•'.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

{" " " ,'\ "

r: '7 1

, •I

"

..... I

ROGER CANUPP, JACOB MYERS,

)

LAWRENCE MCGEE, in need of a next )

friend, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN )

JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN,

)

DANIEL FABIAN, and BRUCE KRAMER,)

individually, and on behalf of a Class of all )

persons similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

vs.

)

)

LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

)

CORPORATION and JERRY REGIER, in )

his official capacity as Secretary of the

)

Department of Children and Families,

)

)

Defendants

)

--------------------------~)

JOHN E. STEELE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DOUGLAS N. FRAZIER
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CASE NO.
2: C)Y -c1....- 2<00 -FtM-29DNF

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs, ROGER CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT

DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN, DANIEL FABIAN, and BRUCE

KRAMER, individually, and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated, all of whom are

involuntarily confined to the care and custody of the State of Florida, Department of Children and

Families (DCF) and confined at the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC), pursuant to §§

394.910-394.931, Fla. Stat. (2003) (The Sexually Violent Predator Act or The Act), and all ofwhom

allege they have been the victims of constitutionally and statutorily inadequate treatment and

conditions, seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce their right to constitutionally and

\

'.
statutorily adequate treatment and conditions, as secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. (the Americans with Disabilities Act). 2. This complaint arises from Defendants' failure to provide constitutionally adequate sex offender treatment programs, mental health services, and care to Plaintiffs during their confinement at FCCC, a civil confinement facility located on the grounds ofa former Department ofCorrections facility in Arcadia, Florida. FCCC is the only facility in Florida designated to house and provide treatment services for men confined under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. The residents are involuntarily confined to the facility for long-term care, control, and treatment after they have completed their criminal sentences. 3. The Defendants have also violated Plaintiffs' rights under 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.) the Americans with Disabilities Act, by effectively excluding Plaintiffs from participation in their treatment program as a result of their disabilities. 4. The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalfof a class ofsimilarly situated individuals, seek a declaratoryjudgment that the policies and practices ofthe Defendants concerning the constitutionally and statutorily inadequate treatment violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and corresponding injunctive reliefrequiring the Defendants to cease their unlawful conduct and to implement measures to prevent its continuation.
JURISDICTION 5. The jurisdiction ofthis court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this action arises under the Constitution and laws ofthe United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) as this action seeks redress for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2

'.

6. This Court has jurisdiction over claims seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

7. The Plaintiffs also seek attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which

authorizes the award of attorneys' fees and costs to prevailing Plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205, which authorizes the award of attorneys'

fees, including litigation expenses and costs.

VENUE

8. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial number of

the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in the District. Venue is also

proper within this Division pursuant to Local Ru1e 1.02(b)(5) for the same reasons.

PARTIES

9. PlaintiffRoger Canupp was convicted ofa sexual offense in March 1999. He was sentenced

to two years, 23 days ofimprisonment. He completed his sentence in February 2000. Mr. Canupp

has been involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion of his prison

sentence in February 2000.

10. PlaintiffJacob Myers was convicted of a sexual offense in October 1997. He was sentenced

to three years, eight months imprisonment. He completed his sentence in April 2001. Mr. Myers has

been involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion ofhis prison sentence

in April 2001.

11.

Plaintiff Lawrence McGee was convicted of a sexual offense in April 1994. He was

sentenced to seven years imprisonment. He completed his sentence in January 2000. Mr. McGee

has been confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion of his prison sentence in

3

January 2000. Although legally competent, Mr. McGee is defacto incompetent for the purposes of

this complex litigation and is in need of a next friend.

12.

Plaintiff Hubert Davidson was convicted of a sexual offense in January 1997. He was

sentenced to ten years imprisonment. He completed his sentence in November 2000. Mr. Davidson

has been involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion of his prison

sentence in November 2000.

13.

Plaintiff Tywaun Jackson was convicted ofa sexual offense in February 1996. He was

sentenced to five years, six months imprisonment. He completed his sentence in January 1999. Mr.

Jackson has been confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion ofhis prison sentence

in January 1999.

14. PlaintiffCharles Durden was convicted ofa sexual offense in April 1994. He was sentenced

to 12 years imprisonment. He completed his sentence in January 1999. Mr. Durden has been

involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion ofhis prison sentence in

January 1999.

15. PlaintiffDaniel Fabian was convicted of a sexual offense in May 1995. He was sentenced to

four years, six months imprisonment. He completed his sentence in October 2000. Mr. Fabian has

been involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion ofhis prison sentence

in October 2000.

16. PlaintiffBruce Kramer was convicted ofa sexual offense in August 1994. He was sentenced

to nine years imprisonment. He completed his sentence in September 2000. Mr. Kramer has been

involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion of his prison sentence in

September 2000.

4

17. Defendant, Liberty Behavioral Health Corporation (Liberty), is a for-profit Pennsylvania corporation that contracts to provide mental health and substance abuse treatment through public and private sector programs. Liberty is acting under color of state law under contract with the Department of Children and Families to provide, inter alia, sex offender treatment, mental health services, and on-site medical services to the residents confined at FCCC. All ofLiberty's actions are the result of their customs, policies, and practices. Liberty is sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses. 18. Defendant, Jerry Regier, is the Secretary ofthe Florida Department ofChildren and Families. He is acting under color of state law. As Secretary, he is the highest-ranking official of the Department of Children and Families. He is sued in his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and litigation expenses.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 19. This action is brought by the named Plaintiffs as a class action, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23(b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, for injunctive and declaratory reliefon behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated. 20. The class of Plaintiffs consists of all persons who are or will be confined under the Act and placed in the custody of DCF at FCCC. 21. The Plaintiffclass is so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable. The population at FCCC exceeds 420 individuals and is constantly growing larger as new persons are confined under the Act. 22. Controlling issues of law and fact are common to all members of the Plaintiff class. The predominant issue is whether the treatment program, mental health services, and care provided by the Defendants or those acting under their control or direction comports with the requirements of the
5

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 23. The claims ofthe individual Plaintiffs are typical ofthe claims ofclass members. All claims are based on the same factual and legal theories in that they have all been harmed by the unconstitutional practices alleged in this complaint. 24. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Plaintiffclass. The named Plaintiffs have a strong personal interest in the outcome ofthis action and have no conflicts ofinterest with members ofthe Plaintiffclass. The named Plaintiffs are all current residents of FCCC. 25. The named Plaintiffs are represented by experienced counsel who specialize in class action litigation concerning conditions and practices in institutions. 26. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff class as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole. The Defendants' customs, policies, and practices of failing to provide constitutionally and statutorily adequate sex offender treatment, mental health services, and care necessitates injunctive relief directing Defendants to implement remedial measures.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Overview of Statute
27. Florida statute §§ 394.910-394.931 provides for DCF to involuntarily detain and civilly commit persons judicially determined to be a "sexually violent predator." 28. In order to be confined under the Act, an individual must have a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts ofsexual violence ifnot confined to a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment. Fla. Stat. § 394.912(10).
6

29. The Florida Legislature found that because the prognosis for rehabilitating sex offenders in a prison setting is poor, the treatment needs of the population are long-term, and the treatment modalities for this population are very different from the traditional treatment modalities for people committed under the Baker Act, a specialized treatment facility and treatment program was necessary. Fla. Stat. § 394.910. 30. All residents confined under the Sexually Violent Predator Act must have been convicted ofa sexually violent offense. Fla. Stat. § 394.912 (lO)(a). 31. All residents confined under the Sexually Violent Predator Act must have a mental abnormality. Fla. Stat. § 394.912 (lO)(b). Mental abnormality is defined as a mental condition affecting a person's emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses. Fla. Stat. § 394.912 (5). 32. If a court or jury determines a person is a sexually violent predator, the person shall be committed to the custody ofDCF for control, care, and treatment until such time as the person's mental abnormality or personality disorder has so changed that it is safe for the person to be at large. Fla. Stat. § 394.917(2). 33. The Act mandates that the long-term control, care, and treatment of residents committed under the Act must conform to constitutional requirements. Fla. Stat. § 394.922. 34. DCF is responsible for all costs relating to the treatment of persons committed to DCF's custody under the Act. Fla. Stat. § 349.929. 35. A person committed under the statute shall have an examination of their mental condition once every year. Fla. Stat. §394.918(l). A court holds a limited hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the person's condition has so changed that it is safe for the person to
7

be at large. Ifthe court determines there is probable cause to believe it is safe to release the person, the court shall set a trial on the issue. Fla. Stat. §394.918(3).
Overview of Florida Administrative Code 36. The Act requires DCF to adopt rules for the components of the basic treatment plan for all committed persons under this part. Fla. Stat. § 394.930(5). 37. DCF has adopted only one rule relevant to the treatment program. That rul e includes: (1) the treatment program shall be a cognitive-behavioral therapy and relapse prevention program tailored to meet the needs of each committed individual; (2) the treatment program shall consist of hierarchically advancing stages that afford group and, where indicated, individual counseling toward sex offender-specific as well as substance abuse and general psychological issues; (3) the program must offer vocational therapy and therapeutic recreational activities; and (4) where medically and therapeutically appropriate, the treatment program may offer, on a voluntary basis, pharmacological treatment designed to reduce deviant sexual impulses. F.A.C.65E-25.005.
Overview of DCF's contract with Liberty 38. The Act authorizes DCF to contract with a private entity for operation offacilities to comply with the requirements ofthe Act. Fla. Stat. § 394.9151. 39. DCF entered into its first contract with Liberty for FCCC in July 2001. The purpose of the contract is for Liberty to provide secure residential treatment services to persons confined pursuant to The Sexually Violent Predator Act. The most recent contract between DCF and Liberty began on January 1, 2003 and ends June 30, 2005. 40. The contract provides that DCF is responsible for the oversight and monitoring of private providers such as Liberty. The contract specifies that DCF may monitor or conduct oversight reviews to evaluate compliance with contract, management, and programmatic requirements.
8

41. The contract specifies Liberty will provide a professional staff that is highly qualified and experienced in the treatment of sexual offenders; design and deliver an effective and responsible treatment program that is based on clinically-supported techniques and best practices; integrate activities that continually focus on ensuring successful treatment; and recruit, credential, and hire qualified professionals in a timely manner. 42. In the contract, DCF agreed to make payment for services rendered for a dollar amount not to exceed $45, 237, 055.00 for the three years of the contract. 43. The contract specifies that the treatment program shall consist of a sex-offender specific treatment component and a non-sex-offender treatment component addressing general psychological issues, substance abuse, and the like. 44. Services shall be provided at the FCCC in Arcadia, Florida. Liberty may not change locations.
Overview of Liberty's "Treatment" Program 45. According to the FCCC treatment handbook drafted by the FCCC administration, the treatment program has four stages: (l) reception and custody; (2) introduction to treatment assessment and evaluation; (3) intermediate treatment - phases one through four; and (4) community treatment. This is the one and only treatment program available to residents at the facility. There are no adaptations or alternatives to this treatment program. 46. According to the treatment handbook, Stage I consists of an orientation to the program, including a review ofthe resident handbook, review ofrules and regulations, review ofthe treatment program stages, expectations of treatment, and informed consent. To complete Stage I, residents must acknowledge committing past sexual offenses, behave appropriately inside and outside of
9

group, demonstrate adjustment to social environment, participate in assessment procedures, and complete a letter of intent and consent to treatment form. 47. According to the treatment handbook, Stage II consists of an evaluation of the resident, including medical, psychological, psychiatric, educational, vocational, chemical abuse, social work and recreation. Residents are introduced to rational self-counseling, a program that challenges irrational self-talk, and they are to develop and present their sexual autobiography. To complete Stage II, residents must complete a battery oftests and interviews, attend the rational self-counseling groups, complete at least five satisfactory rational self-analysis exercises, complete and present a sexual autobiography consistent with official records and documents, behave appropriately in treatment, demonstrate positive adjustment to the social environment, and pass a polygraph test on the responses to their sex offender specific assessment. 48. According to the treatment handbook, Stage III, unlike Stages I and II, consists of four phases. Phase 1 includes a sex offender specific process group, core sex offender group, and some specialty groups (e.g. anger management, leisure education, human sexuality). There are no written guidelines to determine who attends which specialty groups or how many specialty groups a resident is to attend. To complete Phase 1, residents must complete at least 25 satisfactory rational selfanalysis exercises, present a sexual autobiography, complete the groups required by administration, behave appropriately, make a commitment not to re-offend, demonstrate positive adjustment to the social environment, and pass a polygraph test on the information contained in their sexual autobiography. 49. According to the treatment handbook, Phase 2 consists of a sex offender specific process group, core sex offender group, and some specialty groups (e.g. anger management, leisure education, human sexuality). There are no written guidelines to determine who attends what
10

