and injunctive
2

relief, as well as damages under the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court, for negligence, gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As Floyd County, Indiana is the location of all acts pertinent to this suit, venue is proper in this Court.
III. Class Action 5. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), (2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class consists of all persons who, while incarcerated at the Jail, have acquired infectious diseases as a consequence of Defendants' failure to protect such inmates and their neglect and deliberate indifference. 6. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all class members. They are members of the class and their claims are typical of the claims of all class members. Plaintiffs will aggressively pursue the interests of the entirety of the class. Plaintiffs' interests in obtaining injunctive relief and actual and punitive damages for the violations of their constitutional rights and privileges are consistent with and not antagonistic of those of any other person within their class. 7. Given the circumstances of their incarceration, as detailed below, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have a policy, custom and/or practice of failing to protect inmates from conditions that foster infectious diseases and from persons that have infectious diseases; purposely deceiving infected inmates as to the nature and risks of their disease; incarcerating inmates with infected persons without such inmates' knowledge; and failing to train Jail employees or inmates and failing to establish and require adherence to policies, customs and practices to prevent conditions that foster the growth and spread of the diseases and to prevent inmates from contracting the diseases.
3

8. Such conduct violates such inmates’ rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §1983. The only question that remains to be resolved is whether Plaintiffs and the members of the class are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief or to an award of compensatory and punitive damages and, if so, the extent of such an award.
9. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because of the following:
a. A multiplicity of suits with consequent burden on the courts and Defendants should be avoided.
b. It may be virtually impossible for all class members to intervene as parties-plaintiff in this action.
c. Upon adjudication of Defendants’ liability, claims of the class members can be determined by this Court. IV. Parties
10. Plaintiff, Pamela Walker, is a resident of Floyd County, Indiana. 11. Plaintiff, Brent Houser, is a resident of Floyd County, Indiana. 12. Defendant, Floyd County, Indiana, at all times mentioned herein, was responsible (a) for the conditions in the Jail, (b) for the establishment of policies either formally or by custom and practice for the Jail, and (c) for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of the officers and employees of the Jail. 13. Defendants, Randy Hubbard, former Sheriff of Floyd County; Darrel Mills, the current Sheriff of Floyd County; and Steve Knight, Floyd County Jail Commander, were and are responsible (a) for the conditions in the Jail, (b) for the establishment of policies either formally or by custom and practice for, and for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of, the officers and employees of the Jail. In addition, Defendant Hubbard may
4

also have participated in the mistreatment of Plaintiffs described below individually and/or in his official capacity.
14. Defendants John and Jane Does Nos. 1, 2 and 3, identities presently unknown, were at all times mentioned herein medical professionals, officers and/or employees of the Jail (a) directly responsible for (i) the care and custody of Plaintiffs, (ii) the conditions of the Jail, and (iii) the policies, customs and practices pertaining thereto and (b) who participated individually and in their official capacities in the mistreatment of Plaintiffs described below.
V. Nature of Defendants’ Conduct 15. Defendants, individually and in conspiracy with one another, engaged in the conduct described below under color of the law of the State of Indiana and Floyd County. The offenses described below resulted from the failure of Defendants to employ qualified persons for positions of authority, and/or to properly or conscientiously train and supervise the conduct of such persons after their employment, and/or to properly fund ongoing Jail operations, and/or to promulgate appropriate operating policies and procedures either formally or by custom and practice to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of the State of Indiana. Defendants’ conduct was intentional or grossly negligent and was indicative not only of deliberate indifference to, but active malice and a total and reckless disregard for the constitutional and common law rights of Plaintiffs and the class, justifying an award of punitive damages in addition to the actual damages which Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to recover.
VI. Facts
5

16. In the course and as a result of their incarcerations in the Jail, Plaintiffs acquired a virulent, penicillin-resistant staph infection. Plaintiffs' infection is contagious, chronic, painful and disfiguring. Their infection can be transmitted to loved ones, fellow employees, customers and other persons with whom they come in close contact unless serious precautions are taken. Their infection has had an extremely damaging impact upon their health, employability, insurability and relations with loved ones. Plaintiffs, on admission to the Jail, were housed in overly-crowded conditions with other inmates who were already manifesting symptoms of the disease. Others manifested and are manifesting symptoms of the disease, as well. At present, no reasonable estimation can be made of the number of persons incarcerated at the Jail who have become infected with this disease, and others, as a result of Defendants’ conduct.
17. Plaintiffs' infections were direct results of conditions in the Jail, and the policies, customs and practices of Defendants. Inmates are left to change the dressings on the infectious wounds of other inmates. The Jail's medical staff routinely dismisses the symptoms of Plaintiffs' disease as mere "spider bites," and they refuse to enter the cells to treat infected inmates. Infected inmates are not isolated from healthy inmates. Inmates' requests for bleach to disinfect their cells have been rejected, although the Jail's staff gives the inmates biohazard bags for the disposal of soiled bandages. Inmates have been threatened with suspension of privileges if they did not cease their constant complaints about the situation.
18. Defendants have clearly failed to institute any policies, customs or practices or to employ qualified persons or to properly train Jail employees.
6

(a) to prevent or alleviate conditions in the Jail that foster and propagate infectious diseases; and
(b) to diagnose infectious diseases, to treat infected inmates properly, and to prevent healthy inmates from contracting such diseases.
19. Defendants, as a consequence of their deliberate indifference to the health and welfare of Plaintiffs and the class, not to mention their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, failed to protect Plaintiffs and the class from infectious diseases and knowingly and with deliberate indifference exposed them to such diseases, all in violation of clearly-established constitutional rights. It was unconscionable and outrageous for Defendants, among other things, to incarcerate Plaintiffs in conditions and with infectious inmates, and to not provide Plaintiffs with any warning or training in steps necessary to avoid acquiring the infection.
VII. Causes of Action A. Count I
20. Paragraphs 1-19 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 20.
21. Plaintiffs' and the class’s treatment at the Jail and the Jail's conditions, described above, were the result of a continuing pattern of misconduct and is the result of policies, procedures, customs and practices of Floyd County, either written or unwritten, that are systematically applied to the Jail and whenever an individual is incarcerated at the Jail. Such practices constitute an arbitrary use of government power and evince a total, intentional and unreasonable disregard for and deliberate indifference to the health, wellbeing and constitutional and common law rights of persons incarcerated at the Jail,
7

including Plaintiffs and the members of the class, and the wholesale violations of those rights likely to result from the systematic pursuit of such policies, customs and practices.
22. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and their class, through Defendants’ failure to protect, and their deliberate indifference and intentional or grossly negligent conduct, were deprived without due process of law of their right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983.
23. Moreover, given the pre-existing law that clearly prohibited Defendants’ conduct, Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiffs and the members of their class were intentional, wanton and malicious, and were indicative of Defendants’ total and reckless disregard of and deliberate indifference to the rights of, and risk of harm to, Plaintiffs and the other members of the class.
B. Count II 24. Paragraphs 1-23 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 24. 25. The injuries to Plaintiffs and the classes were the result of Defendants' conscious, knowing and willful violation of applicable provisions of Indiana's Constitution, laws and regulations.
C. Count III 26. Paragraphs 1-25 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 26. 27. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants, without justification, negligently or intentionally inflicted upon Plaintiffs and the class severe mental and emotional distress.
8

D. Count IV 28. Paragraphs 1-27 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 28. 29. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants were negligent and grossly negligent, and violated the standards applicable to their professions, all to the damage of the Plaintiffs and the class.
VIII. Damages 30. Paragraphs 1-29 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 30. 31. As a consequence of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and the members of the class have been infected with diseases that will have a substantial and deleterious impact on their health, their employment, their insurability, and their relations with their loved ones. 32. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and the members of the class have sustained medical expenses and lost wages, past and future, experienced unnecessary pain, suffering and disfigurement and severe and unjustified mental and emotional distress, and are entitled to recover actual damages. Furthermore, Defendants’ violations of the constitutional and common law rights of the Plaintiffs and the class were knowing, intentional, cruel, malicious and evinced a total and reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and the class entitling them to recover punitive damages from Defendants in order to deter such conduct in the future.
IX. Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction
9

33. Paragraphs 1-32 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 33.
34. In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiffs and the class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment deeming unconstitutional any and all ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs or practices which resulted in their incarceration under conditions in which they could acquire infectious diseases and further request that this Court permanently order Defendants to refrain from following or enforcing such ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs or usages, to conform their conduct to the requisites of the Constitutions of the United States and Indiana and to applicable Indiana laws and regulations, and to alleviate all jail conditions that contributed to the damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the class.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class they represent request (a) that this action proceed as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and (b) a trial by jury and further request that they and all members of the class (c) be awarded actual and punitive damages, (d) be granted the declaratory and injunctive relief requested herein, and (e) be awarded all costs, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and all other relief to which they are entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ R. Kenyon Meyer R. Kenyon Meyer Gregory A. Belzley Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 1400 PNC Plaza 500 West Jefferson Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (502) 540-2300 Telephone (502) 585-2207 Facsimile
10

120614v1 37346.1

and
J. Robert Shelton Sales, Tillman, Wallbaum, Catlett &
Satterly 1900 Waterfront Plaza 325 W. Main Street Louisville, Kentucky 40502 (502) 540-2300 Telephone

11

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION

PAMELA WALKER and BRENT

)

HOUSER, individually and on behalf of all )

others similarly situated,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

FLOYD COUNTY, INDIANA, and

)

DARRELL MILLS, individually and in his )

official capacity as Floyd County Sheriff, )

and RANDY HUBBARD, individually and )

in his official capacity as former Floyd )

County Sheriff, and STEVE KNIGHT, )

individually and in his official capacity as )

Floyd County Jail Commander, and JOHN )

and JANE DOES, Nos. 1, 2, and 3,

)

individually and in their official capacities as)

medical professionals, officers and

)

employees of the Floyd County Jail,

)

Defendants.

)

4:07-CV-0014-SEB-WGH

ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court is the motion for preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiffs, Pamela Walker and Brent Houser. Docket No. 22. Both Plaintiffs are currently inmates at the Floyd County Detention Center (“the FCDC”) who allegedly acquired infectious diseases while incarcerated, specifically, Ms. Walker acquired a staph infection1 and Mr.

1 Plaintiffs’ Exh. 12 is Ms. Walker’s medical record which states that her principal (continued...)

Houser acquired celluitis.2 Plaintiffs’ request for relief is broad in scope and general in
nature as they seek “a declaratory judgment deeming unconstitutional any and all . . .
policies, procedures, customs, or practices which resulted in [Plaintiffs’] incarceration
under conditions in which they could acquire infectious diseases and further request that
this Court permanently order Defendants to . . . conform their conduct to the requisites of
the Constitutions of the United States and Indiana and to applicable Indiana laws and
regulations, and to alleviate all jail conditions that contributed to the damages sustained
by Plaintiffs and the class.” Amended Compl. at ¶ 34; Docket No. 29.
This motion has been fully briefed by the parties and a hearing conducted on June
26, 2007.3 For the following reasons, we DENY Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary
injunction.
1(...continued) diagnosis is cellulitis and her secondary diagnoses are “Tobacco use disorder,” “Bacterial infection due to Staphylococcus aureus” and “Infection with microorganisms resistant to penicillins.”
2 While Plaintiffs seek class certification of their complaint, a class has not yet been (and may never be) certified by this court; therefore, this motion for preliminary injunction applies only to Plaintiffs individually and not to any future class.
3 We note as a procedural matter that neither party requested an opportunity to submit post-hearing briefings to the Court. Following the hearing, with the Court’s urging, the parties reportedly engaged in discussions concerning a possible consent degree being reached among them. When those discussions failed to achieve an agreement, the Court was informed. This ruling follows.
At the hearing, Plaintiffs Pamela Walker and Brent Houser appeared in person and by counsel, and Defendants Mills and Knight appeared in person and by counsel, and the other defendants appeared by counsel only. Crystal Stubbs, Brent Houser, Pamela Walker, Paula Denton, and Dr. Julio Rameriz were called as witnesses on behalf of Plaintiffs. Defendants called Margaret Lewis and Jason Kerberg as witnesses.
2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Pamela Walker, a twenty-five year old woman, was incarcerated in the FCDC in October 2006 for a three week period. Prior to her incarceration, she believes that she never experienced a staph infection. Ms. Walker served her time in a dormitorystyle cell with common toilets and showers. She asserts that the crowded nature of the cell made it “impossible to avoid physical contact” with the other inmates. Pls.’ Memo in Supp. at 1. On such inmate was Crystal Stubbs, who slept in the bunk above Ms. Walker and “had open, oozing boils on her buttocks” as a result of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”), a strain of bacterial infection that is resistant to antibiotics. Id. at 2. Approximately one week or more after her detention, a staph infection became visible under Ms. Walker’s right arm and on the back of her right and left thigh. Ms. Walker believes that this staph infection was MRSA and that she acquired it from living in proximity to Ms. Stubbs. Ms. Walker testified that she submitted three medical requests before she was allowed to see the nurse, Ms. Margaret Lewis, as well as Dr. Canon, M.D., who prescribed Sulpha drugs and a vitamin. She was told, at least initially, that the staph infection was possibly spider bites or boils. Ms. Walker was given Epsom salts for hot soaks and gauze and tape to cover her wounds. Ms. Walker testified that Dr. Canon explained the procedure for performing the hot soaks using the Epsom salts but did not caution her regarding the contagious nature of her condition. After her return to the cell block and during the course of managing her condition,
3