specialty groups. To complete Phase 2, residents must complete all groups required by the administration, develop and present a lay-out (a summary oftheir sexual autobiography), complete a behavior/offense chain for convictions and non-convictions, complete satisfactory rational selfanalysis for convictions and non-convictions, recognize and correct cognitive distortions, identify high-risk factors to sexual offending, behave appropriately in treatment, and demonstrate positive adjustment to social environment. 50. According to the treatment handbook, Phase 3 consists ofa sex offender specific group, core sex offender group, and a specialty group (sexual arousal modification). To complete Phase 3, residents must complete all groups required by the administration, understand the victim's experience, show ability to control deviant sexual urges and interests, identify high-risk factors and show ability to cope, behave appropriately in treatment, and demonstrate positive adjustment to social environment. 51. According to the treatment handbook, Phase 4 consists of a sex offender specific process group, core sex offender group, and some specialty groups (e.g. sexual arousal management and family relationships). To complete Phase 4, residents must complete all required groups, develop a comprehensive and realistic relapse prevention plan, understand the victim's experience, show an ability to control deviant sexual urges and show an ability to cope, behave appropriately in treatment, and demonstrate positive adjustment to social environment. 52. According to the treatment handbook, Stage IV is transition into the community. The treatment handbook states that community transition will "be determined on an individual basis by the courts and to be developed in law," but should include a sex offender specific process group and a specialty group (sexual arousal management). To complete Stage IV, residents must continue to
11

meet all other criteria, demonstrate a positive adjustment to social environment, and demonstrate a motivation to continue treatment after discharge.
Factual Allegations: "Treatment" Program 53. Most phases of the treatment program are heavily weighted toward reading and writing assignments that are required to be completed prior to advancing to the next phase of the program. Individuals who cannot read or write or have limited abilities to do so are effectively excluded from participating in treatment activities and the treatment program. 54. The amount of time residents spend in group or treatment activities varies based upon the number of groups available. The number of groups available varies on a weekly basis based upon the availability oftreatment staff. Defendants are not providing an adequate staff for the treatment program. Liberty has acknowledged the need for at least an additional 21 clinical staff without whom FCCC will be unable to effectively serve its residents participating in treatment. 55. Residents confined to FCCC are not evaluated as to their individual conditions that might present any barriers to their full participation in any of the programs or to determine whether accommodations are required to prevent residents from being excluded from participating in treatment. 56. The services provided are not individualized to address residents' individual needs. 57. No consideration is given to the use ofpharmaceuticals for control ofsexual behaviors, even if the individual requests such medication. 58. Although there are over 420 residents currently confined to the facility, DCF has limited the number of participants in treatment to 150 residents.
12

FACTUAL CLAIMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS Plaintiff Roger Canupp
59. As set forth in ~ 9, Mr. Canupp was convicted of a sexual offense in March 1999. He was sentenced to two years, 23 days ofimprisonment. He completed his sentence in February 2000. Mr. Canupp has been involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion of his prison sentence in February 2000. 60. Mr. Canupp is not participating in the treatment program. 61. Mr. Canupp has been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, Personality Disorder, and Paranoid Schizophrenia. These mental impairments substantially limit one or more ofMr. Canupp's major life activities. 62. Mr. Canupp has a history of major behavioral incidents that are the result of his mental illnesses. These include placing his clothes in his toilet and flooding his room numerous times, throwing feces at other residents, hearing voices, and walking around his dorm naked. Although FCCC is aware ofthese incidents, the facility is not providing appropriate mental health treatment. 63. Mr. Canupp has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy of any pharmaceutical treatments, nor has he been offered any pharmaceuticals that may decrease sexual impulses as a part of treatment if appropriate. 64. Mr. Canupp does not have a plan to address his severe mental health needs or to address his sex offender treatment needs, including self-improvement or therapeutic engagement issues related to the sex offender treatment program. Until and unless Mr. Canupp has a plan addressing these needs, he will not be able to participate in the treatment program. 65. Defendants' only efforts to address Mr. Canupp's mental illnesses are to have him meet with a psychiatrist approximately once every two months for a short period oftime. This frequency and
13

duration does not meet Mr. Canupp's severe mental health needs. The substance of the sessions is also insufficient to meet Mr. Canupp's severe mental health needs. 66. In spite of their knowledge of Mr. Canupp's disabilities, Defendants have excluded Mr. Canupp from participation in the treatment program by not accommodating his disabilities. His inability to interact with group members makes his participation in group activities and participation in treatment activities impossible. 67. The failure to provide adequate psychiatric services, including evaluating and offering pharmaceuticals that reduce sexual impulses and the failure to provide a plan addressing mental health and treatment needs is unreasonable and a substantial departure from acceptable professional standards. 68. FCCC has failed to provide Mr. Canupp with individualized treatment to address his mental illnesses. 69. Mr. Canupp is being harmed by his extended and continued confinement in the facility as the result of the Defendants' failure to provide adequate psychiatric services and as the result of Defendants' failure to provide a plan addressing mental health and sexual offender treatment needs. Mr. Canupp continues to experience the effects of his untreated mental illness, which are exacerbated by the conditions at FCCC.
Plaintiff Jacob Myers 70. As set forth in ~ 10, Mr. Myers was convicted of a sexual offense in October 1997. He was sentenced to three years, eight months imprisonment. He completed his sentence in April 2001. Mr. Myers has been involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion of his prison sentence in April 2001. 71. Mr. Myers is not participating in the treatment program.
14

72. Mr. Myers has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and Schizophrenia. Mr. Myers has a history ofmental health problems at the facility, as well as during his time in the custody of the Department of Corrections and while residing in the community. These mental impairments substantially limit one or more ofMr. Myers' major life activities. 73. Numerous incident reports evidence Mr. Myers' suicide attempts, threats of self-injurious behavior, and auditory hallucinations. 74. Mr. Myers has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy ofany pharmaceutical treatments, nor has he been offered any pharmaceuticals that may decrease sexual impulses as a part oftreatment if appropriate. 75. Mr. Myers does not have a plan to address his severe mental health needs or to address his sexual offender treatment needs, including self-improvement or therapeutic engagement issues related to the sex offender treatment program. Until and unless Mr. Myers receives a plan addressing these issues, he will not be able to participate in the treatment program. 76. Defendants' only efforts to address Mr. Myers' mental illnesses are to have him meet with a psychiatrist approximately once every one to two months for a short period oftime. This frequency and duration does not meet Mr. Myers' severe mental health needs. The substance ofthe sessions is also insufficient to meet Mr. Myers' severe mental health needs. 77. In spite oftheir knowledge ofMr. Myers' disabilities, Defendants have excluded Mr. Myers from participation in the treatment program by not accommodating his disabilities. His inability to interact with group members makes his participation in group activities and participation in treatment activities impossible. 78. The failure to provide adequate psychiatric services, including evaluating and offering pharmaceuticals that reduce sexual impulses and the failure to provide a plan addressing mental
15

health and treatment needs is unreasonable and a substantial departure from acceptable professional standards. 79. FCCC has failed to provide Mr. Myers with individualized treatment to address his mental illnesses. 80. Mr. Myers is being harmed by his extended and continued confinement in the facility as a result of Defendants, failure to provide adequate psychiatric services and as a result ofDefendants, failure to provide a plan addressing mental health and treatment needs. His untreated mental illnesses are exacerbated by the conditions at FCCC.
Plaintiff Lawrence McGee 81. As set forth in ~ 11, Mr. McGee was convicted of a sexual offense in April 1994. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. He completed his sentence in January 2000. Mr. McGee has been involuntarily confined at FCCC since the completion of his prison sentence in January 2000. Mr. McGee consented to treatment in June 2001. Although legally competent, Mr. McGee is de facto incompetent for the purposes ofthis complex litigation and is in need of a next friend. 82. Mr. McGee has never moved past Stage 2 oftreatment since consenting to treatment in June 2001. 83. Mr. McGee has mild to moderate mental retardation and has been diagnosed with a reading disorder, disorder of written expression, schizophrenia, and dementia. These mental impairments substantially limit one or more of Mr. McGee's major life activities. 84. In spite of their knowledge of Mr. McGee's disabilities, Defendants have effectively excluded Mr. McGee from participating in the treatment program by not accommodating his disabilities. His inability to interact with group members and his difficulty with reading and writing make his participation in group activities and participation in treatment activities impossible.
16

85. Mr. McGee has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of prior criminal charges, was housed in Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee from 1973-1992, and had at least five admissions to a Crisis Stabilization Unit, an intensive emergency inpatient psychiatric unit, while in the custody of the Department of Corrections. 86. Mr. McGee is not receiving literacy training. 87. Mr. McGee has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy of any pharmaceutical treatments, nor has he been offered any pharmaceuticals that may decrease sexual impulses as an alternative to or as a part of treatment if appropriate. 88. The failure to provide adequate psychiatric services, including the use of pharmaceuticals designed to decrease sexual impulses and the failure to provide a treatment program that will allow participants who are learning disabled, mentally retarded, and mentally ill treatment to participate in treatment is unreasonable and a substantial departure from acceptable professional standards. 89. Mr. McGee is being harmed by his extended and continued confinement in the facility as a result ofthe Defendants' failure to provide adequate psychiatric services, including pharmaceuticals designed to decrease sexual impulses, and the Defendants' failure to accommodate his disabilities that effectively exclude his participation in sex offender treatment.
Plaintiff Hubert Davidson
90. As set forth in 1f 12, Mr. Davidson was convicted of a sexual offense in January 1997. He
was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. He completed his sentence in November 2000. Mr. Davidson has been involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion ofhis prison sentence in November 2000. Mr. Davidson consented to treatment in February 2001. 91. Mr. Davidson has not moved past Stage 2 in treatment since consenting to treatment in February 2001.
17

92. Mr. Davidson has been diagnosed with Borderline Intellectual Functioning and a Learning Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. These mental impainnents substantially limit one or more ofMr. Davidson's major life activities. 93. In spite of their knowledge of Mr. Davidson's disabilities, Defendants have effectively excluded Mr. Davidson from participation in the treatment program by not accommodating his disabilities so that he is able to participate in the treatment program. His inability to interact with group members and his difficulty with reading and writing make his participation in group activities and participation in treatment activities impossible. 94. Mr. Davidson has not been evaluated to detennine the efficacy of any phannaceutical treatments, nor has he been offered any phannaceuticals that may decrease sexual impulses as an alternative to or as a part of treatment if appropriate. 95. The failure to provide adequate psychiatric services, including the use ofphannaceuticals designed to decrease sexual impulses, and the failure to provide a treatment program that will allow participants with learning disabilities or mental retardation to participate in treatment is unreasonable and a substantial departure from acceptable professional standards. 96. FCCC has failed to provide Mr. Davidson with individualized treatment as will give him a reasonable opportunity to improve his mental condition. 97. Mr. Davidson is being hanned by his extended and continued confinement in the facility as a result of the Defendants' failure to provide adequate psychiatric services, including the use of phannaceuticals designed to decrease sexual impulses and psychotropic medications, and the Defendants' failure to accommodate his disabilities that effectively exclude him from participating in sex offender treatment.
18

Plaintiff Tywaun Jackson 98. As set forth in ~ 13, Mr. Jackson was convicted ofa sexual offense in February 1996. He was sentenced to five years, six months imprisonment. He completed his sentence in January 1999. Mr. Jackson has been involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion of his prison sentence in January 1999. Mr. Jackson consented to treatment in February 2000. 99. Mr. Jackson completed Stage 2 of treatment in September 2000. Mr. Jackson completed Stage 3, Phase 1 of treatment in February 2002. Mr. Jackson has been in Stage 3, Phase 2 of the treatment program since February 2002. 100. Mr. Jackson has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy of any pharmaceutical treatments, nor has he been offered any pharmaceuticals that may decrease sexual impulses as a part of treatment if appropriate. 101. Mr. Jackson requested to receive anti-androgen medications as a part of his treatment in February 2000. This request was rejected by the facility. The facility rejected this request not because oftreatment-related reasons, but because the facility does not offer pharmaceuticals as a part of the treatment program. 102. The amount oftime Mr. Jackson spends in treatment group activities depends on the number of specialty groups in which he is placed as well as staff availability to lead those groups. There have been instances when his time in treatment groups is as low as two hours per week because of staff unavailability. 103. Mr. Jackson has consented to participate in any and all mental health treatment programs provided by the Defendants. Mr. Jackson has never refused treatment or to participate in any tests administered by the Defendants. Mr. Jackson has fully cooperated with facility staffand successfully
19

completed all of the treatment stages available to him. Mr. Jackson is ready to move on from the current treatment program to the final stages, including stage IV: discharge readiness. 104. Mr. Jackson is unable to complete the treatment program because FCCC does not have a discharge readiness program currently in place. 105. Although FCCC recognizes the importance offamily involvement in discharge readiness, Mr. Jackson has not been offered to incorporate his family into his treatment and rehabilitation efforts. 106. FCCC's treatment professionals have stated that Mr. Jackson must complete all stages and phases ofits treatment program, including stage N community treatment, in order for his disorder to sufficiently "change" so that it will be safe in order for him to be at large. However, FCCC has no community treatment program for Mr. Jackson to complete. Mr. Jackson is in the most advanced stage currently in place at the facility. The facility does not have in place, nor does it have any plans to implement, the community transition stage of treatment. 107. The failure to evaluate for the efficacy of use of pharmaceuticals in treatment, to offer pharmaceuticals as a part of treatment where appropriate, to provide adequate staffing for the treatment program, and to have all phases and stages of the treatment program, including a community release program, in place and functioning is unreasonable and a substantial departure from acceptable professional standards. 108. FCCC has failed to provide Mr. Jackson with individualized treatment as will give him a reasonable opportunity to improve his mental condition. 109. Mr. Jackson is being harmed by his extended and continued confinement in the facility as a result ofthe Defendants' failure to evaluate for the efficacy ofuse ofpharmaceuticals in treatment, to offer pharmaceuticals as a part of treatment where appropriate, to provide adequate staffing for the
20

treatment program, and have all of the phases of the treatment program, including community transition, developed and in place.
Plaintiff Charles Durden 110. As indicated in ~ 14 , Mr. Durden was convicted of a sexual offense in April 1994. He was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. He completed his sentence in January 1999. Mr. Durden has been involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion ofhis prison sentence in January 1999. Mr. Durden consented to treatment in September 1999. 111. Mr. Durden completed Stage 2 in September 2000. Mr. Durden completed Stage 3, Phase 1 in February 2002. Mr. Durden is currently in Stage 3, Phase 2 ofthe treatment program. 112. Mr. Durden has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy of any pharmaceutical treatments, nor has he been offered any pharmaceuticals that may decrease sexual impulses as a part oftreatment if appropriate. 113. The amount oftime Mr. Durden spends in treatment group activities depends on the number of specialty groups in which he is placed as well as staff availability to lead those groups. There have been instances when his time in treatment groups is as low as two hours per week because of staff unavailability. 114. Mr. Durden has consented to participate in any and all mental health treatment programs provided by the Defendants. Mr. Durden has never refused treatment or to participate in any tests administered by the Defendants. Mr. Durden has fully cooperated with facility staffand successfully completed all of the treatment stages available to him. Mr. Durden is ready to move on from the current treatment program to stage N: discharge readiness. 115. Mr. Durden is unable to complete the treatment program because FCCC does not have a discharge readiness program currently in place.
21

116. Although FCCC recognizes the importance offamily involvement in discharge readiness, Mr. Durden has not been offered to incorporate his family into his treatment and rehabilitation efforts. 117. FCCC's treatment professionals have stated that Mr. Durden must complete all stages and phases ofits treatment program, including stage IV community treatment, in order for his disorder to sufficiently "change" so that it will be safe in order for him to be at large. However, FCCC has no community treatment program for Mr. Durden to complete. Mr. Durden is in the most advanced stage of treatment currently in place at the facility. The facility does not have in place, nor does it have any plans to implement, the community transition stage oftreatment. 118. The failure to evaluate for the efficacy of use of pharmaceuticals in treatment, to offer pharmaceuticals as a part of treatment where appropriate, to provide adequate staffing for the treatment program, and to have all phases and stages of the treatment program, including a community release program, in place and functioning is unreasonable and a substantial departure from acceptable professional standards. 119. FCCC has failed to provide Mr. Durden with individualized treatment as will give him a reasonable opportunity to improve his mental condition. 120. Mr. Durden is being harmed by his extended and continued confinement in the facility as a result ofthe Defendants' failure to evaluate for the efficacy ofuse ofpharmaceuticals in treatment, to offer pharmaceuticals as a part oftreatment where appropriate, to provide adequate staffing for the treatment program, and have all of the phases of the treatment program, including community transition, developed and in place.
22

Plaintiff Daniel Fabian 121. As set forth in ~ 15, Mr. Fabian was convicted ofa sexual offense in May 1995. He was sentenced to four years, six months imprisonment. He completed his sentence in October 2000. Mr. Fabian has been involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion of his prison sentence in October 2000. Mr. Fabian consented to treatment in October 2000. 122. Mr. Fabian completed Stage 2 oftreatment in February 2002. Mr. Fabian completed Stage 3, Phase 1 of the treatment program in February 2004. Mr. Fabian is currently in Stage 3, Phase 2 of the program. 123. Mr. Fabian has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy of any pharmaceutical treatments, nor has he been offered any pharmaceuticals that may decrease sexual impulses as a part of treatment if appropriate. 124. The amount oftime Mr. Fabian spends in treatment group activities depends on the number of specialty groups in which he is placed as well as staff availability to lead those groups. There have been instances when his time in treatment groups is as low as two hours per week because of staff unavailability. 125. Mr. Fabian has consented to participate in any and all mental health treatment programs provided by the Defendants. Mr. Fabian has never refused treatment or to participate in any tests administered by the Defendants. Mr. Fabian has fully cooperated with facility staffand successfully completed all of the treatment stages available to him. Mr. Fabian is ready to move on from the current treatment program to stage IV: discharge readiness. 126. Mr. Fabian is unable to complete the treatment program because FCCC does not have a discharge readiness program currently in place.
23

127. Although FCCC recognizes the importance offamily involvement in discharge readiness, Mr. Fabian has not been offered to incorporate his family into his treatment and rehabilitation efforts. 128. The failure to evaluate for the efficacy of use of pharmaceuticals in treatment, to offer pharmaceuticals as a part of treatment where appropriate, to provide adequate staffing for the treatment program, and to have all phases and stages of the treatment program, including a community release program, in place and functioning is unreasonable and a substantial departure from acceptable professional standards. 129. FCCC has failed to provide Mr. Fabian with individualized treatment as will give him a reasonable opportunity to improve his mental condition. 130. Mr. Fabian is being harmed by his extended and continued confinement in the facility as a result ofthe Defendants' failure to evaluate for the efficacy ofuse ofpharmaceuticals in treatment, to offer pharmaceuticals as a part of treatment where appropriate, to provide adequate staffing for the treatment program, and have all of the phases of the treatment program, including community transition, developed and in place.
Plaintiff Bruce Kramer 131. As set forthin~ 16, Mr. Kramer was convictedofa sexual offense in August 1994. Hewas sentenced to nine years of imprisonment. He completed his sentence in September 2000. Mr. Kramer has been involuntarily confined at FCCC pursuant to the Act since the completion of his prison sentence in September 2000.
132. Mr. Kramer has been placed in punitive confinement while at FCCC. Mr. Kramer was not
endangering himself or others when placed in punitive confinement. 133. Mr. Kramer's most recent stay in punitive confinement began in August 2003 and did not end until February 2004.
24

134. Mr. Kramer was placed in punitive confinement for refusing to go back to a housing assignment where he feared for his life. Mr. Kramer was placed in punitive confinement for purely punitive reasons because he did not follow the rules. 135. Mr. Kramer notified the administration on numerous occasions that all he wanted was a different housing assignment. However, the administration consistently said Mr. Kramer would remain in punitive confinement until he accepted their demand that he return to his housing assignment. 136. During his six-and-a-halfmonth stay in punitive confinement, Mr. Kramer was locked in a single-man cell for 22-23 hours per day. Mr. Kramer was forced to wear handcuffs and shackles when leaving the cell for any reason. 137. Mr. Kramer had in his possession only bedding, clothing, a few personal hygiene items, and a Bible. Mr. Kramer was limited to one phone call per day. Mr. Kramer was not permitted to receive certain mail, such as packages, while in confinement. 138. Mr. Kramer did not receive a hearing or a confinement order specifying the duration of his confinement. 139. Current professional standards require that confinement be used in emergency situations as a tool oflast resort, patients receive notice and a hearing prior to seclusion, and seclusion orders be for a limited duration. 140. Mr. Kramer was harmed by being placed in punitive confinement, not receiving a hearing, and not having a confinement order for a limited duration.
25

Constitutional and Statutory Violations 141. Defendants do not have all four ofthe stages ofthe FCCC treatment program design in place and available to all residents. Only parts of the FCCC treatment program have been implemented and are functioning at this time. 142. Defendants do not provide Plaintiffs who are not participating in the sex offender treatment program with a treatment plan addressing the goal of getting them to participate in treatment. 143. Defendants do not have adequate customs, policies, or practices that enable them to identify or assess Plaintiffs for disabilities that impair Plaintiffs' functioning in sex offender treatment and would effectively exclude them from participating in treatment. 144. Defendants do not have specialized sexual offender treatment programs in place to accommodate the needs ofPlaintiffs with developmental disabilities, learning disabilities, or major mental illnesses. Plaintiffs with these disabilities have no meaningful access to sexual offender treatment and are effectively excluded from participating in treatment. 145. Defendants do not offer pharmaceutical treatment modalities, such as anti-androgen or selective seratonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medications, that have been shown effective in the treatment of some sex offenders. 146. Defendants have failed to make adequate provisions for the participation ofresidents' family members in rehabilitation efforts. 147. Defendants have failed to provide an adequate number of properly trained and certified treatment staff and number of hours in treatment each week. 148. Instead of providing treatment and conditions that are related to the purpose of Plaintiffs' confinement, Defendants are using the Act as a means ofwarehousing those in the program. Since the program was initiated over four years ago, not one resident has been permitted to successfully
26

complete the Defendants' treatment program to the point where the Defendants recommend discharge to the courts. 149. Defendants do not provide Plaintiffs with individual service plans detailing the needs, appropriate mental health interventions, and goals related to Plaintiffs' mental illnesses. 150. Defendants do not employ an adequate number ofpsychiatric staffto handle the specialized needs of residents living with severe mental illnesses. 151. Defendants do not have sufficient staff specialized to address the daily needs of residents with major mental illnesses. Plaintiffs continue to experience the effects of their untreated mental illnesses, which are exacerbated by the conditions at FCCC. Additionally, Plaintiffs will never have an opportunity for release from the facility because they cannot participate in treatment until their mental illnesses are addressed. 152. Defendants fail to provide mental health services of adequate frequency, duration, and substance to meet the needs of residents with severe mental illnesses. 153. Defendants do not have sufficient staffspecialized to address the daily needs ofresidents who are developmentally disabled. 154. The aforesaid failure to provide constitutionally and statutorily adequate treatment is a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice or standards and demonstrates that the Defendants did not base their decision on such professional judgment. 155. As a result ofthe lack ofcare and treatment at FCCC, Plaintiffs are being warehoused for an indefinite period of time. 156. Liberty does not have any provisions for written or verbal notice of the reasons for an individual resident being put in punitive confinement. It does not contain provisions for investigation, nor does it give the resident an opportunity to be heard, present a defense, or call
27