Ms. Walker found that her sores produced large amounts of discharge which routinely soaked through the bandages. Another inmate named “Shirley” helped changed Ms. Walker’s bandages and assisted her with the hot compresses. After the bandages were changed, the women would place the soiled gauze in separate bags for disposal on the unit.
When she was released from FCDC on November 3, 2006, Ms. Walker went directly to the Clark County hospital where she was admitted and required several days of in-patient treatment, including excision of her sores. In January 2007, Ms. Walker was returned to the Floyd County Detention Center where she was provided the same drugs that she had received at the Clark County Hospital. (See Hospital Records at Exh. 12, 13, and 14.) Ms. Walker testified that while incarcerated she was never provided information about how to maintain personal cleanliness and, though provided a copy of the FCDC handbook, she did not read much of it. She also admitted that she never asked any medical officer including the nurse to assist by changing her bandages nor did she request to see any medical official about this condition. Crystal Stubbs
Crystal Stubbs is a 34-year-old resident of New Albany, who alleges that she contracted MRSA at Clark County Jail and was thereafter transferred from the Clark County Jail to the FCDC sometime in July of 2006. At the time of her transfer, she exhibited no visible signs of MRSA, and upon entering the FCDC she failed to report on her medical questionnaire that she had MRSA. In August of 2006, the infection presented
4

as two boils on her buttocks. When she submitted a call slip request to see the nurse for treatment, no response was forthcoming for three days. When she did finally see the nurse, Ms. Margaret Lewis, Ms. Stubbs told her that she had acquired the MRSA infection, for which she was given “Bactrim,” an antibiotic ointment, bandages, tape and Epsom salts to soak the wound. She testified that she enlisted the help of another inmate, Angela Foster (Ms. Stubbs’s cousin by marriage),4 to change her bandages, which procedure was performed in the corner of her cell block area four times a day for seven successive days and, after changing the bandages, they would place them in a separate bag for placement in a biohazard bag on the cell block unit, which container sometimes required a few hours to secure. Ms. Foster testified that the nurse gave her protective gloves the first day but none were provided thereafter. The nurse also told her to keep her hands clean but provided no additional instructions on the method for doing so. She incurred a second outbreak in October 2006 with sores developing under both arms, but those inflammations never transformed into open sores. In November of 2006, Ms. Stubbs was seen by Dr. Cannon for the removal of a wart, during which treatment he confirmed that she had acquired a staph infection under her arms and prescribed Epsom Salts and antibiotics.
Ms. Stubbs was released from FCDC on November 26, 2006, and remains at liberty as a resident of New Albany. She acknowledged on cross-examination that she is not familiar with current jail procedures.
4 Ms. Stubbs does not believe that Angela Foster developed a similar infection. 5

Brent Hauser Brent Hauser is 39 years old and serving a four-and-a-half-year sentence in the
FCDC. He is currently detained in E Block, which is a residential unit housing 42 men in 38 cells. Each cell has its own bunk and toilet. Those detainees who are not assigned a cell have mattresses four inches thick which are placed on the floor for sleeping (none of the inmates are provided sheets) and have access to any of three toilets in a common dayroom. There are three showers to serve all the inmates housed in E block.
Between 2006 and 2007, Mr. Hauser was a Trusty of the FCDC, a position which permitted him special duties. One such task was to assist with the daily laundry. While completing his laundry duties, Mr. Hauser noticed that “Gary,” the Trusty assigned to the laundry detail prior to his shift, evidenced signs of the bacterial infection, cellulitis. Gary’s infection was, in fact, so severe that he required transport to the hospital in a wheelchair where he remained for three days of medical treatment. Thereafter, Mr. Hauser also developed cellulitis, which outbreak began near his foot and moved up his leg towards his knee. He was taken to Floyd County Hospital for treatment and, upon his return to the FCDC, in December 2006, he was seen by Dr. Canon, who prescribed antibiotics for him. Paula Denton
Paula Denton is a 34-year-old inmate at the Floyd County Detention Center who was incarcerated on March 2, 2007. Ms. Denton provided assistance to Laura Tabor, who
6

resided in the same cell block (cell block G), in managing her oozing, pus-filled sores by placing bandages over them during a two week period. Four weeks later, Ms. Denton herself developed an infection in two locations, one behind her ear and one on her thigh. She testified that she reported the onset of her infection to the medical staff and over the course of two weeks made several requests to see a nurse. During that time, she applied antibiotic soap and ointment to the area.5 Eventually, after Ms. Denton’s sores opened up, she was provided gauze, ointment, and tape for the wounds (but no antibiotic medication), all of which she applied to and for herself. Like others similarly affected, she too placed her dirty dressings in the trash container located on the unit. Currently, she continues to treat a sore on the back of her left leg which has not opened up, but is nonetheless painful. A bump also has recently developed near her left eye for which she applies an alcohol wipe, supplied by the nurse, to clean the area. Ms. Denton testified that she has not been treated for the infection since March of 2007. Cleaning at Floyd Country Detention Center
According to the testimony of the first shift supervisor, Jason Kerberg, the cellblocks at the FCDC are divided into two wings. The majority of the male residents are housed on the west side of the jail where each person is assigned to an individual cell in which there is a toilet. On the east side of the jail, two cell blocks of females are housed in F and G blocks. The approximately twenty-five women have access to two
5 It is unclear if Ms. Denton acquired the soap and ointment from jail staff or on her own.
7

toilets in F block, and twelve to fifteen women have access to only one toilet in G block. FCDC daily provides cleaning supplies to the inmates to clean their cells. Mr.
Kerberg testified that cleaning supplies are passed out each evening at 7:00 p.m. The supplies provided on the cell blocks include three spray bottles (one filled with a glass cleaner, one with a general disinfectant spray, and one with Dawn soap and water to clean the showers). The disinfectant spray is supplied by Betco System and is designed to kill both staph and HIV. He said that when these supplies run out, he makes sure that the bottles are refilled so they are available at all times. However, for safety reasons, the inmates are not provided bleach or gloves. Three rags, toilet bowl cleaners, mops, and buckets are also supplied to each cell block.
The inmates’ testimony is substantially similar to Mr. Kerberg’s regarding the cleaning practices. Ms. Walker stated that cleaning supplies are brought into the block after dinner for a few hours. She recalled that one bottle of cleaner is always present in the block (although she noted it is sometimes empty), and an additional three spray bottles, one bucket, mop and at least one broom are also provided at other times during the day. Ms. Denton also testified that cleaning materials are delivered to the cell blocks between 7 and 8 p.m., including three bottles of cleaning solution, two rags, a bucket and mop as well as additional supplies to be used as needed during the day.
Mr. Hauser testified that he receives clean clothes, including underwear, once or twice a week and confirmed that cleaning supplies are distributed to each cell block every evening, which include four spray bottles filled with a neutral disinfectant antibacterial
8

liquid solution, two mops and two mop buckets with the antibacterial solution as well as three rags. In addition, (during the prior eight months) spray bottles with cleaning solution and two rags were available in the cell block 24-hours a day for inmates’ use. Mr. Hauser stated that there are often not enough cleaning rags and at times not enough cleaning solution to go around for all of the inmates to use. He also stated that the showers, which are required to be cleaned by the inmates, often evidence mold on the walls. Dr. Julio A. Ramirez
Dr. Ramirez, M.D. is a Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Louisville. He is also the director of infection control at the University of Louisville Hospital and at Kindred Hospital. Dr. Ramirez explained that staph is the primary bacteria affecting humans and staph MRSA is a form of staph that is highly resistant to antibiotics. The most common symptom of a staph infection is a skin infection, such as cellulitis or an abscess. He stated that staph MRSA usually first appears on the skin as swollen, red, necrosis – resembling a spider bite or a boil.
Dr. Ramirez testified that the successful treatment of staph depends on the particular area infected and that the typical treatment is some form of antibiotics. Staph is transmitted through person-to-person contact or by an infected person touching an object which is subsequently touched by another, who thereby picks up the bacteria. The point of greatest infectiousness is when contact is made by another with the area of abscess and/or with draining lesions. Staph is not transmitted through the air, only by contact,
9

making cleanliness key to any efforts to contain or otherwise control it. Dr. Ramirez testified that the risk of contamination exists whenever a person with staph is being treated.
Dr. Ramirez also opined that staph is a relatively easy condition to diagnose. The procedure for determining whether a red swollen spot on the skin is staph, rather than a spider bite, for example, is to do a culture of the wound and submit it for laboratory analysis. However, if no point of irritation is visible on the skin, then it is difficult to diagnose the presence of staph. Although diagnosis is ordinarily a simple process, there is no conclusive research concerning how best to treat staph, and reasonable physicians disagree regarding the best course of treatment. Dr. Ramirez believes that, when diagnosing and treating staph, it is important to respond quickly with antibiotics in order to prevent its transmission. Dr. Ramirez acknowledged on cross examination that trivial skin infections are treatable with sulpha drugs and without prescribing antibiotics. See Exh. 2.
In an article authored by Dr. Dean Rieger, M.D., Medical Director at Indiana Department of Corrections, and Dr. Joseph Bick, M.D., Chief Medical Officer at California Medical Facility, entitled Spotlight: So Your Facility Has CA-MRSA, it is written:
The indiscriminate use of antibiotics can lead to increased drug resistance and should be discouraged. In many cases, drainage and appropriate wound care will suffice. If used, antibiotics should be selected that are known to be effective against MRSA. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole
10

(Bactrim, Septra) . . . is usually effective in patients who have MRSA. See Plaintiffs’ Exh. 1. Dr. Ramirez noted further that persons suffering from diabetes, or users of intravenous drugs, or people experiencing prolonged hospital stays or those who use antibiotics over a long period of time are most susceptible to MRSA. Warm and moist environments are conducive to the development of staph, including such crowded places as jails, football locker rooms, and day care centers. In treating patients who have staph infections, Dr. Ramierz indicated that he would generally attempt to educate the patient and the people living in proximity to the patient concerning this condition. He would take steps to keep the wounds clean and dry, and apply treatment products such as microbials. To reduce transmission, Dr. Ramirez recommends screening the population groups, providing education and instruction to them, and providing a thorough cleaning of the area using antimicrobial and antibacterial products where the bacteria might be found to exist. Margaret Lewis, RN Margaret Lewis is a registered nurse who has worked at the FCDC for seven and a half years. She testified that pod officers receive the requests of inmates for attention from a medical officer and that it is her practice to respond to all requests if possible within two to three days or, if it is an emergency, within 24 hours. Dr. Daniel Eikenburger, M.D., is the staff physician who, since January 1, 2007, has seen patients at
11

the jail’s medical center on Tuesdays and Fridays from 7:30-8:00 a.m. The inmates are assessed a $15.00 co-pay fee for services for physician treatment; there is no charge for them to be seen by the nurse. No one is ever denied treatment, however, due to a lack of funds. In addition, there is a $15.00 co-pay for prescriptions, which is also waivable for those unable to pay. The FCDC maintains two padded cells for inmates deemed to be threatening to themselves, whose occupants are monitored 24-hours a day. The FCDC has space available to isolate particular inmates in four separate holding cells, as needed.
Ms. Lewis’s understanding of the FCDC’s policy for dealing with inmate staph infections is that isolation is not provided for the afflicted inmates because it is not deemed necessary, although steps must be taken to ensure that all open wounds are covered. This policy reflects the medical opinions of Dr. Rieger and Dr. Bick who have written: “Except for patients with secretions that cannot be controlled and are likely to contaminate the environment (including prisoners who intentionally spread contamination), no special separate housing is necessary.” Pls.’ Exh. 1.
In February of 2007, Ms. Lewis formulated FCDC’s policy for treating infections to conform to Dr. Eikenburger’s instructions. Def.’s Exh. Q. Ms. Lewis testified that, when an infected inmate presents with staph, she follows the steps outlined in the following procedure.
1. If a wound is draining, a culture is performed. 2. Hibiclens soap is supplied for the inmates’ use during baths and showers,
with instructions not to get the soap in eyes or ears.
12

3. The wound is covered with a gauze bandage. Dirty bandages are deposited in the red bio bag.
4. Disinfectant is available for use in cleaning the toilet and showers after use. 5. Inmates are told to see the nurse or medical officer, if having problems with
wound. 6. Inmates are instructed to remember that staph germs are spread from one
person to another by touching. They should be sure to wash hands well after touching infected skin or handling wound dressings. Washing hands is the BEST way to prevent the spread of germs. Def.’s Exh. Q. When a culture of the infected area is extracted, it is transferred to Floyd Memorial Hospital where a sensitivity report is conducted to identify which medications will be effective in treating the infection. The jail nurse provides Epsom salts to the infected inmate with an explanation as to their use and to bandage the wound, apply antibiotic ointment, dispose of the gauze pads, and wash hands properly. If inmates have difficulty with any of these procedures, they are instructed to notify her so she or another staff member can provide necessary assistance. The FCDC uses “hibiclens,” an alcohol based antibacterial cleaner, for skin washings. Nurse Lewis testified that she assumes at the outset that all bumps are staph and gives treatment instructions on that basis to the inmates for them to follow in caring for themselves. Plaintiffs’ complaint centers around the alleged lack of precautions taken by the
13

FCDC to prevent the spread of staph infection to Mr. Hauser and Ms. Walker. Plaintiffs maintain that the FCDC should do more in terms of education and training of inmates regarding infectious diseases, performing necessary cleaning of living areas to reduce transmissions of bacteria, and providing more aggressive treatment for those infected.
We turn now to address the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD “As the Supreme Court has observed, ‘[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 870 (7th Cir. 2006), quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997). To justify this relief, movants must show that (1) they have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy at law exists; (3) they will suffer irreparable harm which, absent injunctive relief, outweighs the irreparable harm the respondent will suffer if the injunction is granted; and (4) the injunction will not be inimical to the public interest, which includes the interests of any persons who are not parties to the case. Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 870 (7th Cir. 2006), citing Joelner v. Vill. of Washington Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004), Erickson v. Trinity Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061, 1067 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 11-12 (7th Cir.1992). The court must weigh all of these factors in exercising its equitable discretion,
14