witnesses on his behalf. No maximum time period for punitive confinement is provided, and therefore it may be indefinite. The staff members making the decisions on punitive confinement apply inconsistent standards. Residents who are punitively confined are denied access to cleaning supplies and personal items, as well as being denied recreation time outside of the cell and attendance at religious services.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE TREATMENT PROGRAM 157. The actions of the defendants alleged in paragraphs 1 to 156 constitute a failure to provide each plaintifftreatment that will give him a realistic opportunity to meet the statutory requirements for release from confinement, in violation ofhis rights and privileges guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 158. The actions of the defendants alleged in paragraphs 1 to 156 violate plaintiffs' substantive due process rights in the following respect:
a. The failure to provide an adequate treatment staff and number of hours in treatment each week. h. The failure to modify the sex offender treatment program for residents with learning disabilities, developmental disabilities, or severe mental illness. c. The failure to provide pharmacological treatment designed to reduce deviant sexual impulses when appropriate. d. The failure to maintain treatment plans for residents who have not consented to treatment addressing self-improvement and therapeutic engagement issues. e. The failure to incorporate family into the treatment process. f. The continued use of punitive confinement.
28

g. The failure to plan and implement a community transition component to the treatment program.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 159. The actions of the Defendants alleged in paragraphs 1 to 156 constitute a failure to provide each plaintiff appropriate mental health services that will give them an opportunity to participate in treatment, therefore giving them a realistic opportunity to meet the statutory requirements for release from confinement, in violation ofthe rights and privileges guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 160. The actions of the Defendants alleged in paragraphs 1 to 156 violate plaintiffs' substantive due process rights in the following respects: a. The failure to provide individual service plans for residents with serious mental health problems. b. The failure to employ adequate psychiatric staff. c. The failure to employ and train adequate personnel to staff the dorm in which the residents with severe mentally illnesses reside. d. The failure to provide mental health services of adequate frequency, duration, and substance to meet the needs of residents with severe mental illnesses.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 161. The actions of the Defendants alleged in paragraphs 1 to 156 constitute a denial of meaningful access to sex offender treatment for Plaintiffs with disabilities. 162. Plaintiffs Canupp, Myers, McGee, and Davidson are qualified persons with disabilities.
29

163. Plaintiffs Canupp, Myers, McGee, and Davidson have been denied participation in, or the benefits of, services, programs, or activities of FCCC because of their disabilities. 164. Defendants could make modifications to the treatment program to accommodate Plaintiffs with disabilities without fundamentally altering the program.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION DUE PROCESS VIOLATION: USE OF PUNITIVE CONFINEMENT 165. The actions of the Defendants alleged in paragraphs 1 to 156 constitute the use ofpunitive confinement in a treatment facility in violation ofthe procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
30

CLAIM FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court:
A. Certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. B. Issue a declaratory judgment that the conduct, conditions and treatment described in this complaint violate the Plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights in the manner identified in this complaint. C. Issue a pennanent injunction against Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and upon all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice ofthe injunction requiring them to submit and implement a plan correcting the constitutional and statutory deficiencies alleged in this complaint. D. Issue an award for plaintiffs' costs, litigation expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and 42 U.S.C. §1220S. E. Such additional relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
31

Respectfully submitted,
Kristen M. Cooley, Esq. Florida Bar No. 649635
Christopher M. Jones, Esq. Florida Bar No. 994642
Cassandra J. Capobianco, Esq. Florida Bar No. 614734
Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc. IOIO-B NW 8th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 352-375-2494 352-271-4366 (FAX)
and
Peter P. Sleasman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 367931
Alice K. Nelson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 211771
Southern Legal Counsel, Inc. 1229 NW 12th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 352-271-8890 352-271-8347 (FAX)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By: Kiisten M. Cooley, Esq. Florida Bar No. 649635
By: Peter P. Sleasman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 367931 Trial Counsel
32

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

ROGER CANUPP, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-29DNF

LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CORP., et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________/

ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT JERRY REGIER

Defendant, Jerry Regier, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Florida Department of

Children and Families by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits his Answer and asserts

his Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for declaratory and prospective injunctive relief as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This Answer is submitted on behalf of Defendant, Jerry Regier, in his official capacities only.

For purposes of this Answer, the term “Defendant” will be used when the response to an allegation

pertains to Jerry Regier in his official capacity as Secretary of the Florida Department of Children

and Families; “Liberty” will be used when referring to Liberty Behavioral Healthcare, Inc. The

responses set forth in paragraphs 1 through 165 herein, correspond to the allegations in paragraphs

1 through 165 of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

1

ANSWER 1. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph one 2. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph two. 3. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph three. 4. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph four. 5. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph five. 6. Defendant admits that this Court has jurisdiction in this case. Defendants deny all other allegations of paragraph six. 7. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph seven. Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 and 12205 speak for themselves. 8. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph eight. 9. Defendant admits the allegations of the first three sentences of paragraph nine, but denies the fourth sentence of paragraph nine. 10. Defendant admits the allegations of the first three sentences of paragraph ten, but denies the fourth sentence of paragraph ten. 11. Defendant admits the allegations of the first three sentences of paragraph eleven, but denies the fourth and fifth sentences of paragraph eleven. 12. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph twelve. 13. Defendant admits allegations of the first three sentences of paragraph thirteen, but denies the fourth sentence of paragraph thirteen. 14. Defendant admits the allegations of the first three sentences of paragraph fourteen, but denies the fourth sentence of paragraph fourteen.
2

15. Defendant admits the allegations of the first three sentences of paragraph fifteen, but denies the fourth sentence of paragraph fifteen.
16. Defendant admits the allegations of the first three sentences of paragraph sixteen, but denies the fourth sentence of paragraph sixteen.
17. Defendant admits that Liberty Behavioral Health Corporation is a for-profit Pennsylvania corporation and otherwise denies the allegations of paragraph seventeen.
18. Defendant admits the allegations of the first, third and fourth sentences of paragraph eighteen and denies the allegations of the second sentence of paragraph eighteen.
19. Defendants admits the allegations of paragraph nineteen are plead in the Complaint. 20. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph twenty. 21. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph twenty-one, but admits that the population at FCCC exceeds 420 individuals. 22. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph twenty-two. 23. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph twenty-three. 24. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph twenty-four. 25. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph twenty-five. 26. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph twenty-six. 27. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph twenty-seven and states that the allegations are of law and not fact and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself. 28. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph twenty-eight and states that the allegations are of law and not fact and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
3

29. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph twenty-nine and states that the allegations are of law and not fact and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
30. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph thirty and states that the allegations are of law and not fact and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
31. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph thirty-one and states that the allegations are of law and not fact and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
32. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph thirty-two and states that the allegations are of law and not fact and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
33. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph thirty-three and states that the allegations are of law and not fact and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
34. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph thirty-four and states that the allegations are of law and not fact and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
35. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph thirty-five and states that the allegations are of law and not fact and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
36. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph thirty-six and states that the allegations are of law and not fact, and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
37. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph thirty-seven and states that the allegations are of law and not fact, and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
38. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph thirty-eight and states that the allegations are of law and not fact, and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
39. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph thirty-nine and states that the allegations are of law and not fact, and the referenced Florida Statute speaks for itself.
4

40. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph forty and states that the subject contract is the best evidence of its terms and therefore speaks for itself.
41. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph forty-one and states that the subject contract is the best evidence of its terms and therefore speaks for itself.
42 Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph forty-two and states that the subject contract is the best evidence of its terms and therefore speaks for itself.
43. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph forty-three and states that the subject contract is the best evidence of its terms and therefore speaks for itself.
44. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph forty-four and states that the subject contract is the best evidence of its terms and therefore speaks for itself.
45. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph forty-five. 46. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph forty-six. 47. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph forty-seven. 48. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph forty-eight. 49. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph forty-nine. 50. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph fifty. 51. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph fifty-one 52. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph fifty-two 53. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph fifty-three. 54. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph fifty-four. 55. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph fifty-five. 56. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph fifty-six.
5

57. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph fifty-seven. 58. Defendants admits that there are over 420 residents currently confined at FCCC, but denies the remainder of the allegations of paragraph fifty-eight. 59. Defendant admits the allegations of the first three sentences of paragraph fifty-nine, but denies the fourth sentence of paragraph fifty-nine. 60. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph sixty. 61. Defendant admits the allegations of the first sentence of paragraph sixty-one that Mr. Canupp has been diagnosed in the past with Bipolar Disorder, Personality Disorder, and Paranoid Schizophrenia, but denies the allegations of the second sentence of paragraph sixty-one. 62. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph sixty-two. 63. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph sixty-three pertaining to allegation that Mr. Canupp has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy of any pharmaceutical treatments, but denies the remainder of the allegations of paragraph sixty-three because the prescribing of pharmaceuticals that may decrease Mr. Canupp’s sexual impulses are not appropriate. 64. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph sixty-four. 65. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph sixty-five. 66. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph sixty-six. 67. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph sixty-seven and states that the allegation is a legal conclusion. 68. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph sixty-eight. 69. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph sixty-nine. 70. Defendant admits the allegations of the first two sentences of paragraph seventy, but
6

denies the allegations of the third sentence of paragraph seventy. 71. Defendants admits the allegations of paragraph seventy-one, but states that Mr. Myers
refused to participate in the treatment program. 72. Defendant admits the allegations of the first sentence of paragraph seventy-two that
Mr. Myers has been diagnosed in the past with Borderline Personality Disorder, and Schizophrenia, is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the sentence of paragraph seventy-two, and denies the allegations of the second sentence of paragraph seventy-two.
73. Defendants admit that there are numerous incident reports pertaining to Mr. Myers purported suicide attempts and self harm, but deny the reminder of the allegations of paragraph seventy-three.
74. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph seventy-four pertaining to allegation that Mr. Myers has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy of any pharmaceutical treatments, but denies the remainder of the allegations of paragraph seventy-four because the prescribing of pharmaceuticals that may decrease Mr. Myers’ sexual impulses are not appropriate.
75. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph seventy-five. 76. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph seventy-six. 77. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph seventy-seven. 78. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph seventy-eight, and states that the allegation is a legal conclusion. 79. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph seventy-nine. 80. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph eighty. 81. Defendant admits the allegations of the first, second, third sentences, and denies the
7

allegations of the fourth, fifth and sixth sentences of paragraph eighty-one. Defendant further states that Mr. McGee withdrew his consent to treatment in September 2003.
82. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph eighty-two, and states that Mr. McGee’s withdrawal of his consent to treatment and his refusal to participate in treatment, is the reason he has not progressed past stage 2 of the treatment program.
83. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph eighty-three. 84. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph eighty-four. 85. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph eighty-five. 86. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph eighty-six, and states that Mr. McGee is learning to read and write in a GED program that is in summer recess. 87. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph eighty-seven pertaining to the allegation that Mr. McGee has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy of any pharmaceutical treatments, but denies the remainder of the allegations of paragraph eighty-seven because the prescribing of pharmaceuticals that may decrease Mr. McGee’s sexual impulses are not appropriate. 88. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph eighty-eight, and states that the allegations are a legal conclusion. 89. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph eighty-nine, and states that the allegations are a legal conclusion. 90. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph ninety. 91. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph ninety-one, and states that Mr. Davidson’s failure to progress past stage 2 in the treatment is because he is not meaningfully
8

participating in the treatment program. 92. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph ninety-two to the extent that Mr.
Davidson has been diagnosed in the past with Borderline Intellectual Functioning and a Learning Disorder, and denies the remainder of the allegations in paragraph ninety-two.
93. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph ninety-three. 94. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph ninety-four pertaining to the allegation that Mr. Davidson has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy of any pharmaceutical treatments, but denies the remainder of the allegations of paragraph ninety-four because the prescribing of pharmaceuticals that may decrease Mr. Davidson’s sexual impulses are not appropriate. 95. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph ninety-five, and states that the allegations are a legal conclusion. 96. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph ninety-six. 97. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph ninety-seven. 98. Defendant admits the allegations of the first, second, third and fifth sentences of paragraph ninety-eight and denies the allegations of the fourth sentence of paragraph ninety-eight. 99. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph ninety-nine. 100. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred pertaining to the allegation that Mr. Jackson has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy of any pharmaceutical treatments, but denies the remainder of the allegations of paragraph one hundred because the prescribing of pharmaceuticals that may decrease Mr. Jackson’s sexual impulses are not appropriate. 101. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred one. 102. Defendant admits the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph one hundred two
9

and denies the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph one hundred two. 103. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred three. 104. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred four. 105. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred five 106. Defendant denies the allegation in the first sentence of paragraph one hundred six,
admits the allegations in the second and third sentences of paragraph one hundred six, and, because of its lack of clarity, is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in the fourth sentence of paragraph one hundred six.
107. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred seven. 108. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred eight. 109. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred nine. 110. Defendant admits the allegations of the first, second, third and fifth sentences of paragraph one hundred ten and denies the allegations of the fourth sentence of paragraph one hundred ten. 111. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred eleven. 112. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred twelve. 113. Defendant admits the allegation in the first sentence of paragraph one hundred thirteen and denies the allegation in the second sentence of paragraph one hundred thirteen. 114. Defendant admits the allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph one hundred fourteen as for all treatment offered, and denies the allegations in the third and fourth sentences of paragraph one hundred fourteen. 115. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred fifteen.
10

116. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred sixteen. 117. Defendant denies the allegation in the first and fourth sentences of paragraph one hundred seventeen, and admits the allegations in the second and third sentences of paragraph one hundred seventeen. 118. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred eighteen. 119. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred nineteen. 120. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred twenty. 121. Defendant admits the allegations of the first, second, third and fifth sentences of paragraph one hundred twenty-one and denies the allegations of the fourth sentence of paragraph one hundred twenty-one. 122. Defendant admits the allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph one hundred twenty-two, and denies the allegations in the third sentence of paragraph one hundred twenty-two, because Mr. Fabian was administratively suspended from the treatment program due to his refusal to take the PPG upon request. 123. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred twenty-three pertaining to allegation that Mr. Fabian has not been evaluated to determine the efficacy of any pharmaceutical treatments, but denies the remainder of the allegations of paragraph one hundred twenty-three because the prescribing of pharmaceuticals that may decrease Mr. Fabian’s sexual impulses are not appropriate. 124. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred twenty-four. 125. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred twenty-five. 126. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred twenty-six.
11

127. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred twenty-seven. 128. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred twenty-eight. 129. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred twenty-nine. 130. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred thirty. 131. Defendant admits the allegations of the first, second and third sentences of paragraph one hundred thirty-one, and denies the allegations of the fourth sentence of paragraph one hundred thirty-one. 132. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred thirty-two. 133. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred thirty-three. 134. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred thirty-four. 135. Defendant admits the allegation in the first sentence of paragraph one hundred thirtyfive, and denies the allegation in the second sentence of paragraph one hundred thirty-five. 136. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph one hundred thirty-six, but admits the allegations of the second sentence of paragraph one hundred thirty-six. 137. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph one hundred thirty-seven, but admits the allegations of the second sentence of paragraph one hundred thirty-seven. 138. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred thirty-eight. 139. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred thirty-nine. 140. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred forty. 141. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred forty-one.
12

142. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred forty-two. 143. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred forty-three. 144. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred forty-four. 145. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred forty-five. 146. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred forty-six. 147. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred forty-seven. 148. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred forty-eight. 149. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred forty-nine. 150. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred fifty. 151. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred fifty-one. 152. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred fifty-two. 153. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred fifty-three. 154. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred fifty-four. 155. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred fifty-five. 156. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred fifty-six. 157. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred fifty-seven. 158. Defendant realleges his answers to paragraphs one through one hundred fifty-six and denies the remaining allegations in paragraph one hundred fifty-eight. 159. Defendant realleges his answers to paragraphs one through one hundred fifty-six and denies the remaining allegations in paragraph one hundred fifty-nine. 160. Defendant realleges his answers to paragraphs one through one hundred fifty-six and denies the remaining allegations in paragraph one hundred sixty.
13

161. Defendant realleges his answers to paragraphs one through one hundred fifty-six and denies the remaining allegations in paragraph one hundred sixty-one.
162. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred sixty-two. 163. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred sixty-three. 164. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph one hundred sixty-four. 165. Defendant realleges his answers to paragraphs one through one hundred fifty-six and denies the remaining allegations in paragraph one hundred sixty-five. 166. Defendant denies all allegations not expressly admitted herein and each and every conclusion of law set forth in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
DEFENSES First Defense - Answer 1. As his First Defense Defendant incorporates his Answer as if expressly set forth herein. Second Defense - Failure To State A Claim - Eleventh Amendment 2. As his Second Defense, Defendant states that Plaintiffs have no right to declaratory or injunctive relief as a result of any violations, for which Defendant is responsible, of the Constitution of the United States or applicable federal law or regulation, and the litigation of such claims in the federal courts is barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Third Defense - Failure To State A Claim - Due Process 3. As his Third Defense, Defendant states that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for declaratory or injunctive relief pursuant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
14

Fourth Defense - Failure To State A Claim - Federal Law 4. As his Fourth Defense, Defendant states that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for declaratory or injunctive relief pursuant to a violation of federal law.
Fifth Defense - Failure To State A Claim - Federal Regulation 5. As his Fifth Defense, Defendants states that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for declaratory or injunctive relief pursuant to a violation of federal regulation.
Sixth Defense Separation Of Powers - §20.02(1), Fla. Stat. 6. As his Sixth Defense, Defendants states that any order requiring an expenditure of public funds by the executive branch (DCF) not specifically appropriated for such purposes would constitute an inappropriate incursion by the judicial branch into functions which have been constitutionally delegated to the legislative branch of government. Seventh Defense - Substantial Performance 7. As his Seventh Defense, Defendants states that his obligations to the Plaintiffs and the putative class have been substantially performed in accordance with existing law and the fiscal resources provided to DCF by the Florida Legislature. Only a failure of a state agency to comply substantially will subject it to liability.
Eighth Defense -Younger Abstention 8. As his Eighth Defense, Defendant states that the Plaintiffs' claims for relief are better addressed by the courts having jurisdiction over their civil commitment cases. The Plaintiffs and members of the putative class can have judicial review of their individual cases pursuant to Chapter 394, Florida Statutes (2003). This Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction and adjudicating
15

issues raised by the Plaintiffs and the putative class members due to the fact that the State of Florida has an existing statutory scheme and a system of judicial review to deal with the issues such as those raised in the Complaint.
Ninth Defense - No Causation 9. As his Ninth Defense, Defendant states that with respect to the Plaintiffs and the putative class, there is no causal relationship between the alleged injury and any conduct on the part of the Defendant. Defendant further states that none of the named Plaintiffs has suffered an actual or threatened injury caused by and resulting from the putatively unlawful conduct of the Defendant. Likewise, Plaintiffs failed to causally plead the relationship of those asserted systemic defects to any actual injury to any named Plaintiffs. Therefore, there can be no violation by the Defendants of either: the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.; and the regulations enacted pursuant to this Act; the United States Constitution and, therefore, Title 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Tenth Defense - Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 10. As his Tenth Defense, Defendant states Plaintiffs and the putative class have no right to the relief requested as a result of any violations for which Defendant is responsible with respect to rights guaranteed under the federal constitution, laws or regulations which Plaintiffs have identified. Plaintiffs' relevant entitlements, if any, arise under state law and through the existence and operation of regulations enacted pursuant to state law. Litigation of such claims in the federal courts is barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Eleventh Defense - Not Maintained As A Class Action 11. As his Eleventh Defense, Defendant states that Plaintiffs have alleged only individual claims for relief. Such claims lack the essential elements of claims which may be asserted on a class
16

basis. The claims of the Plaintiffs require individual determination on a case-by-case basis because these individual claims are not typical and are not susceptible to treatment as a class action. If any of the named Plaintiffs are determined to be entitled to relief, relief can only properly be granted on an individualized case-by-case basis.
Twelfth Defense - Injunctive Relief Not Required 12. As his Twelfth Defense, Defendant states, in the alternative, in the event the Court determines that there are any violations of law with respect to any Plaintiff or putative class member, Defendants have been and are currently engaged in ongoing reforms to eliminate any deficiencies and problems as alleged in the Complaint, through the implementation of various plans for improvement of the SVPP and FCCC, and as a consequence of the Defendant’s implementation of the aformentioned plan, injunctive relief would not be appropriate.
Thirteenth Defense - Not Denied Opportunity For Meaningful Hearing 13. As his Thirteenth Defense, Defendant states that as to his acts and omissions as alleged (or not) in the Complaint, that he is not acting under color of state law.
Fourteenth Defense - Third Party Causation 14. As his Fourteenth Defense, Defendant states that the acts of third parties have provided the causation (if any) that underlies any alleged violations of applicable law.
Fifteenth Defense - Standing-Identical Injury 15. As his Fifteenth Defense, Defendant states that even as alleged, all of the Plaintiffs or the putative class members have not/are not suffering the identical injury and thus lack standing as a representative Plaintiff exemplar or member of the putative class.
17

Sixteenth Defense - Standing-Redress by Ruling 16. As his Sixteenth Defense, Defendant states that the alleged injurythat is/was inflicted upon the Plaintiffs is not likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling.
Seventeenth Defense - Standing-No Actual Injury 17. As his Seventeenth Defense, Defendant states that of the Plaintiffs known or believed to be known by Defendant, none of them has suffered an actual or threatened injury caused by and resulting from the putatively illegal conduct of the Defendant.
Eighteenth Defense - Standing 18. As his Eighteenth Defense, Defendant states that the named Plaintiffs and putative class members are not denied due process or a meaningful access to a facially valid adjudicatory procedure in violation of the U.S. Constitution or federal statute or regulation as alleged in the Complaint.
Nineteenth Defense - No Constitutional Violation 19. As his Nineteenth Defense, Defendant states that the relationship of the Plaintiffs and putative class members to the Defendant is insufficient to establish a constitutionally cognizable infringement of Plaintiffs' liberty interests.
Twentieth Defense - Fundamental Alteration in the Program or Activity 20. As his Twentieth Defense, Defendant states that because this is plead as a class action, the relief sought by Plaintiffs would fundamentally alter the nature of the SVPP and the treatment and programs offered at FCCC, by the Defendant. Additionally, Defendant cannot reasonably accommodate Plaintiffs’ individual request for relief.
18

Twenty First Defense - Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Attorneys Fees 21. As his Twenty First Defense, Defendant states that prior to and since the filing of this lawsuit, the Defendant and DCF have voluntarily sought to improve the policies and operation of the SVPP and the operations of FCCC in complete compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and thus, Plaintiffs are not entitled to recovery of attorneys' fees and costs under Title 42 U.S.C. §1988; and Defendant is entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs pursuant Title 42 U.S.C. §1988. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Jerry Regier, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Children and Families requests this Court to enter its judgment for the him and award him reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Respectfully submitted, CHARLES J. CRIST, JR. Attorney General
s/ Chesterfield Smith, Jr. CHESTERFIELD SMITH, JR. Senior Assistant Attorney General Chief, State Programs Litigation Florida Bar No.: 0852820 CECILIA BRADLEY Senior Assistant Attorney General Florida Bar No.: 0363790 JASON VAIL Senior Assistant Attorney General Florida Bar No.: 0298824 Counsel for Defendant Regier
19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed electronically and sent, by United States Mail to: Kristen Cooley Lentz, Esq., Christopher M. Jones, Esq., and Cassandra J. Capobianco, Esq., of Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc., 1010-B NW 8th Avenue, Gainesville, FL 32601, Peter P. Sleasman, Esq., and Alice K. Nelson, Esq., of Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., 1229 NW 12th Avenue, Gainesville, FL 32601, John W. Jolly, Jr. Esq., Jolly & Peterson, P.A., Post Office Box 37400, Tallahassee, FL 32315-7400, and Jennifer R. Haymes, Esq., General Counsel, Florida Civil Commitment Center, 13613 S.E. Highway 70, Arcadia, FL 34266, on this 22nd day of July, 2004.
s/Chesterfield Smith, Jr. Chesterfield Smith, Jr.
20