“seeking at all times to ‘minimize the costs of being mistaken.” Abbott Laboratories, at 12, quoting American Hospital Supply Corp. v. Hospital Products Ltd., 780 F.2d 589, 593 (7th Cir. 1986). This approach has been described as a sliding scale approach in which the relative strengths of the parties’ positions and the degree of threatened harms are balanced against each other. Promatek Industries, Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808, 811 (7th Cir. 2002); Abbott Laboratories, 971 F.2d at 12 & n. 2; Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 387 (7th Cir. 1984).
The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ claim here is that Defendants are continuing to violate their rights under the Eighth Amendment by exposing them to a highly contagious and painful infectious disease, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of their motion for preliminary injunction asserts these claims under a deliberate indifference theory. See Pls.’ Memo at 5-7, citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); see also Hall-Bey v. Ridley-Turner, 2007 WL 1513998, *2 (7th Cir. May 23, 2007).
“A prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 828. A prison official is deliberately indifferent “if he know that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. “[P]rison officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the 1983 risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted. A prison official’s duty under the Eighth Amendment is
15

to ensure “‘reasonable safety.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844-845, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1982 - 1983 (1994), quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2481 (1993).
In Jones v. Drew, 2007 WL 737359 (7th Cir., March 12, 2007), the Court addressed the medical needs of one Charles Jones, a prisoner in custody by the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), who suffered from bunions. He brought suit alleging that various doctors and non-medical prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they responded to his bunion problem only with “conservative treatment,” rather than with alternative treatments, such as surgery. The defendants maintained that there was no evidence that they were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Jones’s bunion problems. All four defendants, though they lacked medical training, clearly had relied on the expertise of the medical directors in concluding that Jones's grievance should be denied. Accordingly, the Court ruled, they were not deliberately indifferent to Jones's medical problem. Jones, at *3. The Seventh Circuit specifically held that a doctor’s preference for a less costly treatment is not evidence of deliberate indifference unless such preference is “so inadequate that it demonstrate[s] an absence of professional judgment, that is, that no minimally competent professional would . . . so respond[] under those circumstances.” Jones v. Drew, 2007 WL 737359, *4 (7th Cir. 2007), citing Collignon v. Milwaukee County, 163 F.3d 982, 989 (7th Cir.1998).
The parties in the case at bar do not dispute that penicillin-resistant staph infection (MRSA) presents a serious medical condition. See Pls.’ Reply at 4. Evidence discloses
16

without controversy that some strains of the virus can be extremely painful and lead to permanent disfiguration, even death. Pls.’ Reply at 8. The risk of contracting MRSA has been identified by other courts as the type of condition which can qualify as the basis for a medical indifference claim. See e.g., Lopez v. McGrath, 2007 WL 1577893 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (slip opinion), Kimble v. Tennis, No. 4:CV-5-1871, 2006 WL 1548950, at *1 (M.D. Pa. June 5, 2006); Cunningham v. Belleque, No. CV-03-1239-MO, 2006 WL 468377, at *3 (D. Or. Feb. 24, 2006). However, “the mere existence of MRSA in the abstract does not satisfy the ‘substantial risk’ prong unless the ‘risk’ of becoming infected is ‘substantial.’” Lopez, 2007 WL 1577893 at *13.
Here, the parties disagree regarding whether Plaintiffs faced a substantial risk of contracting MRSA based on the conditions they encountered at the FCDC. Plaintiffs argue that cleaning protocols at the FCDC are inadequate in preventing the spread of staph which places the inmates at a substantial risk of contracting MRSA. Plaintiffs specifically cite the insufficiency, both in quantity and quality, of cleaning products supplied by FCDC which virtually assures that toilets used by a person infected with staph can not “be cleaned regularly and between every user if necessary.” Pls.’ Reply at 6, citing Staph Guidelines at 3. In addition, Plaintiffs contend that clothing, bedding and towels are issued only on a weekly basis, which frequency is “inadequate to control the spread of staph bacteria.” Id., citing Def. Resp. at 9. Further, Plaintiffs assert that inmates are not properly instructed on treatment methods to cure or control their staph infections, including the most effective ways to change their bandages. Pls.’ Reply at 6.
17

Plaintiffs final contention is that infected inmates should be segregated from the general population during the time(s) of their affliction. Pls.’ Reply at 7.
Defendants respond, contending that Plaintiffs did not and do not confront a substantial risk of contracting MRSA or any other staph infection while housed at the FCDC. In fact, the evidence adduced at the hearing disclosed that Crystal Stubbs, who was transferred from Clark County Jail to FCDC, brought MRSA with her, even though Pamela Walker suffered her MRSA outbreak at the jail. There was evidence that Paula Denton and Brent Hauser each developed a staph infection at the jail, but there was no evidence that it was MRSA strain of staph. Dr. Ramirez’s testimony established that staph is spread through contact with a person or object carrying the bacteria, but, as long as individuals with a staph infection keep their wounds covered and the surfaces they touched clean, there is a low risk that the infection will be transmitted. The jail’s current policy of making cleaning supplies readily available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the inmates’ use defeats any claim for relief on this basis, according to Defendants. The jails’ current written policy regarding infectious diseases also requires instructions be given to inmates on how to use the soup, gauze, and tape provided them to care for their wounds.
FCDC’s current physician, Dr. Eikenberg, provides treatment aimed at preventing the spread of staph infection, which policy comports with existing, known professional standards. In short, there is no evidence that the treatment of staph infections (including MRSA) with Epsom soaks, antibiotic ointment, soap, and covering the wound is “so
18

inadequate that it demonstrate[s] an absence of professional judgment, that is, that no minimally competent professional would have so responded under those circumstances.” Jones v. Drew, 2007 WL 737359, *4 (7th Cir. 2007). Those Defendants who themselves lack medical training were not and are not acting with deliberate indifference in relying on the expertise of the medical doctors and officers.
Clearly, greater precautions could be taken at FCDC to limit the onset and spread of staph infections. See Pls.’ Exh. 2 listing methods of preventing transmission of staph. However, the fact that Plaintiffs cite additional measures that the FCDC could take to prevent the spread of infection is not sufficient to warrant a finding of deficiencies of constitutional proportion or the established legal entitlement to a preliminary injunction. As Dr. Reiger states, “It is not possible to anticipate every means through which []MRSA can be transmitted nor every corrective or preventive measure that can help stop an outbreak or prevent an outbreak from occurring.” Pl.’s Exh. 2.
The evidence adduced by the parties at the hearing fails to establish by a preponderance, at least at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, that the current practices, policies, and procedures of the FCDC place an inmate at the FCDC at “substantial risk of serious harm,” such as would violate the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs, therefore, have not established a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claims. Thus, Count IX of Plaintiffs’ Complaint requesting the issuance of a preliminary injunction to prohibit Defendants “from following or enforcing such ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs or usages and to conform their conduct to the
19

requisites of the Constitutions of the United States and Indiana and to applicable Indiana laws and regulations and to alleviate all jail conditions that contributed to the damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the class” must be DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 07/31/2007

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Copies to:

Gregory A. Belzley DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP gregory.belzley@dinslaw.com

Robert Jeffrey Lowe KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP jlowe@k-glaw.com

Robert Kenyon Meyer DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP kenyon.meyer@dinslaw.com

Richard T. Mullineaux KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP rmullineaux@k-glaw.com

John R. Shelton SALES TILLMAN WALLBAUM CATLETT & SATTERLEY rshelton@stwlaw.com

20

 
 Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1121

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION

PAMELA WALKER and BRENT

)

HOUSER, individually and on behalf of )

all others similarly situated,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

FLOYD COUNTY, INDIANA, DARRELL )

MILLS, individually and in his official )

capacity as Floyd County Sheriff,

)

STEVE KNIGHT, individually and in his )

official capacity as Floyd County Jail )

Commander, and JOHN DOE and

)

JANE DOES, Nos. 1, 2, and 3,

)

individually and in their official

)

capacities as medical professionals, )

officers and employees of Floyd County )

Jail,

Defendants.

4:07-cv-14- SEB-WGH

ENTRY DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION

This litigation arises out of a concern for the allegedly preventable or at least controllable spread of a methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at the Floyd County, Indiana, Jail (the “Jail”). MRSA is a bacterial virus resistant to treatment with the typical antibiotics used to treat common staphylococcus infections (“staph”). Plaintiffs, Pamela Walker and Brent Houser, have brought claims on their own behalf and also seek certification of this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of other inmates who have similarly suffered from infections acquired at the Jail. The lawsuit seeks declaratory

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 1122
and injunctive relief as well as damages against Floyd County, Indiana, and various of its officials and employees who are in charge of the operations at the Jail.
Walker and Houser each suffered from what they represent to have been MRSA infections while incarcerated at the Jail, claiming that the same were acquired at the Jail as a result of overcrowded conditions and the flawed policies and practices of the Defendants. They contend that many others at the Jail have suffered in similar fashion, offering affidavits from current and former inmates in support of that contention. In addition to the problem of overcrowding, Plaintiffs claim that the spread of staph infections to the inmate population is the result of inmates being required to change their own dressings of infected wounds, Jail medical staff ignoring requests for treatment, refusing to educate the Jail population with regard to MRSA, dismissing the symptoms of MRSA as insect bites or boils, refusing to culture all open wounds, refusing to isolate infected inmates and threatening to suspend the privileges of those inmates who continually complain of these circumstances.
On behalf of themselves and other inmates whom Walker and Hauser claim suffered in similar ways, they contend that through the combination of actions, inaction and failure to change policies at the Jail, a pattern of deliberate indifference to their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the federal constitution and their rights under the Indiana
-2-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 1123
constitution has been established. Their Amended Complaint also asserts Indiana common law claims against Defendants, to wit, that Defendants negligently or intentionally inflicted serious emotional distress upon the entire class of affected inmates and that the actions of Defendants constituted gross negligence, resulting in the named Plaintiffs and the members of the class sustaining compensable damages, such as medical expenses, lost wages, pain, disfigurement and suffering.
In June of 2007, a hearing was held on Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs sought an injunction deeming the Jail’s policies and actions unconstitutional and requiring the Defendants to take all necessary and appropriate steps to alleviate the conditions and policies which allegedly cause Plaintiffs to be exposed to acquire their infection. We denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief, finding that Plaintiffs had failed to establish that the Defendants were acting with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates. See Doc. #50, p.19. More specifically, after considering the testimony of witnesses for both sides as well as other evidence submitted, the Court concluded that, at that point in the litigation, Plaintiffs had failed to establish that the policies and procedures in place at the Jail had placed Plaintiffs or other inmates “at substantial risk of serious harm, ” and that they therefore were not likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that their constitutional rights were being violated.
-3-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 1124
We have before us now Plaintiffs’ Motion For Class Certification. Walker and Houser propose that we certify two classes:
1. A Rule 23(b)(2) class composed of: All present and future inmates in the Floyd County Detention Center; and 2. A Rule 23(b)(1) & (b)(3) class composed of: all persons who, after February 6, 2005, first developed symptoms consistent with staphylococcus aureus or methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus after confinement in the Floyd County Jail for a period of more than ten days. Defendants oppose class certification, claiming that most of the prerequisites to bringing such a class lawsuit have not been satisfied.
Standards for Class Certification
The ground rules governing class actions brought in federal court are set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Plaintiffs bear the responsibility of establishing that all four elements in Rule 23(a) - numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation - are satisfied. If Plaintiffs are successful in carrying that burden, then they also must demonstrate that the requirements of at least one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b) are met as well. However, before conducting this Rule 23 analysis of Plaintiff’s proposed classes, we must determine whether the proposed classes are sufficiently defined so as to allow their membership to be objectively ascertained. See Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir.2006); Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 670 (7th Cir. 1981). If the Court were required to conduct individual inquiries amounting to
-4-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 1125
mini-trials to determine if any particular individual meets a class definition, it becomes administratively infeasible to proceed with a class action and any more substantive analysis is unwarranted. Adair v. Johnston, 221 F.R.D. 573 (M.D. Ala. 2004); Wallace v. Chicago Housing Authority, 224 F.R.D. 420 (N.D. Ill. 2004).
Here, we discover that there are significant problems with both of the proposed class definitions. First, the breadth of the proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class far exceeds the allegations of the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs propose a class for 23(b)(2) certification which includes all inmates, whether or not they were ever exposed to, or adversely affected by, the actions of the Defendants or the Jail policies with regard to the treatment of open sores and wounds. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs describe the class of individuals they seek to represent as those “who, while incarcerated at the Jail, have acquired infectious diseases as a consequence of Defendants’ failure to protect such inmates.” Amended Complaint, ¶ 6. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint does not differentiate between those who might be entitled to injunctive relief and those who might be entitled to an award of damages or both. As pled, Plaintiffs seek an award of damages for all Plaintiffs, alleging that: “As a consequence of Defendant’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and the members of the class have been infected with diseases that will have a substantial and deleterious impact on their health, ... .” Amended Complaint, ¶ 31. Further, punitive damages are
-5-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 1126
sought on behalf of all class member as well. Amended Complaint, ¶ 32. Unlike the allegations of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs’ certification motion would create a larger group of potential plaintiffs, including inmates who have been infected as well as those who have not, and then carve out a separate class for those who might be seeking money damages.
The inclusion of all present and future inmates in a certified class goes far beyond the “notice” provided by the Plaintiffs’ pleadings. Clearly, not every inmate of the Jail has suffered infection(s) while incarcerated. In addition, based on the pleadings, as well as the evidence adduced at the prior hearing for injunctive relief, not all inmates have had identical experiences with regard to infections or open wounds in terms of their own situations and those of inmates with whom they shared facilities. For example, some inmates with infections have been isolated, some not. Some have changed their own wound dressings, some have enlisted other inmates to help, and still others have received assistance of medical professionals. There are inmates who had their wounds cultured, and some who did not. Some inmates apparently claim that they were directly exposed to others with infections and others apparently did not have such contact.
In short, until the filing of their motion for class certification, Plaintiffs have indicated that they sought to represent inmates who have suffered staphrelated infections as a result of the actions or inaction of Defendants. Now they
-6-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 1127
seek to represent all who are, or may in the future be, incarcerated at the Jail,
a class so broad as to include literally hundreds, if not thousands of persons
who have suffered no damages and whose circumstances were materially
distinguishable from those who may have incurred damages.
Furthermore, the claims of the two named plaintiffs, who allege that they
suffer from MRSA related infections, are not typical of a class so broadly
constituted that the majority of its members will not have experienced any
health consequences as a result of Defendants’ actions or inaction nor suffered
cognizable damages. A class with a membership exceeding the potential class
members identified in the pleadings should not be certified nor should it be
represented by named plaintiffs whose claims are significantly different from
the majority of those in the class and whose exposure to relevant
circumstances may differ significantly from most other class members.1 See
1For example, Plaintiff Brent Hauser testified at the preliminary injunction hearing that he contracted cellulitis (an infection beneath the skin often caused by staph bacteria) shortly after he started working in the Jail laundry. He claimed the person who held the laundry job prior to him had also acquired the same condition. This differs significantly from the scenario surrounding the complaint of Pamela Walker, the other named Plaintiff, who testified that she acquired several open sores under her arm and on each thigh after she was incarcerated at the Jail in 2006. At the Jail, she was housed with an individual who was recovering from similar open sores, leading Walker to attribute her infection to exposure to her cell-mate. However, the evidence revealed that she had also been incarcerated at the Clark County jail immediately prior to being incarcerated in Floyd County and could not connect the onset of her symptoms in time to more than a week or a week and a half after she was incarcerated in Floyd County. Not only are the scenarios of the named Plaintiffs significantly different from each other, more importantly, they both would be atypical of the numerous inmates who would be a part of the requested 23(b)(2) class, who never acquired any infection or suffered any staph related medical symptoms.
-7-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 1128
Blaz v. Galen Hosp. Illinois, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 621, 624-25 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
The second class which Plaintiffs seek to represent are those inmates who actually suffered symptoms of a staph or MRSA infection. These are the individuals whom Plaintiffs argue would have incurred compensable damages. Almost immediately, however, we are faced with a need to conduct significant factual inquiry into the merits of their respective damages claim to determine if any putative plaintiff satisfies the class definition.
Plaintiffs have tendered affidavits of forty-eight current or former inmates, nearly all of whom testify in varying degrees of specificity to having acquired some type of infection or sore while incarcerated at the Jail, which they reported to Jail officials. Jail records do not substantiate many of these attestations and no other medical records were proffered along with the affidavits. Thus, key factual issues will necessarily dictate entitlement to inclusion in the class. Four inmates, for example, attest to having been diagnosed with MRSA, while most others do not offer any testimony or evidence regarding the specific medical condition, if any, they were experiencing. Whether an individual has “developed symptoms consistent with staphylococcus aureus or methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus after confinement in the Floyd County Jail for a period of more than ten days” is not a readily ascertainable fact; such a determination requires an individual inquiry into the subjective gravamen of each individual’s damages claim. See
-8-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 1129
Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 1162, 1169 (S.D. Ind. 1997)( class certification denied because it would require court to inquire into the merits of the individual claims); Indiana State Emp. Ass’n v. Indiana State Highway Commission, 78 F.R.D. 724, 725 (S.D. Ind. 1978)( class definition required court to essentially ascertain ultimate liability in order to determine if an individual was a member).
Even if we were to accept at face value the self-serving attestations of the forty-eight current and former inmates without attempting to resolve or balance the contradictory evidence offered by the Defendants, we still face the prospect of multiple, complex factual differences between and among the individual circumstances which will necessarily affect both the liability and damage issues. As to each putative class member, the Court would be required to analyze his/her medical history and determine whether he/she participated in any other community that might be deemed a possible source of infection from staph bacteria, such as hospitals, other jails, dormitories or other high density living facilities. Then we would have to know whether they were exposed to others who may or may not have reported their medical conditions and whether each class member promptly reported his/her own relevant medical conditions to Jail personnel and, if so, whether medical recommendations and basic cleanliness conventions were followed. These are but a few of the many, complex, relevant factual issues which must be resolved on an individual basis
-9-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 1130
in order to make a fair and appropriate and accurate assessment of Defendants’ liability. Such an approach is inconsistent with certification standard under Rule 23(b)(1). Clearly, in such a circumstance as this, it can not be said that questions of fact and law common to all class members predominate over questions affecting only individuals. Consequently, certification under 23(b)(3) would be inappropriate as well.
In support of their argument that the dangers associated with MRSA infections along with the prevailing circumstances at the Jail warrant certification of this lawsuit as a class action, Plaintiffs rely heavily on an unreported case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Inmates of Buck County Correctional Facility v. County of Bucks, 2004 WL 2958427 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2004). In a fashion similar to the allegations in the case at bar, the inmate Plaintiffs in County of Bucks claimed that the conditions at the correctional facility where they were housed were such that the inmates were continuously exposed to serious infectious diseases. In support of their claim, they offered evidence that ninety-five inmates had necessitated isolation because of their having contracted MRSA infections, which amounted to the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment at the facility. Id. at *1. The court found that Plaintiffs had successfully established the four prerequisites of 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation) and also found that Bucks County was acting or refusing to act in a fashion generally
-10-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 1131
applicable to the class, thereby making declaratory or injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole, as required for certification under 23(b)(2). Id. at *5. A class consisting of all female inmates similarly situated at the correctional facility was thus certified by the court based on a relatively brief discussion. Id.
However, there was only one class certified in County of Bucks and it was considerably more limited than the 23(b)(2) class defined by Plaintiffs here. Despite Plaintiffs’ assertion that many current and former inmates at the Jail have exhibited MRSA or staph symptoms, there is no medical confirmation of such a significant number. In addition, Plaintiffs’ proffered summary chart of the forty-eight inmate affidavits discloses that only four have allegedly been affirmatively diagnosed with MRSA. Further, while there is no indication that the Plaintiffs in the County of Bucks case sought to recover money damages, in this case much of what the named Plaintiffs and those comprising the proposed second class of inmates seek is damages.
After careful reflection, we find ourselves in agreement with the court in the Eastern District of Kentucky, where current counsel for Plaintiffs also represent another inmate confined in that county’s correctional facility and for which they have sought class certification, in fact, for two classes of plaintiffs. In Napier v. Laurel County, Ky., 2008 WL 544468 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 26, 2008), the first class for which certification was sought was a Rule 23(b)(2) class,
-11-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 1132
consisting of all persons who have or will be confined to the county jail; the second class was to be the MRSA damages class consisting of all inmates who had exhibited staph symptoms. Id. As in the case at bar, Plaintiff’s counsel cited the County of Bucks case as authority in support of certification. But, in declining to certify the class, the district court stated:
This Court is not persuaded by the analysis and conclusion regarding class certification in the Bucks County case. Unlike the summary analysis presented by that court, this Court believes that it is required to engage in a “rigorous analysis” of the requirements of Rule 23 ... . Notably, a class should not be certified where extensive factual inquires are required to determine whether individuals are members of a proposed class, and where a plaintiff could prove his own claim, but, in doing so, “not necessarily have proved anybody else’s claim.” Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554, 561 (6th Cir. 2007)(citing Sprague v. GMC, 133 F.3d 388, 399 (6th Cir. 1998)); Snow v. Atofina Chemicals, Inc., 2006 WL 1008002, at *8-9 (E.D. Mich. March 31, 2006). Id. at *6. We share these same basic concerns with regard to the case before us.
Conclusion
The abundance of factual issues surrounding the symptoms and health of each of the proposed class members, when considered in light of the breadth of the proposed class definitions, would require us to undertake complex factfinding with respect to each putative member of the second proposed class in
-12-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 1133

order to determine whether they are entitled to inclusion. Even if the classes were more narrowly drawn, individual issues of exposure, degree of infection and damages would predominate over those of the classes. In contrast, we perceive no risk of prejudice that arising from individual determinations of liability. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion For Class Certification (Dkt. #76) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Date: 11/26/2008

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Copies to:
Gregory A. Belzley DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP gregory.belzley@dinslaw.com
R. Jeffrey Lowe KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP jlowe@k-glaw.com
Robert Kenyon Meyer DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP kenyon.meyer@dinslaw.com
Richard T. Mullineaux KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP rmullineaux@k-glaw.com
-13-

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 103 Filed 11/26/08 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 1134 John R. Shelton SALES TILLMAN WALLBAUM CATLETT & SATTERLEY rshelton@stwlaw.com
-14-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION

PAMELA WALKER and BRENT

)

HOUSER,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

FLOYD COUNTY, INDIANA, DARRELL )

MILLS, individually and as Floyd

)

County Sheriff, RANDY HUBBARD, )

individually and as former Floyd

)

County Sheriff, STEVE KNIGHT,

)

individually and as Floyd County Jail )

Commander, and John and Jane Does

1,2 & 3

Defendants.

4:07-cv-14- SEB-WGH

ENTRY ON MOTIONS TO INTERVENE

This lawsuit was brought by two plaintiffs who spent time incarcerated at the Floyd County Jail (the “Jail”) early in 2006. They claim to have acquired virulent staph infections which were methicillin-resistant (“MRSA”) while incarcerated and they sought to represent a class of those who were incarcerated at the Jail and became infected with staph or MRSA subsequent to February 6, 2006. We denied their motion to certify a class, and now address motions to intervene which have subsequently been filed on behalf of numerous additional individuals who claim to have been similarly infected while incarcerated at the Jail. The Plaintiffs and the putative intervenors allege that they became infected as a result of grossly inadequate hygiene and medical policies and procedures at
-1-

the Jail.
Three identically worded motions seeking permissive intervention have been filed (Docs. #106, #117, and #119) on behalf of a total of forty-nine (49) proposed intervenors. In addition, a Motion For Leave to Supplement Motion to Intervene (Doc. #115) has also been filed, which seeks to the attention of this court a recent ruling rendered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. In Thomas Tabor, et al. v. McCracken County, et al., Case No. 5:06-CV-144-R, Memorandum Opinion and Order (March 6, 2009 W.D. Ky.), our sister court addressed a similar motion to intervene filed by former inmates of a county jail under similar circumstances. We commonly find it helpful to consider the rulings of our sister courts when those rulings address issues nearly identical to issues pending before this Court; and, while they clearly carry no precedential value, such determinations can offer persuasive reasoning. For that reason, we grant the Motion to Supplement.
Defendants oppose the intervention arguing that all of these current and former inmates have distinct factual circumstances with respect to their incarceration, medical treatment and past related medical history. They also claim they would be prejudiced by the intervention because of delay and the need to litigate more than forty claims with varying issues of liability and causation in a single trial. According to Defendants, the Jail records reflect no medical issues with respect to many of these proposed intervenors and others were treated for
-2-

unrelated medical issues. The affidavit of the Jail nurse, detailing the intervenors’ medical histories and explaining medical treatment choices, has been submitted by Defendants in support of their defense to the motion. However, we need not delve into questions of fact with regard to medical treatment at this point in the litigation.
Permissive intervention is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). We have relatively wide discretion to allow parties to intervene who have a claim or defense that shares common questions of law or fact with the main action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Generally, if there are issues of fact and/or law in common, it is the timeliness of the intervention request which is scrutinized most closely, because there is no sense allowing “Johnny-come-lately” intervenors to derail a lawsuit which is within sight of the station. Sokaogon Chippewa Community v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2000).
In the case at bar, we denied Plaintiffs request to certify the lawsuit as a class action on November 26, 2008. Up until that point in time an intervenor may have been satisfied that his or her rights were being pursued by the named plaintiffs. As the Supreme Court recognized, after class certification has been denied, “class members may choose to file their own suits or to intervene as plaintiffs in the pending action.” Crown, Cork & Steel v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 354 (1983). The first motion to intervene was promptly filed a little more than sixty days following our ruling and the next two were filed four and five months later
-3-

respectively. Little, other than briefing on the motions, has been accomplished in the case during those later months, leaving the notion that Defendants have been prejudiced by delay without convincing support.
We also find no merit in the Defendants’ contention that they will be prejudiced by having to try more than forty individualized claims in a single lawsuit. There is no question that there are at least a few common questions of fact and law associated with the claim of Plaintiffs and intervenors. All of them claim that the Jail’s policies and procedures were a cause of their medical circumstances and were so inadequate as to be in violation of their constitutional rights. There is also no question that these claimants will have issues of individualized concern as well, and in many instances those issues may predominate. However, as our sister court in Kentucky pointed out, if the evidence demonstrates that the common questions of fact and law are outweighed by the uniqueness of the individual circumstances surrounding each claimant or by the circumstances peculiar to various groups of claimants, claims can be severed as necessary for individual or grouped trials.
Accordingly, each of the three pending motions to intervene (Docs. #106, #117 and #119) are GRANTED and the Motion For Leave to File Supplement to Motion to Intervene (Doc. #115) is GRANTED as well.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
-4-

Date: 07/22/2009

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Copies to:
Gregory A. Belzley DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP gregory.belzley@dinslaw.com
R. Jeffrey Lowe KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP jlowe@k-glaw.com
Robert Kenyon Meyer DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP kenyon.meyer@dinslaw.com
Richard T. Mullineaux KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP rmullineaux@k-glaw.com
John R. Shelton SALES TILLMAN WALLBAUM CATLETT & SATTERLEY rshelton@stwlaw.com

-5-

 
 Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 178 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1544

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION

PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HAUSER, DIANA ARNOLD, JOSHUA BARD, KILE BEAVIN, ALBERT BLANKEN, JR., JERRY BROWDER, DOUGLAS BURRIS, MICHAEL CAMPBELL, RONALD COLLINS, KENNETH CORLEY, ANTON COUSINS, NEAL CRONE, KELLY CROSBY, WILLIAM DENSFORD, PAULA DENTON, ERIC FARNSLEY, STEVE GARY, ROBBY GRIFFIN, THOMAS GUNTER, DIAZ GUYTON, DANIEL HAMILTON, JAMES HILL, MARVIN HOOD, JAMES HOWELL, JASON JOHNSON, DAVID JONES, TRAVIS JONES, JOHNNY JULIOT, GARRY KELLY, MELVIN KNOWLAND, JOSHUA LEE, RODNEY LEE, JOSEPH LEWIS, GERALD MCCRANDER, MAURICE MASON, CRAIG PROCTOR, ROBERT RICKETTS, ROBERT ROSS, THOMAS ROY, THOMAS SMITHSON, BRANDON SPARKS, SEAN STAGER, SONNY STORMS, CHRISTEENA TIMBERLAKE, ROGER THOMPSON, JAMES THURMAN, JERAMEY TYLER, JUSTIN VAUGHN, SANFORD WALKER, JOHN WHITFILL

Plaintiffs

v.

CASE NO: 4:07-CV-0014-SEB-WGH

FLOYD COUNTY, INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, individually and in his official capacity as Floyd County Sheriff; RANDY HUBBARD, individually and in his official capacity as former Floyd County Sheriff; STEVE KNIGHT, individually and in his official capacity as Floyd County Jail Commander; and John and Jane Does, Nos. 1, 2, and 3, individually and in their official Capacities as medical professionals, officers and employees of the Floyd County Jail

Defendants

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL The parties' Stipulation of Dismissal having been submitted for the consideration of the Court and the Court being fully advised in the premises, and it appearing to the Court that all

070228/1019853-1

- 1 -

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 178 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1545
claims in this cause as they pertain only to Diana Arnold, Joshua Bard, Kile Beavin, Albert Blanken, Jr., Jerry Browder, Douglas Burris, Michael Campbell, Ronald Collins, Kenneth Corley, Sr., Anton Cousins, Neal Crone, Kelly Crosby, William Densford, Paula Denton, Steve Gary, Robby Griffin, Thomas Gunter, Diaz Guyton, Daniel Hamilton, Brent Hauser, James Hill, Marvin Hood, James Howell, Jason Johnson, David Jones, Travis Jones, Johnny Juliot, Garry Kelly, Melvin Knowland, Joshua Lee, Rodney Lee, Joseph Lewis, Gerald McCrander, Maurice Mason, Craig Proctor, Robert Ricketts, Thomas Roy, Thomas Smithson, Brandon Sparks, Sean Stager, Sonny Storms, Roger Thompson, James Thurman, Christeena Timberlake, Justin Vaughn, Pamela Walker, Sanford Walker, and John Whitfill,have been fully compromised and settled, the Court now APPROVES the parties' Stipulation of Partial Dismissal, and it is
ORDERED by the Court that this cause be and the same hereby is dismissed as it pertains only to Diana Arnold, Joshua Bard, Kile Beavin, Albert Blanken, Jr., Jerry Browder, Douglas Burris, Michael Campbell, Ronald Collins, Kenneth Corley, Sr., Anton Cousins, Neal Crone, Kelly Crosby, William Densford, Paula Denton, Steve Gary, Robby Griffin, Thomas Gunter, Diaz Guyton, Daniel Hamilton, Brent Hauser, James Hill, Marvin Hood, James Howell, Jason Johnson, David Jones, Travis Jones, Johnny Juliot, Garry Kelly, Melvin Knowland, Joshua Lee, Rodney Lee, Joseph Lewis, Gerald McCrander, Maurice Mason, Craig Proctor, Robert Ricketts, Thomas Roy, Thomas Smithson, Brandon Sparks, Sean Stager, Sonny Storms, Roger Thompson, James Thurman, Christeena Timberlake, Justin Vaughn, Pamela Walker, Sanford Walker, and John Whitfill, with prejudice, the parties to pay their own costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT that this does not affect the remaining claim of Eric Farnsley against the Defendants.