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

ROGER CANUPP, JACOB MYERS,

)

LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT

)

DAVIDSON, TYWAUN

)

JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN,

)

DANIEL FABIAN, and BRUCE

)

KRAMER, individually, and on behalf ofa )

Class of all persons similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

)

CORPORATION and LUCY HADI, in )

her official capacity as Secretary ofthe )

Department of Children and Families,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-33DNF

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DANIEL FABIAN, BRUCE KRAMER, AND COUNT 4
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(2), the Plaintiffs move the

Court to dismiss PlaintiffDaniel Fabian, Plaintiff Bruce Kramer, and Count 4 ofthe class

action Complaint (procedural due process confinement claim). In support ofthis Motion,

the Plaintiffs state as follows:

1. Plaintiff Daniel Fabian was released from the Florida Civil Commitment Center

on January 4, 2005. (See Dkt.# 54). Mr. Fabian no longer has standing to pursue the

claims raised in the class action Complaint. Therefore, the Plaintiffs request the Court to

dismiss Mr. Fabian as a named Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff Bruce Kramer was released from the Florida Civil Commitment Center

on November 4, 2004. (See Dkt.# 45). Mr. Kramer no longer has staoding to pursue the

1

claims raised in the class action Complaint. Therefore, the Plaintiffs request the Court to dismiss Mr. Kramer as a named Plaintiff.
3. Count 4 of Plaintiffs' class action Complaint raises Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process claims related to the procedure used to place residents in disciplinary confinement at the Florida Civil Commitment Center. The Plaintiffs request the Court to dismiss Count 4 from the Complaint.
4. Plaintiffs' counsel conferred with Jason Vail, counsel for Defendant Hadi, on February 3, 2005. Mr. Vail stated he was not opposed to the dismissal of Plaintiffs Fabian and Kramer or the dismissal of Count 4.
5. Plaintiffs' counsel conferred with John Jolly, counsel for Defendant Liberty, on February 4,2005. Counsel for Defendant Liberty objected to this Motion for Dismissal unless it included language stating that each side would bear their own costs and attorney's fees. Plaintiffs declined to add this language because it is premature to discuss fees and costs at this point in the litigation.
Memorandum of law Rule 41(a)(2) authorizes the Court to grant a plaintiffs motion to dismiss upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(2). All parties have agreed to the dismissal of Plaintiffs Fabian and Kramer and Count 4 of the class action Complaint. The objection by Defendant Liberty relates only to the issue of attorney's fees and costs. It is premature to address the issue of fees and costs at this point in time as those matters are better addressed at the conclusion of the case in accordance with the procedures set out in Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) and Local Rule 4.18.
2

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to dismiss Daniel Fabian and Bruce Kramer as named Plaintiffs, as well as dismiss Count 4 of Plaintiffs' class action Complaint (procedural due process confinement claim).
Certificate Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(gl Undersigned counsel certifies that counsel for the Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Defendants. Counsel for Defendant Hadi stated that they agreed to the dismissals. Counsel for Defendant Liberty stated they they did not agree to this Motion.
Respectfully Submitted, Kristen Cooley Lentz, Esq. Cassandra Capobianco, Esq. Christopher M. Jones, Esq. Florida Institutional Legal Services 1010-B NW 8" Ave. Gainesville, FL 32601
(352) 375-2494 (352) 271-4366 (fax)
and Peter P. Sleasman, Esq. Alice K. Nelson, Esq. Southern Legal Couusel, Inc. 1229 NW 12th Ave. Gainesville, FL 32601
(352) 271-8890 (352) 271-8347 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs s/ Kristen Cooley Lentz
Florida Bar No. 649635
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U.S. Mail to Jason Vail, Esq., Chesterfield Smith, Jr., Esq., and Cecilia Bradley, Esq., Senior Assistant Attorney Generals, Office of the Attorney General, PL 01, The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050; Jennifer R. Haymes, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, Florida Civil Conunibnent Center, 13613 SE Hwy 70, Arcadia, FL 34266-782 9; and John W. Jolly, Jr., Esq., and Barbara Fromm, Esq., Jolly, Peterson, and Cherr P.A., P.O. Box 37400, Tallahassee, FL 32315 on this 4th day of February, 2005.
sf Kristen Cooley Lentz
4

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION 2n05 ~\~.R \ L~
ROGER G. CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN, DANIEL FABIAN, BRUCE KRAMER,

p'; 3' I 9
t .4

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-33DNF

LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE CORP., LUCY HADY, Secretary of the Department of Children and Families,

___________________D__e_fe_n_d_a_n_ts_.____1

ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer and Count 4 (Doc. #55) filed February 4, 2005. Pursuant to Rule 41(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff seeks to voluntarily dismiss Plaintiffs Fabian and Kramer and Count 4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Plaintiff represents to the Court that "[a]ll Parties have agreed to the dismissal of Plaintiffs Fabian and Kramer and Count 4 of the class action Complaint./I ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer and Count 4 (Doc. #55) is GRANTED. 2. The Clerk of Court shall correct the caption of this action to
J/~ reflect the dismissal of Plaintiffs Fabian and Kramer.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Myers, Florida, on this I~
day of March, 2005.

SA: hmk Copies to: All Parties of Record

 
 FILED

UNITED MIDDLE

STATES DIS DISTRICT

TORF ICFTLORCIODUAUR~Z-h'irlRl

29

p~~ I. 58
1'1 Ii: ,

FORT MYERS DIVISION

ROGER G. CANUPP, JACOB MYERS,

~. • I

LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON,

TYWAUN JACKSON, and CHARLES DURDEN,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-33DNF

LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL

HEALTH CARE

CORP., LUCY HAD I , Secretary of the

Department of Children and Families,

Defendants.
_________________________________1

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. #27) filed August 4, 2004 ("Plaintiffs' Motion"). Defendant Reiger filed a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion and Accompanying Affidavits (Doc. #45) on November 5, 2004. Defendant Liberty Behavioral Health Corporation filed a Notice of Adoption joining in Defendant Reiger's Response (Doc. #47) on November 10, 2004. On February 4, 2005, the Plaintiffs (Doc. #57) notified the Court that Plaintiffs' Motion is now ripe for adjudication.
I.
The facts, as set forth in the Complaint (Doc. #1), are as follows. Plaintiffs Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence Mcgee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, and Charles Durden are currently in the custody of the Florida Department of Children and Families

("DCFII ) and, are involuntarily civilly confined at the Florida

Civil Commitment Center ("FCCC II ) located in Arcadia, Florida,

pursuant to The Sexually Violent Predator Act, Section 394.910-

394.931, Fla. Stat. (2003) (the "Act II ) 1.

Specifically, the

following is a brief factual synopsis of each Plaintiff2:

1. Plaintiff Roger Canupp is civilly commi tted pursuant the Act and has not consented to the treatment program offered at the FCCC. Mr. Canupp has been diagnosed with BiPolar Disorder, Personality Disorder and Paranoid Schizophrenia. Mr. Canupp has been confined at the FCCC since February 2000.

2. Plaintiff Jacob Myers is civilly detained pursuant
the Act and has not consented to the treatment program offered at the FCCC. Mr. Myers has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and Schizophrenia. Mr. Myers has been confined at the FCCC since April 2001.

3. Plaintiff Lawrence McGee is civilly detained
pursuant the Act and has consented to the treatment program offered at the FCCC. Mr. McGee has a mild to moderate mental retardation and has been diagnosed with Reading Disorder, Disorder of Written Expression, Schizophrenia and Dementia. Mr. McGee has been confined at the FCCC since June 2001.

4. Plaintiff Hubert Davidson is civilly detained pursuant the Act and has consented to the treatment program offered at the FCCC. Mr. Davidson has been diagnosed with Borderline Intellectual Functioning and Learning Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. Mr. Davidson has been confined at the FCCC since November 2000.

Upon Plaintiffs' Motion, the Court ordered the dismissal of two named Plaintiffs who were released from the FCCC: Daniel Fabian and Bruce Kramer. See Order of Court dated March 14, 2005 (Doc. #62).
2
The factual synopsis of each P~aintiff is based upon the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint and the Affidavits of Rick Harry and Adam Deming attached to Defendants Response (Doc. #45).
-2-

5. Plaintiff Tywaun Jackson is civilly committed pursuant the Act and has consented to the treatment program offered at the FCCC. Mr. Jackson has been confined at the FCCC since January 1999.
6. Plaintiff Charles Durden is civilly committed pursuant the Act and has consented to the treatment program offered at the FCCC. Mr. Durden has been confined at the FCCC since January 1999.
The Defendant Jerry Reiger is the Secretary of DCF and is being sued in his official capacity. The Defendant Liberty Behavioral Health Corporation ("Liberty") is a Pennsylvania for profit corporation who contracted with DCF to provide, "inter alia, sex offender treatment, mental health services, and on-site medical services" to individuals confined at the FCCC. Complaint ~17.
Plaintiffs move to certify a class of persons who allegedly have been "victims of constitutionally and statutorily inadequate treatment conditions" at the FCCC. Complaint ~1. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' constitutional and federally protected rights by: (1) failing to provide Plaintiffs with an effective sex offender treatment program to meet the statutory requirement for release from confinement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ("Fourteenth Amendment"); (2) failing to provide Plaintiffs with appropriate mental health services and care so they can participate in an effective treatment program to meet the
-3 -

statutory requirement for release from confinement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) failing to accommodate Plaintiffs with qualified disabilities so as to permit them to participate in the FCCC's sex offender treatment programs and activities, or obtain certain services in violation of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq. ("ADA") 3
II.
Whether to certify a class is a matter within the discretion of the Court. Cooper v. Southern Co. 390 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 2004); Moore v. American Fed'n of Television & Radio Artists, 216 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 950 (2001). "The initial burden of proof to establish the propriety of class certification rests with the advocate of the class." Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 211 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 919 (2001). As an initial matter, a prerequisite to class certification is that "it must be established that the proposed class representatives have standing to pursue the claims as to which class-wide relief is sought." Wooden v. Board of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 247 F.3d 1262, 1287 (11th Cir. 2001); Prado-Steiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that at least one named class representative must have standing) .
3
Count IV of Plaintiff's Complaint alleging procedural due process violations has been dismissed by the Court on March 14, 2005 (Doc. #62).
-4-

In addition to standing, Plaintiffs must satisfy all four of

the threshold requirements set forth in Rule 23(a), Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and then show that the action is maintainable

under at least one of the three provisions of Rule 23(b). Amchem

Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613-14 (1997); Turner v.

Beneficial Corp., 242 F.3d 1023, 1025 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc) ,

cert. denied, 534 U.S. 820; Strube v. American Equity Investment

life Ins. Co.,

F.R.D.

, 2 0 0 5 WL 54 6 6 8 5 (M . D . FI a. 2 0 0 5) .

The four threshold requirements are (1) numerosity: the class is so

numerous that joinder of all members is impractical; (2)

commonality: questions of law or fact are common to the class; (3)

typicality: the representatives of the class present claims or

defenses that are typical of the class; (4) adequacy: the

representatives of the class will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ;Turner, 242 F.3d at

1025 n.3; Pickett v. Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279

(11th Cir. 2000).

Rule 23(b) then requires Plaintiffs to show that either (1)

prosecution by separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent

results; or (2) Defendants have acted in ways generally applicable

to the class, making declaratory or injunctive relief appropriate;

or (3) common questions of law or fact predominate over individual

issues. Moore, 216 F.3d at 1241.