070228/1019853-1

- 2 -

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 178 Filed 06/15/10 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1546

SO ORDERED this __________ day of ____________________, 2010.

Date: 06/15/2010

_______________________________
_______________S_A_R_A_H__EV_A_N_S__BA_R_K_E_R_,_JU_D_G_E_______ JUDGE – UNITEDUnSitTedAStTatEesSDiDstrIicSt TCoRurItCT COURT Southern District oSfoIunthderinaDniastr–ictNofeIwndiAanalbany Division

Distribution:

R. Kenyon Meyer Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP 1400 PNC Plaza 500 West Jefferson Street Louisville, KY 40202 Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs kenyon.meyer@dinslaw.com

John R. Shelton Sales, Tillman, Wallbaum, Catlett & Satterly 1900 Waterfront Plaza 325 W. Main Street Louisville, KY 40202 Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs rshelton@stwlaw.com

Gregory A. Belzley P. O. Box 278 Prospect, KY 40059 Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs gbelzley@aol.com

R. Jeffrey Lowe KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP BONTERRA BUILDING, SUITE 200 3620 BLACKISTON BOULEVARD NEW ALBANY, IN 47150
Phone: 812-949-2300 Fax: 812-949-8556
jlowe@k-glaw.com

070228/1019853-1

- 3 -

 
 Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 183 Filed 09/27/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1573

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION

ERIC FARNSLEY,

)

)

Intervenor Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) 4:07-cv-14-SEB-WGH

)

FLOYD COUNTY, INDIANA,

)

DARRELL MILLS, individually

)

and in his official capacity as

)

Floyd County Sheriff,

)

RANDY HUBBARD, individually

)

and in his official capacity as former

)

Floyd County Sheriff,

)

STEVE KNIGHT, individually

)

and in his official capacity as

)

Floyd County Jail Commander, and

)

JOHN and JANE DOES, Nos. 1, 2 and 3,

)

individually and in their official capacities )

as medical professionals, officers and

)

employees of the Floyd County Jail,

)

)

Defendants.

)

FINAL JUDGMENT
Consistent with the order of August 27, 2010, and all prior settlements, Final Judgment is hereby entered as to all claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: _________________________

Date: 0089//320/270/210010

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Case 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH Document 183 Filed 09/27/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1574
.
Electronic copies to: R. Jeffrey Lowe KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP jlowe@k-glaw.com Richard T. Mullineaux KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP rmullineaux@k-glaw.com
Mail copy to: ERIC FARNSLEY #2004861946 Putnamville Correctional Facility 1946 West U.S. Highway 40 Greencastle, IN 46135

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION

[ELECTRONICALLY FILED]

PAMELA WALKER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
PLAINTIFF vs. FLOYD COUNTY, INDIANA, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.

) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 4:07-CV-0014-SEB-WGH ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This is a class action for injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover actual and punitive damages for injuries incurred by Plaintiffs and the class they represent during their incarceration at the Floyd County Jail ("the Jail"). Plaintiffs' injuries were the direct result of the deplorable conditions currently existing in the Jail, conditions that are so dangerous, unsanitary, and cruel as to require immediate injunctive relief to protect those who have not yet been harmed.
FACTS Plaintiff Pam Walker was incarcerated in the Jail in early October, 2006. Prior to her incarceration in the Jail, she had never experienced a staph infection. However, the Jail is overcrowded, and Ms. Walker was housed in a dormitory-style cell in which inmates were forced to sleep on mats on the floor, share toilets, use the same showers, and lived in such close proximity as to make it impossible to avoid physical contact with one another.

Within days of Ms. Walker's incarceration, she learned from fellow inmates that there was an outbreak of staph infection in the Jail. One of Ms. Walker's cellmates, Crystal Stubbs, had open, oozing boils on her buttocks as a result of a highly contagious, painful, disfiguring, penicillin-resistant form of staph infection. Ms. Stubbs had expressly informed the Jail's nurse that she had MRSA, but instead of isolating Ms. Stubbs and effectively treating her condition, the nurse prescribed Ms. Stubbs an antibiotic "Bactrim," gave her some gauze and epsom salts, and sent her back to the cell she shared with Ms. Walker and other healthy, uninfected inmates. In fact, despite numerous inmate requests that staph-infected inmates be segregated from the general population, the Jail has made no effort to segregate infected inmates, claiming that there is no room.
Because her open, draining abscesses were on her buttocks, Ms. Stubbs was unable to treat her own wounds. Because of Defendants' deliberate indifference to Ms. Stubbs' condition and the risk it presented to others, it fell to a fellow inmate, Angela Foster, to assist Ms. Stubbs with the treatment of the draining lesions on her buttocks, and to treat the open, suppurating sores that subsequently developed on other inmates after their exposure to Ms. Stubbs' MRSA. For example, Ms. Stubbs would routinely lay on her stomach on the mat on the floor on which she slept, and Ms. Foster would manually squeeze the pus out of Ms. Stubbs' abscesses and then change her bandages.
In an explicit acknowledgement of the harm to which they were knowingly exposing healthy, uninfected inmates, Defendants provided biohazard bags for the inmates' garbage (including soiled bandages) and would don disposable latex gloves before entering the communal cell in which Ms. Stubbs, Ms. Walker, Ms. Foster and others were housed. However, the inmates' repeated requests for bleach to clean their toilets were denied. In

addition, despite the infection and the overcrowded living quarters, inmates were provided with a clean uniform and clean bedding no more than once per week.
It did not take long for Ms. Walker to develop the suppurating boils indicative of MRSA, but she was advised by the Jail's nurse that she was suffering from spider bites, not a virulent, flesh-eating, penicillin-resistant staph infection, and she received no meaningful treatment. In fact, it appears common practice for the Jail’s medical staff to misrepresent to female inmates who are suffering from staph infections that they had merely been “bitten by spiders”, considering (1) that the Jail has made no known efforts to eradicate the spiders allegedly causing the bites, and (2) that if infected inmates persist long enough in their requests for medical treatment, the medical staff provides them with antibiotics that are commonly associated with the treatment of staph infections.
When Ms. Walker was released from the Jail on November 3, 2006, she promptly went to the hospital where she underwent several days of in-patient treatment, including but not limited to a surgical excision of her oozing MRSA sores. Since that time, Ms. Walker's MRSA has recurred twice, requiring medical treatment. Moreover, the chronic and unpredictable nature of her condition has significantly impaired her employability and her relations with loved ones.
ARGUMENT I. Plaintiffs' Burden.
Plaintiffs were sentenced to a deprivation of their liberty to atone for their offenses. They were emphatically not sentenced to live their lives with a highly contagious, penicillinresistant, flesh-eating bacteria. The Court cannot turn back the clock for Ms. Walker, or cure her of MRSA. But the Court must take action now to address the conditions that led to

Ms. Walker's infection in order to protect healthy inmates still incarcerated in the Jail, and persons who will be incarcerated there in the future.
The factors the Court considers in whether to grant a preliminary injunction favor issuance of injunctive relief in this case. In evaluating Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court must consider whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated that
1) [they have] a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claim; 2) no adequate remedy at law exists; 3) [they] will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is denied; 4) the irreparable harm [Plaintiffs] will suffer without injunctive relief is greater than the harm the opposing party will suffer if the preliminary injunction is granted; and 5) the preliminary injunction will not harm the public interest. Kiel v. City of Kenosha, 236 F.3d 814, 815-16 (7th Cir. 2000). These criteria are not prerequisites that must be met but rather are factors to be balanced in preliminary injunction decisions. "The court…weighs all of these factors, 'sitting as would a chancellor in equity,' when it decides whether to grant the injunction." Ty, Inc. v. The Jones Group, Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Meade Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 11 (7th Cir. 1992)). This process involves engaging in what the Seventh Circuit terms "the sliding scale approach; the more likely the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, the less the balance of irreparable harms need favor the plaintiff's position." Ty, Inc., 237 F.3d at 895. "The sliding scale approach is not mathematical in nature, rather 'it is more properly characterized as subjective and intuitive, one which permits district courts to weigh the competing considerations and mold appropriate relief.'" Id. at 895-86 (quoting Abbot, 971 F.2d at 11)).
II. Plaintiffs Will Likely Prevail On The Merits Of This Case.

The first factor that the Court must consider is whether Plaintiffs have reasonable likelihood of success on the underlying claim. See Kiel v. City of Kenosha, 236 F.3d at 815-16. The Seventh Circuit has also characterized this factor as follows: "A party seeking to obtain a preliminary injunction must demonstrate [that] its case has some likelihood of success on the merits…." Ty, Inc., 237 F.3d at 895 (emphasis added).
The underlying claim in Count I is that the rights of the class under 42 U.S.C. §1983 were violated. To prevail on a §1983 claim, Plaintiffs must establish that they were deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 908 (7th Cir. 2005). Here, officials of the Jail permitted the conditions of the Jail to deteriorate to the point of the cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. "The Eight Amendment prohibits punishments that involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, are grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime for which an inmate was imprisoned, or are totally without penological justification." Caldwell v. Miller, 790 F.2d 589, 600 (7th Cir. 1986). Conditions of confinement are part of the penalty imposed upon criminal offenders and are therefore "within the ambit of the Eighth Amendment." Id.
The United States Constitution does not permit inhumane prison conditions. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). Rather, the Constitution requires "humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Convicted prisoners are entitled to "adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety." Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96, 106 (Conn. Cir. 1981).

To succeed on a claim that jail officials failed to protect inmates, a plaintiff must show 1) that he or she endured conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and 2) that jail officials acted with deliberate indifference to the risk. Id. at 834. The deprivation alleged first must be “objectively, sufficiently serious” and result in the denial of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Id. The second requirement requires the prison official or employee to have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Id. That state of mind is one of “deliberate indifference to the inmate health and safety.” Id.
A jail official that disregards a known risk to an inmate's health is guilty of deliberate indifference. Vaughn v. Greene County, Arkansas, 438 F.3d 835, ___ (8th Cir. 2006). The facts of this case already show that Defendants failed to protect Plaintiffs from a known risk to their health, then compounded their grossly unconstitutional behavior but failing to provide Plaintiffs the medical treatment they needed for their condition -- indeed, the evidence suggests that Defendants knowingly misled Plaintiffs about the nature and severity of their medical condition to avoid the expense and inconvenience to Defendants that proper treatment would entail.
However, at the preliminary injunction stage, the Court is not required to determine whether the Defendants response to the conditions at issue amounted to deliberate indifference. Austin v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections, 1992 WL 277511 at *8 (E.D. Pa. 1992). III. Plaintiffs Have Amply Satisfied The Remainder Of The Kiel Factors.
There is no question but that under the circumstances of this case, Plaintiffs can show: that no adequate remedy at law exists; that they and others will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is denied; that the irreparable harm they will suffer without

injunctive relief is vastly greater than the harm Defendants will suffer if the preliminary injunction is granted; and that the preliminary injunction will not harm the public interest.
MRSA is a harm that no award in damages can adequately compensate. There is no remedy at law adequate to "make whole" Plaintiffs or other inmates of the Jail who become infected with MRSA. The only remedy is to impose, through injunctive relief, health precautions at the Jail that Defendants are unwilling to undertake voluntarily, and which they have flagrantly disregarded despite the conditions described above.
Defendants would suffer no harm were the Court to grant Plaintiffs the injunctive relief they request. It is obvious that the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs, if granted, would protect not only Plaintiffs and others incarcerated at the Jail at present or in the future, but Defendants themselves as well as other members of the Jail's staff. Finally, given the public health implications of setting loose in the community person infected with the highly contagious, painful, disfiguring, penicillin-resistant flesh eating bacteria that is MRSA, injunctive relief in this instance not only will not harm the public interest, but will serve and protect the public interest.
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court, after hearing, enter the attached Injunction.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Gregory A. Belzley________ Gregory A. Belzley Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 1400 PNC Plaza 500 West Jefferson Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (502) 540-2300 Telephone

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served on counsel for Defendants, Richard T. Mullineaux and R. Jeffrey Lowe, Kightlinger & Gray, LLP, 4106 Charlestown Road, New Albany, IN 47150, via CM/ECF, this ____ day of April, 2007.
s/ Gregory A. Belzley_________________ Counsel for Plaintiff

 
 Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 1 of 28
CMP,PROSE,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (New Albany) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:07−cv−00014−SEB−WGH

WALKER v. FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA et al Assigned to: Judge Sarah Evans Barker Referred to: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/06/2007 Date Terminated: 09/27/2010 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

PAMELA WALKER Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley PO Box 278 Prospect, KY 40059 (502) 228−5084 Email: gbelzley@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton SALES TILLMAN WALLBAUM CATLETT &SATTERLEY 1900 Waterfront Plaza 325 West Main Street Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 589−5600 Fax: (502) 814−5500 Email: rshelton@stwlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer DINSMORE &SHOHL LLP 1400 PNC Plaza 500 West Jefferson Street Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 540−2325 Fax: (502) 585−2207 Email: kenyon.meyer@dinslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
BRENT HOUSER individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA

represented by R. Jeffrey Lowe KIGHTLINGER &GRAY, LLP−New Albany Bonterra Building 3620 Blackiston Boulevard, Suite 200 New Albany, IN 47150 (812) 949−2300 Fax: (812) 949−8556 Email: jlowe@k−glaw.com

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 2 of 28

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Mullineaux KIGHTLINGER &GRAY, LLP−New Albany Bonterra Building 3620 Blackiston Boulevard, Suite 200 New Albany, IN 47150 (812) 949−2300 Fax: (812) 949−8556 Email: rmullineaux@k−glaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DARRELL MILLS Individually and in his official capacity as Floyd County Sheriff

represented by R. Jeffrey Lowe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Mullineaux (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOHN DOES 1−3 Individually and in their official capacity as medical professionals, officers and employees of the Floyd County Jail

represented by R. Jeffrey Lowe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard T. Mullineaux (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JANE DOES 1−3 Individually and in their official capacity as medical professionals, officers and employees of the Floyd County Jail

represented by R. Jeffrey Lowe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard T. Mullineaux (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
STEVE KNIGHT individually and in his official capacity as Floyd County Jail Commander

represented by R. Jeffrey Lowe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Mullineaux (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
RANDY HUBBARD individually and in his official capacity as former Floyd County Sheriff

represented by R. Jeffrey Lowe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Mullineaux (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 3 of 28

KELLY CROSBY TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
STEVE GARY TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
DAVID JONES TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
SEAN STAGER TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
JAMES THURMAN TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address)

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 4 of 28

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
JOHN WHITFILL TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
KENNETH CORLEY TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
MARVIN HOOD TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
JOHNNY JULIOT TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
MELVIN KNOWLAND TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 5 of 28