-5-

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not permitted to undertake a merit review of Plaintiffs' claims for purposes of determining the propriety of certifying a proposed class. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974) i Brown v. Williams Tobacco Corp.,959 F.2d 1566, 1569 n.11 (11th Cir. 1992)citing Nelson v. United Steel Corp., 709 F.2d 675, 679-80 (11th Cir. 1983) . Nonetheless, before determining the efficacy of class certification, the Court, if necessary, may consider the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' evidence. Cooper v. Southern Company, 390 F.3d at 712.
III.
Plaintiffs contend that the requirements of Rule 23(a), and that Defendants have acted in ways generally applicable to the class, making declaratory or injunctive relief appropriate, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2), are satisfied. At the outset, any analysis of class certification must first address whether the proposed class members have standing before the Court may consider whether the class members fulfill the Rule 23 prerequisites. Prado-Steiman ex. ReI. Prado-Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1280. In other words, "just as a plaintiff cannot pursue an individual claim unless he proves standing, a plaintiff cannot represent a class unless he has standing to raise the claims of the class he seeks to represent." Murray v. U.S. Bank Trust Nat. Ass'n, 365 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir,
-6-

2004) (citing Prado-Steiman, 221 F.3d at 1280). Plaintiffs seek

certification of a class defined as:

all persons who are currently or will be confined involuntarily to the care and custody of the Florida Department of Children and Families pursuant to Fla. Stat.

Doc. #14, p. 2. Although not specifically addressed by Plaintiffs,

the proposed class representatives appear to have standing if the

Court adopts Plaintiffs' proposed class definition.

Defendants object to Plaintiffs' proposed class definition as

being over-broad, vague and not definite.

In particular,

Defendants object that the proposed class "is not circumscribed by

the claims, embraces people who are not affected by those claims,

and is composed of too many subgroups with disparate claims. If

(Doc. #45, page 4). Al ternatively, Defendants propose two separate

subclasses:

(1) Residents of the FCCC who have been committed to custody pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat., that they are sexually violent predators, who have consented to sex offender treatment, who are qualified to participate in sex offender treatment, and who are not receiving adequate sex offender treatment; and

(2) Residents of the FCCC who are either committed to the facility pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat., or detained in the facility pursuant to §394.915, Fla. Stat., and who have been diagnosed by a treating professional with a severe mental illness as defined by DSM-IV, and who are not receiving adequate treatment for their severe mental illness.

Doc. #45, page 14.

-7-

The Court agrees that the type of conduct challenged and type

of injuries alleged by Plaintiffs are different to warrant two

separate subclasses.

With respect to the first subclass l

Defendants suggest that the class be limited to FCCC residents who:

(1) are "judicially committedll pursuant to §394. 917 1 as opposed to those residents who are detained pursuant to §3 94.915; (2) have

consented to treatment; and (3) are "qualifiedll to treatment.

Defendants first argue that only residents who are committed have

a "right ll to treatment and standing to challenge the adequacy of

sex offender treatment program. (Doc. #45 1 pages 6-7). Defendants claim that residents who are detained "have no expectation they

will receive sex offender treatment until they are committed under

§39[4] .917. 11 (Id. ) .

Whether a resident has a "right ll or "expectationll to treatment

is immaterial because Defendants have offered every resident 1

irrespective of their status 1 an opportunity to consent or decline treatment. SignificantlYI Defendants admit that the FCCC "offers

a three-stage treatment program to residents 1 who consent to

participate in sex offender specific treatment 1 whether they are

committed or detained as sexually violent predators. II (emphasis

added) (Doc. #45 1 Exhibit 21 Affidavit of Adam Deming l ~3). AdditionallYI the Court cannot fail to notice that Plaintiffs

Myers 1 McGee and Davidson l who are in "detainee ll status 1 have been

-8-

in this status for not an insignificant amount of time. 4
Consequently, the Court does not accept Defendants proposed definition to the extent that it is restricted to only those
residents who are "committed" at the FCCC. The Court, however,
does find compelling the second requirement proposed by Defendant
that a resident must consent to treatment in order to challenge the
treatment. The Court finds Defendants' third criteria that a resident be "qualified" or "cooperate" in treatment amorphous and
inconsistent. The Court finds that this requirement would result
in a revolving class door. Thus the Court adopts the following
class definition as to the first subgroup: (1) Residents of the FCCC who (a) have been civilly committed to custody pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat. that they are sexually violent predators; or (b) have been detained to custody pursuant to §394.915 as probable cause sexually violent predators; and (c) who have consented to sex offender treatment, and are not receiving adequate sex offender treatment. With respect to the second subclass, the Court agrees that a
definitive diagnosis of a disability must be demonstrated by a
resident in order to challenge the adequacy of the FCCC's mental
health services. Accordingly, the Court adopts Defendants' proposed definition for a second subclass as follows:
4
The Court is mindful that after a probable cause determination a detainee is entitled to a commitment trial within thirty (30) days under Section 394.916, Fla. Stat. Admittedly, the Court does not know the reason why the PlaintiffDetainees have not yet had their commitment trials. The Court does not suggest that these delays, albeit approximately four years, are not without good cause.
-9-

(2) Residents of the FCCC who (a) have been civilly committed to custody pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat. that they are sexually violent predators; or (b) have been detained to custody pursuant to §394.915 as probable cause sexually violent predators; and (c) who have been diagnosed by a treating professional with a mental illness as defined by DSM-IV, and who are not receiving adequate treatment for their mental illness.
IV.
A. Rule 23{a) Requirements (l) Numerosity:
Rule 23(a) (1) requires that the class be so numerous that
joinder of all members is impractical. Practicability of joinder depends on many factors, including the size of the class, ease of identifying its numbers and determining their addresses, the facility of making service on them if joined, and their geographic dispersion. Kilgo v. Bowman Transp.( Inc., 789 F.2d 859, 878 (11th
Cir. 1986). There is no specific number of class members necessary to show the impracticability of joinder, and it is not necessary that the precise number of class members be known; Plaintiffs, however, must show some evidence or reasonable estimate of the
number of class members. Id. More than forty (40) class members
is considered sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement. Cox v. American Cast iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 546, 553 (11th Cir. 1986) i
see also Strube v. Amercian Equity Investment life Ins. Co., 2005
WL 546685 (M.D. Fla. 2005). Plaintiffs contend that the numerosity requirement is met.
Under Plaintiffs' proposed class definition, the size of the class
-10-

would exceed 400 individuals. Additionally, the Court finds
persuasive Plaintiffs' contention that all the class members reside
at the FCCC in an institutional setting, similar to a prison
population, making class certification especially suited to their
claims. (Doc. #27, page 6). Defendants do not dispute that the
numerosity requirement could be satisfied under their more
restrictive class definition (Doc. #45, pages 13-14). Defendants
acknowledge that at least 70 of the committed residents have
consented to treatment. (Doc. #45, Exhibit I, Affidavit of Adam
Deming, ~4). The Court concludes that the numerosity requirement
under Rule 23(a) is satisfied.
(2) Typicality:
"Typicality measures whether a sufficient nexus exists between
the claims of the named representatives and those of the class at
large. Without individual standing to raise a legal claim, a named
representative does not have the requisite typicality to raise the
same claim on behalf of a class." Hines v. Widnall, 334 F.3d 1253,
1256 (11th Cir. 003) (citation omitted). TypicalityS is satisfied
5
While separate elements, "[i] n may ways, the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23 (a) overlap. Both requirements focus on whether a sufficient nexus exists between the legal claims of the named class representatives and those of the individual class members to warrant class certification. /I Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F. 3d 1266, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). "Traditionally, commonality refers to the group characteristics of the class as a whole and typicality refers to the individual characteristics of the named plaintiff in relation to the class./1 rd. at 1279. Neither typicality nor commonality require that all putative class members share identical claims, and both may be satisfied even if some factual differences exist between the claims of the named representatives and the claims of the class at large. rd. at 1279 n.14.
-11-

where the named plaintiffs' claims "arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory" as the claims of the class. Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1337 (lIth Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1004 (1985). "A class representative must possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members in order to be typical under Rule 23(a) (3). The typicality requirement may be satisfied despite substantial factual differences, however, when there is a strong similarity of legal theories." Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807, 811 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation and quotation omitted) .
Plaintiffs contend that the typicality requirement is met because Plaintiffs' claims "arise from the same pattern or practice and [are] based on the same legal theory." (Doc. #27, page 7). Essentially Plaintiff argue that the treatment and mental health programs at the FCCC are not "constitutionally and statutorily adequate." Id. Because Defendants propose al ternative class definitions, they dispute that certain of the named class representatives satisfy the typicality requirement. (Doc. #45, page 10) . The Court concludes that, under the two subclasses earlier defined by the Court, the Plaintiffs have satisfied the typicality requirement under Rule 23(a).
(3) Commonality: "Under the Rule 23 (a) (2) commonality requirement, a class action must involve issues that are susceptible to class-wide
-12-

proof." Murray, 244 F.3d at 811. Plaintiffs contend that common

questions of law and fact govern their claims. Specifically,

Plaintiffs identifies the common factual and legal question to

include, inter alia:

(1) Whether the sex offender treatment program provided

by the Defendants at the FCCC due to its lack of

individualized treatment, failure to accommodate

individuals with disabilities, failure to use

pharmaceuticals,

and inadequate

staff,

is

constitutionally and statutorily adequate; and

b. Whether the mental health services and care provided by the Defendants at the FCCC due to the lack of staff, infrequency of sessions, and failure to provide pharmaceuticals, is constitutionally and statutorily adequate.

Based upon the applicable standard and Plaintiffs' contentions, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a).
(4) Adequacy of Representation: Rule 23(a) (4) requires that the parties representing a class fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The purpose of the adequacy requirement is to protect the legal rights of the unnamed class members. Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 827 F.2d 718, 726 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959 (1988). Because all potential members of a class will be bound by the effect of a judgment, the Court must inquire into whether the Plaintiffs' counsel is qualified to carry out the litigation, "whether plaintiffs have interests antagonistic to those of the

-13-

rest of the class," and whether the plaintiffs possess the "personal characteristics and integrity necessary to fulfill the fiduciary role of class representative." Kirkpatrick, 827 F.2d at 726, quoting Griffin v. Carlin, 755 F. 2d 1516, 1532 (11th Cir. 1985) However, "adequate class representation generally does not require that the named plaintiffs demonstrate to any particular degree that individually they will pursue with vigor the legal claims of the class." Kirkpatrick, 827 F.2d at 727. Furthermore, a party's claim of representative status is defeated only if there exists a fundamental conflict between the representative and the class, going into the specific issues in controversy. Pickett, 209 F.3d at 1280.
Plaintiffs contend that this requirement is met because "counsel of record are personally experienced in class action and impact litigation related to the institutional setting." (Doc. 27, page 10). Plaintiffs point out that their counsel have litigated numerous class, and, have both the financial and personnel resources to pursue this litigation. (Id.) Further, the named Plaintiffs "have no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with the class members." (Id.) In addition, Plaintiffs assert that both the named Plaintiffs and all of the class members will benefit from the "declaratory and injunctive relief" sought. Defendants do not dispute that the adequacy of representation requirement is satisfied. (Id. ) The Court concludes that certain of the
-14 -

Plaintiffs have satisfied the adequacy of representation
requirement under Rule 23(a)
B. Rule 23(b) Requirements
In the present case, Plaintiffs assert that their claims are
maintainable as a class under Rule 23(b) (2).6 This subdivision is
generally applicable to civil rights actions. Notably, Plaintiffs
seek only injunctive and declaratory relief, not monetary damages.
Consequently, the Court finds Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(b).
ACCORDINGLY, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Action (Doc. #27) isGRANTED to
the extent that the Court will certify two separate subclasses as
defined as:
(1) Residents of the FCCC who (a) have been civilly committed to custody pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat. that they are sexually violent predators; or (b) have been detained to custody pursuant to §394.915 as probable cause sexually violent predators; and (c) who have consented to sex· offender treatment, and are not receiving adequate sex offender treatment.
(2) Residents of the FCCC who (a) have been civilly committed to custody pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat. that they are sexually violent predators; or (b) have been detained to custody pursuant to §394.915 as probable cause sexually violent predators; and (c) who have been diagnosed by a treating professional with a mental
6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) (2) provides the following: (b) Class Action Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
-15-

illness as defined by DSM-IV, and who are not receiving adequate treatment for their mental illness. D~E AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Myers, Florida, on this
;<i day of March, 2005 .
. ~
IA M. HERNANDEZ COV GTON D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: hmk Copies: All Parties of Record
-16-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