Intervenor Plaintiff GERALD MACRANDER TERMINATED: 06/15/2010
Intervenor Plaintiff ROBERT RICKETTS TERMINATED: 06/15/2010
Intervenor Plaintiff ROBERT ROSS Per No. 163, also send notice to Robert Ross at 2307 West Madison Street, Louisville, KY 40202 TERMINATED: 04/02/2010
Intervenor Plaintiff THOMAS ROY TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ROBERT ROSS 1810 Graybrook Lane Apt. 109 New Albany, IN 47150 PRO SE
Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John R. Shelton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 6 of 28

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
CHRISTEENA TIMBERLAKE TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
DIANA ARNOLD TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
JOSHUA BARD TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
KILE BEAVIN TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
ALBERT BLANKEN, JR. TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 7 of 28

John R. Shelton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
JERRY BROWDER TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
DOUGLAS BURRIS TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
MICHAEL CAMPBELL TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
RONALD COLLINS TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 8 of 28

ANTON COUSINS TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
NEAL CRONE TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
WILLIAM DENSFORD TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
PAULA DENTON TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff ERIC FARNSLEY

represented by ERIC FARNSLEY #2004861946 PUTNAMVILLE − CF PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 1946 West U.S. Hwy 40 Greencastle, IN 46135 PRO SE

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 9 of 28

Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
ROBBY GRIFFIN TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
THOMAS GUNTER TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
DIAZ GUYTON TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
DANIEL HAMILTON TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 10 of 28

Intervenor Plaintiff JAMES HILL TERMINATED: 06/15/2010
Intervenor Plaintiff JAMES HOWELL TERMINATED: 06/15/2010
Intervenor Plaintiff JASON JOHNSON TERMINATED: 06/15/2010
Intervenor Plaintiff TRAVIS JONES TERMINATED: 06/15/2010
Intervenor Plaintiff GARRY KELLY TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 11 of 28

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
JOSHUA LEE TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
RODNEY LEE TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
JOSEPH LEWIS TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
MAURICE MASON TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 12 of 28

CRAIG PROCTOR TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
THOMAS SMITHSON TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
BRANDON SPARKS TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
SONNY STORMS TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
ROGER THOMPSON TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 13 of 28

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
JERAMEY TYLER TERMINATED: 01/14/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
JUSTIN VAUGHN TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
SANFORD WALKER TERMINATED: 06/15/2010

represented by Gregory A. Belzley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John R. Shelton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Kenyon Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/06/2007
02/06/2007 02/06/2007 02/06/2007 02/06/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, JANE DOES 1−3 with Jury Demand filed by PAMELA WALKER.(KTK) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
2 Summons Issued as to FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, and DARRELL MILLS. (KTK) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff PAMELA WALKER. (KTK) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
4 NOTICE − INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN issued. (KTK) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
5 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (KTK) (Entered: 02/06/2007)

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 14 of 28

02/06/2007 02/07/2007 02/14/2007 02/14/2007 02/14/2007 02/14/2007 02/14/2007 02/16/2007 02/21/2007 02/21/2007 02/27/2007 03/07/2007 03/27/2007 04/24/2007 04/30/2007
05/02/2007
05/03/2007 05/07/2007 05/22/2007

6 RECEIPT #401−1982 in the amount of $ 350.00, filing fee. (KTK) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Kenyon Meyer on behalf of Plaintiff PAMELA WALKER. (Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard T. Mullineaux on behalf of Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS. (Mullineaux, Richard) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Jeffrey Lowe on behalf of Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS. (Lowe, Robert) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
10 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by PAMELA WALKER. FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA served on 2/7/2007. (Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard T. Mullineaux on behalf of Defendant JOHN DOES 1−3, Defendant JANE DOES 1−3. (Mullineaux, Richard) Modified on 2/15/2007 (KTK). (Entered: 02/14/2007)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Jeffrey Lowe on behalf of Defendant JOHN DOES 1−3, Defendant JANE DOES 1−3. (Lowe, Robert) Modified on 2/15/2007 (KTK). (Entered: 02/14/2007)
13 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by PAMELA WALKER. DARRELL MILLS served on 2/8/2007. (Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
14 MOTION by Gregory A. Belzley to Appear pro hac vice filed by Plaintiff PAMELA WALKER. (Attachments: # 1 Good Standing Certificate# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(JLM) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
15 RECEIPT #NA000010 in the amount of $ 30.00 for PHV fee of Gregory A. Belzley. (JLM) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
16 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand filed by all defendants.(Mullineaux, Richard) Modified on 2/28/2007 (KTK). (Entered: 02/27/2007)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by John R. Shelton on behalf of Plaintiff PAMELA WALKER. (Shelton, John) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
18 ORDER granting 14 Motion to Appear pro hac vice. Attorney Gregory A. Belzley for PAMELA WALKER added. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/27/2007. (KTK) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
19 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Plaintiff PAMELA WALKER. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Case Management Plan Summary)(Shelton, John) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
20 ORDER: CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN NOT APPROVED at this time. However, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), discovery may now commence. SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/25/2007 02:00 PM, New Albany time, before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. Signed by Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. on 4/30/2007. (KTK) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
21 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint, filed by Plaintiff PAMELA WALKER., (Attachments: # 1 Supplement First Amended Complaint# 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Meyer, Robert) Modified on 5/3/2007 (KTK). (Entered: 05/02/2007)
22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiff PAMELA WALKER., (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Order Granting Preliminary Injunction)(Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
23 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiff PAMELA WALKER. (Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
24 MOTION for Emergency Hearing re 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 23 Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Plaintiff PAMELA WALKER., (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 15 of 28

05/22/2007
05/22/2007 05/23/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/29/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 06/04/2007 06/04/2007 06/04/2007 06/06/2007 06/07/2007 06/08/2007 06/11/2007 06/14/2007

25 MOTION for Extension of Time to 5/22/07 to file response to 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Extension of Time# 2 Exhibit Defendant's Respone to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction# 3 Exhibit Proposed Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Lowe, Robert) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, JANE DOES 1−3. Filed 5/22/2007, per Entry # 26. (KTK) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
26 ORDER granting 25 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Response attached to the Motion is hereby deemed filed as of 5/22/2007. Signed by Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. on 5/23/2007. (KTK) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
28 ORDER granting 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 5/25/07. (JLM) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
29 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, and, JANE DOES 1−3 filed by PAMELA WALKER. Filed per # 28.(KTK) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
30 ORDER granting 24 Motion − Evidentiary Hearing, on the issues made the subject of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, set for 6/26/2007 10:00 AM in room #200 before Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 5/29/2007. (KTK) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
31 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William G. Hussmann Jr.: Status Conference held on 5/25/2007. (KTK) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
32 (continuation of # 31) SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 8/23/2007 01:00 PM, New Albany time, in room #228 before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. Signed by Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. on 5/31/2007. (KTK) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard T. Mullineaux on behalf of Defendants STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD. (Mullineaux, Richard) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Jeffrey Lowe on behalf of Defendants STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD. (Lowe, Robert) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
35 Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint, filed by all defendants.(Lowe, Robert) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
36 MOTION for Extension of Time to June 11, 2007 to file reply to 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order granting extension)(Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
37 ORDER granting 36 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs shall file their reply on or before 6/11/2007. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/7/07. (JLM) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
38 REPLY in Support of Motion re 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
39 MOTION for Order of Personal Appearance, filed by Plaintiff PAMELA WALKER., (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order of Appearance# 2 Text of Proposed Order Order of Appearance)(Shelton, John) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
40 MOTION for Joinder in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiff BRENT HOUSER., (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Robert) Modified on 6/15/2007 (KTK). (Entered: 06/14/2007)

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 16 of 28

06/20/2007 06/21/2007 06/21/2007 06/21/2007 06/21/2007 06/22/2007 06/22/2007 06/25/2007 06/26/2007
07/31/2007 08/07/2007 08/22/2007 08/29/2007

41 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Lowe, Robert) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
42 APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for Pamela Walker# 2 Appendix Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for Brent Houser# 3 Appendix Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for Angela Foster)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
43 WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM issued for the presence of Pamela Walker for the 6/26/2007, 10:00am proceedings. Signed 6/21/2007 by Judge Sarah Evans Barker. (KTK) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
44 WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM issued for the presence of Brent Houser to at 6/26/2007 10:00AM proceedings. Signed 6/21/2007, Judge Sarah Evans Barker. (KTK) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
45 WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM issued for the presence of Angela Foster as the 6/26/2007, 10:00AM proceedings. Costs of compliance with writ shall be borne by Plaintiffs. Signed on 6/21/2007, by Judge Sarah Evans Barker. (KTK) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
46 Submission of Signature Requirement re 42 Application for Writ, by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for Pamela Walker# 2 Appendix Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for Brent Houser# 3 Appendix Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for Angela Foster)(Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
47 APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum for Paula Benton)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
48 WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM issued for the presence of Paula Benton for the 6/26/2007, 10:00 a.m. proceedings. Signed 6/25/2007 by Judge Sarah Evans Barker. (JLM) Modified on 6/25/2007 (JLM). (Entered: 06/25/2007)
49 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sarah Evans Barker : Motion Hearing held on 6/26/2007 re 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by PAMELA WALKER. The Court addressed some preliminary matters, including Plaintiff Brent Houser's Motion to Join in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction 40 . Plaintiffs' counsel conceded that the Motion 40 was moot and withdrew it. Parties presented evidence. Witnesses were examined and cross examined. Defendants rested. Plaintiffs had no rebuttal evidence. All parties waived closing arguments. The Court took the matter under advisement, and the proceeding were adjourned.(Court Reporter Fred Pratt.) (KTK) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
50 ORDER denying 22 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 7/31/2007. (KTK) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
51 *** WITHDRAWN per # 55 *** MOTION to Produce HIPAA−Protected Inmate Documents, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER., (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) Modified on 9/14/2007 (KTK). (Entered: 08/07/2007)
52 Defendants' Response to 51 Motion for Production of HIPAA−protected inmate documents, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A; # 2 Exhibit B)(Lowe, Robert) Modified on 8/29/2007 (KTK). (Entered: 08/22/2007)
53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William G. Hussmann Jr.: Settlement Conference held on 8/23/2007. PLaintiffs are GRANTED an extension of time to and including 9/13/2007, to file a reply brief to Motion for Production of DOcuments (Docket # 51) if necessary. The parties are DIRECTED to exchange such discovery information as relates to the class action issue. (KTK) (Entered: 08/29/2007)

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 17 of 28

08/29/2007 09/12/2007 09/13/2007 10/12/2007 10/23/2007 10/30/2007 11/07/2007 11/07/2007 12/11/2007 12/12/2007
12/21/2007 12/27/2007 01/07/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008

(continuation of # 53) SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephonic Settlement/Status Conference set for 10/31/2007 03:00 PM, New Albany time, before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. Signed by Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. on 8/29/2007. (KTK) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
54 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Plaintiffs' Motion for Production of HIPAA−Protected Inmate Documents, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER, re 51 MOTION to Produce HIPAA−Protected Inmate Documents. (Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
55 ORDER withdrawing 51 Motion to Produce. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/13/2007. (KTK) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
56 *** WITHDRAWN per # 58 *** MOTION to Compel Inspection of Premises, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER., (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E−mail# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed order to compel)(Meyer, Robert) Modified on 10/30/2007 (KTK). (Entered: 10/12/2007)
57 MOTION to Withdraw 56 MOTION to Compel Inspection of Premises, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
58 ORDER granting 57 Motion to Withdraw 56 MOTION to Compel Inspection of Premises. Signed by Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. on 10/30/2007. (KTK) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
59 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William G. Hussmann Jr.: Telephonic Settlement/Status Conference held on 10/31/2007. Any motions to certify this case as a class action shall be filed on or before 2/1/2008. (KTK) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
(continuation of # 59) SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/9/2008 04:00 PM, New Albany time, before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. Signed by Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. on 11/07/2007. (KTK) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
60 MOTION to Compel Inspection of the Floyd County Detention Center, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
61 SUBMISSION OF OMITTED EXHIBITS for 60 MOTION to Compel Inspection of the Floyd County Detention Center, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff's Request to Inspect, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents)(Belzley, Gregory) Modified on 12/13/2007 (PGS). Modified on 1/3/2008 (TMD). (Entered: 12/12/2007)
62 NOTICE of Taking Deposition of Randy Hubbard by PAMELA WALKER. (KTK) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
63 RESPONSE in Opposition re 60 MOTION to Compel Inspection of the Floyd County Detention Center, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Lowe, Robert) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
64 REPLY in Support of Motion re 60 MOTION to Compel Inspection of the Floyd County Detention Center, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
65 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion to Compel Inspection of the Floyd County Detention Center. See order for particulars. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 1/18/2008. (KTK) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
66 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/9/2008. Plaintiffs orally moved to extend the deadline for filing their motions for class certification for 60 days. Over the objection of the Defendants, the motion is GRANTED. (KTK) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 18 of 28

01/18/2008
02/04/2008 02/07/2008 03/19/2008 03/20/2008 03/20/2008 04/14/2008
04/15/2008 04/16/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008
04/30/2008 05/16/2008

(continuation of # 66) SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 8/15/2008 10:00 AM, New Albany time, in room #228 before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. A trial date will be set at the conclusion of the settlement conference, if necessary. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 1/18/2008.(KTK) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
67 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on June 26, 2007 before Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Court Reporter: Fred Pratt. (One Volume) (MAC) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
68 NOTICE of Change of Address by R. Jeffrey Lowe (Lowe, R.) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
69 MOTION for Extension of Time to April 15, 2008 to File Motion for Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Shelton, John) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
70 Submission of Proposed Order for Extension of Time to File Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Shelton, John) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
71 ORDER granting 69 Motion for Extension of Time to 4/15/2008, to file a Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 3/20/2008. (KTK) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
72 Submission Agreed Order for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER, Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
73 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to April 30, 2008 in which to file Motion for Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
74 ORDER granting 73 Motion for Extension of Time to and including 4/30/2008, to file Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 4/16/2008. (KTK) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
75 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
76 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
77 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 76 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. *** NOTE: Reference List and declarations SEALED per # 80 *** (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, CDC MRSA Information for Public, # (2) Exhibit B, Part 1, Management of MRSA, # (3) Exhibit B, Part 2, Management of MRSA, # (4) Exhibit C, Chicago Tribune Article, # (5) Exhibit D, Invasive MRSA Infections in U.S., # (6) Exhibit E, Communicable Disease Control, # (7) Exhibit F, Community Associated MRSA, # (8) Exhibit G, The Role of Institutional Epidemiologic, # (9) Exhibit H, Affidavit of Dr. Clark, # (10) Exhibit I, Spotlight: So Your Facility has CA−MRSA, # (11) Exhibit J, MRSA in Correctional Settings, # (12) Exhibit K, Medical &Suicide Questionnaire, # (13) Exhibit L, Dr. Eichenberger Deposition, # (14) Exhibit M, Nurse Lewis Deposition, # (15) Exhibit N, Exhibit Filed Under Seal)(Belzley, Gregory) Modified on 5/19/2008 (KTK). (Entered: 04/30/2008)
78 MOTION to Seal Document 77 Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
79 MOTION for Extension of Time to June 2, 2008 in which to 76 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 19 of 28

05/19/2008 05/19/2008 05/21/2008 06/02/2008
06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/03/2008 06/03/2008
06/03/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008
06/11/2008

1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
80 ORDER granting 78 Motion to Seal the reference list and declarations attached to 77 Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 05/19/2008. (KTK) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
81 ORDER granting 75 Motion for Leave to File the 38 page Memorandum in support Motion for Class Certification (See docket number 77). Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 05/19/2008. (KTK) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
82 ORDER granting 79 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time until 6/2/2008, to respond to 76 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 5/21/08. (JLM) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
83 RESPONSE in Opposition re 76 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit One, Dr. Eichenberger Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit Two, Margaret Lewis Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit Three, Dr. Eichenberger Deposition Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit Four, Margaret Lewis Deposition Excerpts)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
84 MOTION for Leave to File Supporting Memorandum in Excess of 35 pages, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
85 MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits Attached to Margaret Lewis' Affidavit Manually Under Seal, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
86 ORDER denying 85 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Attached to Margaret Lewis Affidavit Manually Under Seal. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/3/2008. (JLM) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
87 SEALED Exhibits to Lewis Affidavit, re 83 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit to Lewis Affidavit (Part 1), # (2) Exhibit to Lewis Affidavit (Part 2), # (3) Exhibit to Lewis Affdavit (Part 3), # (4) Exhibit to Lewis Affidavit (Part 4), # (5) Exhibit to Lewis Affidavit (Part 5), # (6) Exhibit to Lewis Affidavit (Part 6)(Lowe, R.) Modified on 6/4/2008 (JLM). (Entered: 06/03/2008)
88 MOTION for Leave to file under seal − Document 87 SEALED Document, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document)(Lowe, R.) Modified on 6/4/2008 (TMD). (Entered: 06/03/2008)
89 ORDER granting 88 Defendant's Renewed Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal. Defendants are granted leave to file the attachments to Margaret Lewis' Affidavit filed in Support of the Defendants' Response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 6/6/08. (JLM) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
90 MOTION for Extension of Time to June 21, 2008, to file Reply in Support of 76 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification)(Shelton, John) Modified on 6/9/2008 (JLM). (Entered: 06/06/2008)
91 ORDER granting 84 defendants' Motion for Leave to File Memorandum in excess of the limit imposed by Local Rule 7.1(c). Signed by Magistrate Judge William G.

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 20 of 28

06/16/2008 06/23/2008 07/17/2008
07/17/2008 07/22/2008 07/23/2008 07/23/2008 07/23/2008 08/18/2008 08/18/2008 10/01/2008

Hussmann, Jr on 6/11/2008. (KTK) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
92 ORDER granting 90 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs' time to reply to the Defendants' Response to 76 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be and hereby is extended to 6/21/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 6/16/08. (JLM) Modified on 6/16/2008 (JLM). (Entered: 06/16/2008)
93 REPLY in Support of Motion re 76 MOTION to Certify Class, 78 MOTION to Seal Document 77 Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Community−Acquired MRSA Infection, # 2 Exhibit B, CA−MRSA Abscess Care and Treatment)(Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
94 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiff's' Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Proposed Surreply, # (2) ***SEALED PER DOC #99*** Exhibit Dr. Eichenberger's Deposition Testimony, # (3) Text of Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Surreply)(Lowe, R.) Modified on 7/18/2008 (JLM). Modified on 7/23/2008 (JLM). (Entered: 07/17/2008)
95 MOTION to Seal Document 94 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiff's' Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
96 RESPONSE in Opposition re 94 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiff's' Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shelton, John) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
97 ORDER granting 94 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Surreply. The Surreply attached to the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Surreply, is hereby filed as of today's date. The Clerk shall detach the proposed surreply from Docket #94 and file it with the Court, causing an appropriate docket entry to be made. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 7/23/08. (JLM) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
98 Surreply re 76 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # (1)***SEALED PER DOC #99*** Dr. Eichenberger's Deposition Testimony)(JLM) Modified on 7/23/2008 (JLM). (Entered: 07/23/2008)
99 ORDER granting 95 Motion to Seal. The Defendants are granted leave to file the attachments to 94 Motion for Leave to File a Surreply under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 7/23/08. (JLM) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
100 Minute Order. for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr: Telephone Conference held on 8/11/2008. The settlement conference set for 8/15/2008 is VACATED.(KTK) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
(continuation of #100) SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/29/2008 09:15 AM, New Albany time, before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 8/18/2008.(KTK) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
101 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr. on 9/29/08. The parties were represented by counsel. Telephonic Status Conference is continued to 1/14/2009 09:15 AM (New Albany time) before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. See Order for particulars. (LBT) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 21 of 28

11/03/2008 11/26/2008 01/22/2009
01/23/2009
01/30/2009 02/02/2009 02/17/2009 02/27/2009 03/02/2009 03/03/2009 03/06/2009 03/06/2009 03/09/2009

102 SEALED Notice of Filing Under Seal of Exhibit N, re 76 Motion to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit N, pages 1−20, # 2 Exhibit N, pages 21−40, # 3 Exhibit N, Pages 41−67, # 4 Exhibit N, Pages 68−94)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
103 ENTRY DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION − Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification 76 is denied. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 11/26/08. (JLM) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
104 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/14/2009. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint shall be filed not later than forty−five (45) days from the entry of this order. A Settlement Conference is set for 8/28/2009, at 1:00 PM, New Albany time (EDT), in room #228, U.S. Courthouse, New Albany, Indiana, before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. Parties are to complete discovery not later than 9/30/2009. This matter is set for a jury trial during the February 2010 trial term. See attachment for particulars. (JLM) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
105 SCHEDULING ENTRY: Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/26/2010, at 2:00 PM in room #210, United States Courthouse, Indianapolis, Indiana, before Judge Sarah Evans Barker. PLEASE NOTE THE INDIANAPOLIS LOCATION OF THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Jury Trial set for 2/8/2010, at 9:30 AM in room #200, United States Courthouse, New Albany, Indiana, before Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/23/09.(JLM) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
106 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Intervening Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
107 Submission of Signature Requirement re 106 MOTION to Intervene by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Intervening Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
108 RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Margaret Lewis, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Denying Motion To Intervene)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
109 MOTION Plaintiff's Motion to Late File Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shelton, John) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
110 REPLY in Support of Motion re 106 MOTION to Intervene Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Intervene, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order on Case Management Plan)(Shelton, John) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
111 ORDER granting 109 Plaintiff's Motion to file their Reply to Defendant's Response to the Motion to Intervene up to and including 3/2/2009. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/3/2009. (JLM) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
112 ***WITHDRAWN PER NO. 114*** MOTION for Leave to File Amended Intervening Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, Amended Intervening Complaint, # (2) Text of Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) Modified on 3/9/2009 (LBT). (Entered: 03/06/2009)
113 MOTION to Withdraw 112 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Intervening Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
114 ORDER granting 113 Motion to Withdraw 112 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Intervening Complaint. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/9/2009. (LBT) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 22 of 28

03/27/2009 04/13/2009 05/21/2009 06/08/2009 06/18/2009 07/06/2009 07/07/2009 07/09/2009 07/22/2009 07/22/2009
07/22/2009 08/05/2009

115 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to 106 Motion to Intervene, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Judge Russell's Memorandum Opinion and Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) Modified on 3/30/2009 to link this document with Doc #106 (JLM). (Entered: 03/27/2009)
116 RESPONSE in Opposition re 115 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Motion to Intervene, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
117 MOTION to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Intervening Complaint)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
118 RESPONSE in Opposition re 117 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Affidavit of Elizabeth Brewer, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
119 MOTION to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
120 MOTION for Extension of Time to July 7, 2009 to file response to 119 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
121 RESPONSE in Opposition re 119 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Affidavit of Elizabeth Brewer, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
122 ORDER granting 120 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time. The Defendants shall have up through and including 7/7/2009, to file their Response to 119 Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 7/8/2009. (JLM) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
123 ENTRY ON MOTIONS TO INTERVENE. 106 Motion to Intervene, 117 Motion to Intervene, and 119 Motion to Intervene are each GRANTED. 115 Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Motion to Intervene is GRANTED as well. See Entry for particulars. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 7/22/2009. (LBT) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
127 Intervenor COMPLAINT filed by DIANA ARNOLD, JOSHUA BARD, KILE BEAVIN, ALBERT BLANKEN, JR, JERRY BROWDER, DOUGLAS BURRIS, MICHAEL CAMPBELL, RONALD COLLINS, ANTON COUSINS, NEAL CRONE, WILLIAM DENSFORD, PAULA DENTON, ERIC FARNSLEY, ROBBY GRIFFIN, THOMAS GUNTER, DIAZ GUYTON, DANIEL HAMILTON, JAMES HILL, JAMES HOWELL, JASON JOHNSON, TRAVIS JONES, GARRY KELLY, JOSHUA LEE, RODNEY LEE, JOSEPH LEWIS, MAURICE MASON, CRAIG PROCTOR, THOMAS SMITHSON, BRANDON SPARKS, SONNY STORMS, ROGER THOMPSON, JERAMEY TYLER, JUSTIN VAUGHN, SANFORD WALKER. ***FILED PER DOC #123***(JLM) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
128 Intervenor COMPLAINT filed by KELLY CROSBY, STEVE GARY, DAVID JONES, SEAN STAGER, JAMES THURMAN, JOHN WHITFILL. ***FILED PER DOC #123***(JLM) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
124 Third Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by KENNETH CORLEY, MARVIN HOOD, JOHNNY JULIOT, MELVIN KNOWLAND, GERALD MACRANDER, ROBERT RICKETTS, ROBERT ROSS, THOMAS ROY, CHRISTEENA TIMBERLAKE.(Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 08/05/2009)

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 23 of 28

08/05/2009 08/14/2009
08/19/2009 08/19/2009 08/19/2009 09/01/2009
09/02/2009
09/30/2009 10/07/2009
10/09/2009 10/09/2009 10/09/2009

125 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 8/5/2009 03:00 PM Telephonic before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 8/5/2009.(NRN) (Entered: 08/05/2009)
126 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr. Attorney Conference Call held on 8/5/2009. The Settlement Conference set for 8/28/2009 at 2:00 PM (EDT) before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. is hereby CONVERTED to a Telephonic Status Conference to address the establishment of an appropriate scheduling order in this case. The Settlement Conference will now be conducted on 11/2/2009 at 10:00 AM, New Albany time (EST), in room #228, U.S. Courthouse, New Albany, IN, before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. See Order for particulars. (LBT) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
129 ANSWER to 124 Intervenor Complaint, filed by all defendants.(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
130 ANSWER to 127 Intervenor Complaint, filed by all defendants.(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
131 ANSWER to 128 Intervenor Complaint, filed by all defendants.(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
132 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr: Telephonic Status Conference held on 8/28/2009. On or before 9/30/2009, plaintiffs will file preliminary witness and exhibit lists and a statement of special damages with respect to each plaintiff. On or before 10/30/2009, defendants will file preliminary witness and exhibit lists and respond to any settlement demand, if such a demand has been made by plaintiffs. This case remains set for a settlement conference on 11/2/2009. Further deadlines will be set following the 11/2/2009 settlement conference, if necessary. The current trial date of 2/8/2010, and the final pretrial conference of 1/26/2010, are VACATED. The jury trial in this matter is reset for the May 2010 trial term before District Judge Barker. The exact date of the trial will be set in a notice issued directly from Judge Barker's chambers. (JLM) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
133 SCHEDULING ENTRY: Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/27/2010 at 2:00 PM, Indianapolis time, in room #216, U.S. Courthouse, Indianapolis, IN, before Judge Sarah Evans Barker. PLEASE NOTE THE INDIANAPOLIS LOCATION OF THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Jury Trial set for 5/10/2010 at 9:30 AM, New Albany time, in room #200, U.S. Courthouse, New Albany, IN, before Judge Sarah Evans Barker.(LBT) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
134 Plaintiff's Preliminiary Witness and Exhibit List and Statement of Special Damages, filed by Plaintiffs PAMELA WALKER, BRENT HOUSER. (Shelton, John) Modified on 10/1/2009 to remove duplicate wording (JLM). (Entered: 09/30/2009)
135 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Certain Intervening Plaintiffs, filed by Plaintiffs JERAMEY TYLER, ALBERT BLANKEN, JR., DANIEL HAMILTON, JOSHUA BARD, AND TRAVIS JONES. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Shelton, John) Modified on 10/8/2009, to remove duplicate wording and add correct filers (JLM). (Entered: 10/07/2009)
136 Special Damages Intervening Plaintiffs' Supplemntal Itemization of Special Damages by all plaintiffs. (Shelton, John) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
137 RESPONSE in Opposition re 135 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Certain Intervening Plaintiffs, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
138 AMENDED MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel for Certain Intervening Plaintiffs and to Remand Previously Filed Motion 135 , filed by Plaintiffs JERAMEY TYLER, ALBERT BLANKEN, JR., DANIEL HAMILTON, JOSHUA BARD and DAVID JONES. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shelton, John) Modified on 10/14/2009 to reflect accurate title of document and to reflect correct filers (JLM).

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 24 of 28

10/14/2009
10/15/2009
10/16/2009
10/16/2009 10/16/2009 10/16/2009 10/16/2009 10/22/2009 10/30/2009 10/30/2009 11/04/2009
11/18/2009

(Entered: 10/09/2009)
139 MOTION for Continuance of Settlement Conference, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Email dated August 19 2009, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Email dated September 22 2009, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Email dated October 7 2009, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
140 JOINT MOTION to Dismiss Jeramy Tyler as Intervening Plaintiff, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff JERAMEY TYLER, Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shelton, John) Modified on 10/16/2009 to reflect accurate filers (JLM). (Entered: 10/15/2009)
141 REPLY in Support of , 138 AMENDED MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel for Certain Intervening Plaintiffs and to Remand Previously Filed Motion by Intervening Plaintiffs JERAMEY TYLER, ALBERT BLANKEN, JR., DANIEL HAMILTON, JOSHUA BARD and DAVID JONES. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shelton, John) Modified on 10/19/2009, to reflect correct filers and to reflect accurate title of document (JLM). (Entered: 10/16/2009)
142 NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE − This case is hereby assigned for a Telephonic Status Conference for 10/16/2009, at 4:30 PM, New Albany time (EDT), before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 10/16/2009.(JLM) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
143 MARGINAL ENTRTY − 135 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney DENIED at this time. Counsel is ordered to make diligent efforts to have plaintiffs appear in person at the settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 10/16/2009. (LBT) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
144 MARGINAL ENTRY − 138 Motion to Amend/Correct is DENIED at this time. The Court may reconsider after the settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 10/16/2009. (LBT) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
145 MARGINAL ENTRY − 139 Motion for Continuance of Settlement Conference is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 10/16/2009. (LBT) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
146 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr: Attorney Conference Call held on 10/16/2009. The Settlement Conference set on 11/2/2009, will be held as scheduled. (JLM) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
147 Letter from Sanford Walker, Jr. regarding Settlement Conference on 11/2/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Request re 11/2/2009 Conference) (JLM) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
148 Witness List, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3, Exhibit List, filed by Defendants FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, DARRELL MILLS, JOHN DOES 1−3, STEVE KNIGHT, RANDY HUBBARD, JANE DOES 1−3. (Lowe, R.) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
149 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr. Settlement Conference held on 11/2/2009. The parties entered into settlement negotiations. Plaintiffs Paula Denton, Steve Gary, Brent Houser, Roger Thompson, Pamela Walker, William Densford, Melvin Knowland, Thomas Roy and Justin Vaughn have reached agreements in principle to resolve this matter. On or before 12/2/09 plaintiffs' counsel is to notify defendants' counsel of whether other plaintiffs have accepted settlement offers, or if not, what their counter proposals are to resolve the matter. A Telephonic Status Conference is set for 12/7/2009 at 2:00 PM, New Albany time (EST), before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. The parties should be prepared to discuss any amendments to the current scheduling order at the time of this conference. (LBT) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
150 NOTICE of Change of Address by Gregory A. Belzley (Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 11/18/2009)

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 25 of 28

11/19/2009 12/31/2009
01/13/2010 01/14/2010 01/27/2010
02/01/2010 02/03/2010
02/08/2010 02/08/2010 02/09/2010 02/12/2010 03/03/2010
03/10/2010

151 NOTICE of Change of Address (Amended) by Gregory A. Belzley (Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
152 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr. Telephonic Status Conference held on 12/7/2009 and 12/23/2009. The parties were represented by counsel. The parties report settlements with respect to substantially all of the plaintiffs. However, there are certain plaintiffs that may not have settled at this time. Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/15/2010 at 4:00 PM, New Albany time (EST), before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. The court will review the current schedule and trial date at that time. (LBT) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
153 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Albert Blanken, Jr. and Robert Ross, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff ALBERT BLANKEN, JR. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
154 ORDER granting 140 Joint Motion to Dismiss. All claims of Jeramy Tyler are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/14/2010. (JLM) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
155 Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/15/2010. Counsel reported that there are three remaining plaintiffs who have not agreed to resolve this matter. Negotiations continue with respect to the one plaintiff who is in contact with counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel's Motion to Withdraw 153 as counsel for two named plaintiffs is granted. Attorney John R. Shelton; Gregory A. Belzley and Robert Kenyon Meyer withdrawn for plaintiffs Albert Blanken, Jr. and Robert Ross. Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to advise the court within five (5) days if there are any additional addresses available to contact these plaintiffs, who are now proceeding pro se. (JLM) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
156 NOTICE of addresses of Blanken and Ross, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff ALBERT BLANKEN, JR, re 155 Order on Motion to Withdraw as AttorneyStatus Conference. (Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
157 ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS Directed to Plaintiffs Albert Blanken, jr. and Robert Ross. Albert Blanken, Jr. and Robert Ross are directed to file with the court within 15 days of the date of this entry a notice of their intentions with respect to this matter. See order for particulars. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 2/3/2010.(LBT) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
158 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Kenyon Meyer on behalf of Intervenor Plaintiff ALBERT BLANKEN, JR. (Meyer, Robert) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
159 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 157 Order sent to ROBERT ROSS, c/o Laura Ross, 14 High Park Drive, New Albany, IN 47150. (LBT) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
160 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 157 Order sent to ROBERT ROSS at 2705 Payton Road SE, Elizabeth, IN 47117. (JLM) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
161 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 157 Order sent to ALBERT BLANKEN, JR. (JLM) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
162 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, filed by Defendants JANE DOES 1−3, JOHN DOES 1−3, FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, RANDY HUBBARD, STEVE KNIGHT, DARRELL MILLS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Robert Ross's Response to Defendants' Discovery Requests, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Dismiss Claim of Robert Ross)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
163 ORDER CHANGING SERVICE ADDRESS FOR PLAINTIFF ROBERT ROSS AND DIRECTING FURTHER SERVICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIM OF ROBERT ROSS. The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute the service address for plaintiff Robert Ross with the following two addresses: 1810 Graybrook Lane, Apt. 109, New Albany, IN 47150 and 2307 West Madison Street, Louisville, KY 40202. Counsel for defendants is ordered to re−serve the Motion to Dismiss Claim of Robert Ross upon Mr. Ross at these new addresses within 10 days of the date of this order. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 26 of 28

03/29/2010 04/02/2010 04/22/2010
04/26/2010 04/27/2010
05/04/2010 05/20/2010 05/20/2010 05/27/2010 05/27/2010

William G. Hussmann, Jr on 3/10/2010.(LBT) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
164 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 163 Order sent to ROBERT ROSS at 2307 West Madison Street, Louisville, KY 40202. (LBT) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
165 ORDER granting 162 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claim of Robert Ross. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 4/2/2010. (JLM) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
166 Joint MOTION for Continuance of Pre−trial Conference and Trial Date, filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs DIANA ARNOLD, JOSHUA BARD, KILE BEAVIN, ALBERT BLANKEN, JR, JERRY BROWDER, DOUGLAS BURRIS, MICHAEL CAMPBELL, RONALD COLLINS, KENNETH CORLEY, ANTON COUSINS, NEAL CRONE, KELLY CROSBY, WILLIAM DENSFORD, PAULA DENTON, ERIC FARNSLEY, STEVE GARY, ROBBY GRIFFIN, THOMAS GUNTER, DIAZ GUYTON, DANIEL HAMILTON, JAMES HILL, MARVIN HOOD, JAMES HOWELL, JASON JOHNSON, DAVID JONES, TRAVIS JONES, JOHNNY JULIOT, GARRY KELLY, MELVIN KNOWLAND, JOSHUA LEE, RODNEY LEE, JOSEPH LEWIS, GERALD MACRANDER, MAURICE MASON, CRAIG PROCTOR, ROBERT RICKETTS, ROBERT ROSS, THOMAS ROY, THOMAS SMITHSON, BRANDON SPARKS, SEAN STAGER, SONNY STORMS, ROGER THOMPSON, JAMES THURMAN, CHRISTEENA TIMBERLAKE, JERAMEY TYLER, JUSTIN VAUGHN, SANFORD WALKER, JOHN WHITFILL, Defendants JANE DOES 1−3, JOHN DOES 1−3, FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, RANDY HUBBARD, STEVE KNIGHT, DARRELL MILLS, Plaintiffs BRENT HOUSER, PAMELA WALKER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
167 Mail Returned as undeliverable 165 Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claim of Robert Ross sent to ROBERT ROSS at 2307 West Madison Street, Louisville, KY. (JLM) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
168 ORDER granting 166 Motion for Continuance of Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial. Final Pretrial Conference RESET for 6/22/2010 at 2:00 PM in room #216, U.S. Courthouse, Indianapolis, IN, before Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Jury Trial RESET for 7/6/2010 at 9:30 AM in room #216, U.S. Courthouse, Indianapolis, IN, before Judge Sarah Evans Barker. PLEASE NOTE THE INDIANAPOLIS LOCATION OF BOTH THE FINAL PRE−TRIAL CONFERENCE AND THE TRIAL. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 4/27/2010. (LBT) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
169 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff Eric Farnsley, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff ERIC FARNSLEY. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order to Grant Withdrawal of Counsel for Farnsley)(Shelton, John) Modified on 5/5/2010 to remove duplicate wording (JLM). (Entered: 05/04/2010)
170 RESPONSE in Opposition re 169 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff ERIC FARNSLEY. (Attachments: # 1 Grievance Sheets, # 2 Offer of Judgment, # 3 Letter dated 8−28−2009, # 4 Letter dated 10−16−2009, # 5 Letter dated 12−8−2009, # 6 Letter dated 1−13−2010, # 7 Letter dated 3−22−2010)(JLM) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
171 ***CONTINUATION OF DOC #170*** MOTION to Appoint Counsel, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff ERIC FARNSLEY. (JLM) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
172 MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, filed by Defendants JANE DOES 1−3, JOHN DOES 1−3, FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, RANDY HUBBARD, STEVE KNIGHT, DARRELL MILLS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order to Enforce Settlement Agreement)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
173 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 172 MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, filed by Defendants JANE DOES 1−3, JOHN DOES 1−3, FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, RANDY HUBBARD, STEVE KNIGHT, DARRELL MILLS. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Kenyon Meyer, # 2 Exhibit A to Affidavit − e−mail, # 3 Exhibit B to Affidavit − e−mail)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 27 of 28

06/01/2010 06/03/2010 06/03/2010 06/11/2010 06/15/2010
06/22/2010

174 NOTICE OF HEARING ON 169 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF ERIC FARNSLEY − This matter is now set for a TELEPHONIC HEARING on 6/15/2010, at 9:00 a.m. New Albany time (EDT) before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. See Notice for details regarding the Telephonic Hearing and appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 6/1/2010.(JLM) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
175 Letter from Putnamville Correctional Facility regarding telephonic hearing on 6/15/2010, indicating telephone number for ERIC FARNSLEY. (JLM) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
176 AMENDED HEARING NOTICE − The original notice 174 is hereby AMENDED to require plaintiff's counsel to place a call to Mr. Farnsley at (765) 653−8441, Ext. 403, and then add a call to the Magistrate Judge's bridge line at (812) 434−6403. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 6/4/2010.(JLM) Modified on 6/4/2010 to change filed date (JLM). (Entered: 06/04/2010)
177 STIPULATION of Dismissal, filed by Defendants JANE DOES 1−3, JOHN DOES 1−3, FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, RANDY HUBBARD, STEVE KNIGHT, DARRELL MILLS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
178 ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL − Pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal 177 , all claims pertaining only to the plaintiffs KILE BEAVIN, ALBERT BLANKEN, JR, JERRY BROWDER, DOUGLAS BURRIS, MICHAEL CAMPBELL, RONALD COLLINS, KENNETH CORLEY, ANTON COUSINS, NEAL CRONE, KELLY CROSBY, WILLIAM DENSFORD, PAULA DENTON, STEVE GARY, ROBBY GRIFFIN, THOMAS GUNTER, DIAZ GUYTON, DANIEL HAMILTON, JAMES HILL, MARVIN HOOD, BRENT HOUSER, JAMES HOWELL, JASON JOHNSON, DAVID JONES, TRAVIS JONES, JOHNNY JULIOT, GARRY KELLY, MELVIN KNOWLAND, JOSHUA LEE, RODNEY LEE, JOSEPH LEWIS, GERALD MACRANDER, MAURICE MASON, CRAIG PROCTOR, ROBERT RICKETTS, THOMAS ROY, THOMAS SMITHSON, BRANDON SPARKS, SEAN STAGER, SONNY STORMS, ROGER THOMPSON, JAMES THURMAN, CHRISTEENA TIMBERLAKE, JUSTIN VAUGHN, PAMELA WALKER, SANFORD WALKER, JOHN WHITFILL, DIANA ARNOLD and JOSHUA BARD are dismissed with prejudice, the parties to pay their own costs. This does not affect the remaining claim of ERIC FARNSLEY against the Defendants. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/15/2010.(JLM) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
179 Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr. Motion Hearing held on 6/22/2010 re 171 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by ERIC FARNSLEY and 169 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney. 169 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney is GRANTED, conditioned upon counsel providing to Mr. Farnsley his personal file and any discovery materials applicable to the case generally on or before 6/29/2010. Mr. Farnsley will not be entitled to the files of the other plaintiffs at this time and until further discovery orders may issue in this cause. Attorney John R. Shelton; Gregory A. Belzley and Robert Kenyon Meyer withdrawn. 171 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED at this time. Mr. Farnsley is ORDERED to file a response to 172 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement on or before 8/1/2010. He must file the response, in writing, and serve a copy of his response on Mr. Lowe. All discovery in this case is STAYED until the court has ruled on whether there is an enforceable settlement agreement in place. The Mag. Judge will issue a scheduling order upon a ruling on 172 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, if necessary. The final pretrial conference set before District Judge Barker on 6/22/2010 and the jury trial currently set for 7/6/2010 are VACATED at this time and will be reset by the Mag. Judge in his scheduling order, if appropriate. Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/5/2010 at 10:00 AM, New Albany time (EDT), before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. Defendant's counsel is ordered to make advance arrangements with the correctional facility to place a call to Mr. Farnsley at the time of the conference and shall then initiate the conference call at the appropriate time to Mr. Farnsley and then to the Mag. Judge in his chambers in Evansville, Indiana. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this entry to counsel of record and to Eric Farnsley. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr.(LBT) (Entered:

Case: 4:07-cv-00014-SEB-WGH As of: 05/08/2013 09:09 PM EDT 28 of 28

07/28/2010 08/04/2010 08/27/2010
09/27/2010 10/04/2010

06/22/2010)
180 RESPONSE in Opposition re 172 MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff ERIC FARNSLEY. (LBT) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
181 REPLY in Support of Motion re 172 MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, filed by Defendants JANE DOES 1−3, JOHN DOES 1−3, FLOYD COUNTY INDIANA, RANDY HUBBARD, STEVE KNIGHT, DARRELL MILLS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Excerpts of Deposition of Eric Farnsley)(Lowe, R.) (Entered: 08/04/2010)
182 ORDER granting 172 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Counsel for Defendants should tender a check in the appropriate amount, a release, and stipulation of dismissal to Mr. Farnsley within 7 days of the date of this Order. Mr. Farnsley is directed to sign and return the stipulation of dismissal and release within 7 days thereafter, if he chooses to accept the Court's ruling and the settlement payment. In any event, a final judgment shall enter dismissing his case based upon the settlement reached on or about September 30, 2010. See order for details. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 8/27/2010. (LBT) Modified on 8/27/2010 to correct a typographical error in docket text (LBT). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
183 CLOSED DISMISSED − Consistent with the order of 8/27/2010, and all prior settlements, Final Judgment is hereby entered as to all claims. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/27/2010.(LBT) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
184 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 183 Final Judgment sent to ERIC FARNSLEY. (LBT) (Entered: 10/04/2010)

Case #: 4:07−cv−00014−SEB−WGH