ROGER G. CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-99DNF

LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL

HEALTHCARE

CORP., LUCY HADI, Secretary of the

Department of Children and Families,

Defendants. ___________________________________

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendant Liberty’s “Suggestion of Mootness” (Doc. #138) and “Plaintiff’s Notice of Non-Opposition to Liberty’s Suggestion of Mootness” (Doc. #141). The Plaintiffs, class members who are currently detained at the Florida Civil Commitment Center, allege that the Defendants are violating their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs named Liberty Behavioral Health Corporation (“Liberty”) and the Florida Department of Children and Families as the Defendants. The Complaint does not seek monetary damages as relief. Defendant Liberty now suggests that the Court dismiss Liberty from this action because as of July 1, 2006, Liberty no longer provides services to operate the Florida Civil Commitment Center due to a

contract that expired June 30, 2006. (Doc. #138 at 2.) As such, Defendant Liberty “no longer has any authority, power, influence, or presence at the FCCC” and will not have such influence in the future. (citations omitted). Plaintiffs state that they do not oppose the Court’s dismissal of Liberty since Liberty is no longer the vendor operating the FCCC. (Doc. #141 at 1.)
Article III of the Constitution, known as the case and controversies limitation, prevents federal courts from deciding moot questions because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. III. Mootness can occur due to a change in circumstances or a change in law. Coral Springs St. Sys., Inc. V. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2004). A case is also moot when the issue presented is no longer live, the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in its outcome, or a decision could no longer provide meaningful relief to a party. Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach County, Fla., 382 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2004); Christian Coalition of Ala. v. Cole, 355 F. 3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2004); Crown Media LLC v. Gwinnett County, Ga., 380 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2004). Dismissal is not discretionary but “is required because mootness is jurisdictional. Any decision on the merits would be an impermissible advisory opinion.” Troiano, 382 F.3d at 1282 (citing Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 2001)). As noted by the Supreme Court, “[t]he requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence
-2-

(mootness).” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 (1997) (citations omitted).
A very narrow exception to the mootness doctrine exists for those cases that are “capable of repetition yet evading review.” De La Teja v. United States, 321 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2003); Brooks v. Georgia State Bd. Of Elections, 59 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 1995). Two conditions must be met to invoke this doctrine: 1) the challenged action must be of a short duration to be fully litigated; and 2) there exists a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. Christian Coalition of Ala. v. Cole, 355 F.3d at 1293(emphasis added). A “remote possibility that an event might recur is not enough to overcome mootness, and even a likely recurrence is insufficient if there would be ample opportunity for review at that time.” Soliman v. United States ex. rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002)(quotations omitted). In the instant case Defendant Liberty no longer provides services at the FCCC and another provider is currently operating the FCCC. Further, Liberty does not anticipate providing services at the FCCC or any similar facility in Florida.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Complaint is dismissed as to Defendant Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corporation.
-3-

2. Judgment to that effect will be withheld pending adjudication of the action as a whole.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on this 16th day of January, 2007.
SA: alj Copies: All Parties of Record
-4-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

za07 MAR 27 AM II: I 7

ROGER G. CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-MMH-DNF

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

___________________D_e_f_e_n_d_a_n_t_s.______1

ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff's "First Motion for Joinder of GEO, Inc. as a Defendant" (Doc. #172) and attachment, filed February 23, 2007. The attachment consists of the "Request for Proposals for the Financing, Design, Construction, Acquisition and Operation of the Secure Civil Commitment and Treatment Facility for Sexually Violent Predators," dated June, 2005. Defendant Secretary of the Department of Children and Families (hereinafter "DCF") filed a Response in opposition (Doc. #181) on March 13, 2007. This matter is ripe for review. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (Doc. #1) naming as Defendants: the Secretary of the Department of Children and Families and Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corporation, who at the time was the service provider of the Florida Civil Commitment Center ("FCCC") pursuant to a contract with the Department of Children and Families. On January 16, 2007,

the Court granted Defendant Liberty's unopposed motion to dismiss Liberty since as of July I, 2006, Liberty no longer provided services to operate the FCCC. (Doc. #154.)
In the motion sub judice, Plaintiffs request that the Court join GEO, Inc. (hereinafter "GEO") as a Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and 21 because "[t]he services that GEO, Inc. is required to provide are the same or substantially similar to the services that Liberty was providing." Doc. #172 at 2. Judicial economy supports joining GEO as Plaintiffs contend that joinder will prevent the possible necessity of filing a second lawsuit naming GEO. Id. at 7. Further, Plaintiffs state that joinder of GEO "will help this Court with its assessment of relief, as well as its analysis of liability" since the questions of law and fact are related to both the DCF and GEO. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs state that their motion for joinder is timely, in spite of the motion falling outside the parameters of the Case Management and Scheduling Order since the deadline for adding parties was October 6, 2006, only three months after GEO assumed the FCCC contract. Plaintiffs contend that they have received GEO's revised policies, "which indicate the facility is still significantly inadequate." Id. at 23 fn 2. Upon review of the Plaintiffs' attachment, the Court notes that under the section titled "Scope of Programmatic Services," the Department of Children and Families informed the offerors that "[t] he successful offeror must be able to meet all the care,
-2 -

custody, and treatment needs of all persons detained or

committed. ,,1 DCF's Request for Proposals at 2 (emphasis added).

In response, Defendant DCF contends that the Court should deny

Plaintiffs motion for joinder because the motion is untimely. Doc.

#181 at 2-3. Defendant further contends that GEO is unnecessary

since the real party in interest for purposes of the injunctive

relief is DCF. Id. at 3-4. Adding GEO as a Defendant would cause

unwarranted delay in the disposition of the case and unwarranted

expense to GEO. Id.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) provides:

All persons

may be joined in one action as

defendants if there is asserted against them jointly,

severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in

respect of or arising out of the same transaction,

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and

if any question of law or fact common to all defendants

will arise in the action.

Thus, Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 first requires that a party requesting

joinder establish the right to relief arising out of the same

transaction or occurrencej or series of transactions or

occurrences. Second, the rule requires that a similar question of

law or fact.

To determine what constitutes a "transaction or

occurrence," courts have referred to the meaning of "transaction"

within Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a). Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d

1303, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000). "'Transaction' is a word of flexible

1The Court notes that the attached document is a proposal and not the actual contract entered between DCF and GEO, Inc.
-3-

meaning. It may comprehend a series of many occurrences, depending

not so much upon the immediateness of their connection as upon

their logical relationship." Id. (internal citations omitted).

With regard to the second prong involving questions of law or fact,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) requires "only that some question of law or

fact be common to all parties."

Id. at 1324 (emphasis in

original) (internal citations omitted)

The Court previously noted and the parties have conceded that

GEO is the current provider operating the FCCC pursuant to a

contract with DCF. GEO assumed contractual responsibilities of the

FCCC sometime around July 1, 2006. Plaintiffs contend that GEO is

"required to provide

the same or substantially similar"

services as Liberty was previously providing at the FCCC. There is

a logical relationship between DCF and GEO since GEO has become the

contracted provider. Further, GEO is revising FCCC policies,

including those policies pertaining to the FCCC's treatment

programs. Id. at 2-3, 6. Since the issues in this case involve

the FCCC residents' treatment, or lack thereof, there are

questions of fact or law common to both DCF and GEO. As such, the

Court will grant Plaintiff's motion for joinder of GEO.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's "First Motion for Joinder of GEO, Inc. as a

Defendant" (Doc. #172) is GRANTED.

-4 -

2. The Clerk of Court shall correct the caption of the case

to include GEO, Inc. as a Defendant in this action.

3. The parties shall correct the caption of the case on

future pleadings to reflect the addition of GEO, Inc. as a

Defendant in this action and the style of the case as 2:04-cv-260-

FTM-MMH-DNF. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on this

U ftI' day of

March, 2007.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SA: alj Copies: All Parties of Record
-5-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

2D1J7 JUhl -4 PM 2: 16

ROGER G. CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-MMH-DNF

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and GEO, INC.,

Defendants.
_________________________________1

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiffs'

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice of GEO pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a) (1) (i) . (Doc. #198.) In the pleading sub

judice, Plaintiffs state Defendant GEO is not a necessary a party

for joinder. Plaintiffs state that they wish to dismiss GEO

because of the significant delay that will result if GEO is

included in this action.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) (1) (i), permits a party

to voluntarily withdraw an action without order of court before an

answer or motion for summary judgment has been served by the

adverse party. Defendant GEO has not been served in this action.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED:

1.

Plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without

prejudice of GEO pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a) (1) (i) (Doc.

#198) is GRANTED and Defendant GEO is dismissed without prejudice.

2. The Clerk of Court shall correct the caption of the case

to reflect the termination of Defendant GEO, Inc.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on this

day of

June, 2007.

SA: alj Copies: All Parties of Record

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

ROGER G. CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-99-DNF

ROBERT BUTTERWORTH, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Defendants. ___________________________________

OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Order of the Magistrate Judge Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. #158). Defendant Butterworth filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Order of the Magistrate Judge Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. #174), and Plaintiff filed Limited Reply to Defendant Butterworth’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections (Doc. #199). The Magistrate Judge’s January 17, 2007 Order (Doc. #155) denied the production of documents related to residents with learning disabilities. A district court reviews the non-dispositive orders of a magistrate judge to determine whether the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Court rejects plaintiffs’ argument that the

discovery motion is a dispositive motion within the meaning of the statute and rule.
In their Motion to Compel (Doc. #123), Plaintiffs sought discovery of the following documents:
Request #7 all current policies, procedures, regulation, internal communications, training materials, and directives related to residents with learning disabilities at the Florida Civil Commitment Center. Pl.’s Motion to Compel at 7. Plaintiffs agreed to further narrow
and limit this request to “include only those documents related to programming or activities in the sex offender treatment program that are specifically geared toward individuals with learning disabilities.” Id. at 7. Defendants objected (Docs. #124, 126) arguing that the request concerned documents outside the scope of this action because this suit is about the mental health treatment for sex offenders or the mentally ill, not about educational services to those with disabilities. Defendants argue that the Court did not certify a subclass on the issue of the adequacy of sex offender treatment for individuals with learning disabilities.
In the Class Certification Order, the Court rejected Plaintiffs broad request for certification of a class encompassing “all persons who are currently or will be confined involuntarily to the care and custody of the Florida Department of Children and Families pursuant to Fla. Stat.” See Class Certification Order at 7-11. Thus, an individual who is civilly detained at the Florida
-2-

Civil Commitment Center (“FCCC”) as a sexually violent predator
pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 394 is not automatically eligible for
class membership. Rather, the Court certified two distinct
subclasses as follows:
(1) Residents of the FCCC who (a) have been civilly committed to custody pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat. that they are sexually violent predators; or (b) have been detained to custody pursuant to §394.915 as probable cause sexually violent predators; and (c) who have consented to sex offender treatment, and are not receiving adequate sex offender treatment.
(2) Residents of the FCCC who (a) have been civilly committed to custody pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat. that they are sexually violent predators; or (b) have been detained to custody pursuant to §394.915 as probable cause sexually violent predators; and (c) who have been diagnosed by a treating professional with a mental illness as defined by DSM-IV, and who are not receiving adequate treatment for their mental illness.
Id. at 15-16. With respect to these two distinct subclasses only,
the Court found that “the Plaintiffs have satisfied the typicality
requirement under Rule 23 (a)”. Id. at 12.
It is not insignificant that the Court declined to include any
mention of “learning disability” within either subclass definition
or define a distinct subclass that would coincide with Plaintiffs’
third cause of action predicated upon the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.1 Whether an
individual has a “disability” as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.
1Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action alleging procedural due process violations was dismissed by the Court on March 14, 2005 (Doc. #62).
-3-

§ 12102(2), is more readily suited to an individualized inquiry on a case by case basis. Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471, 483 (1999); Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116, 1146 (10th Cir. 1999). Consequently, as correctly stated by the magistrate judge, a resident with a learning disability may be a member of either the first or second subclass, not by virtue of the learning disability, but because he has consented to sex offender treatment and is not receiving adequate sex offender treatment, or he is unable to consent to sex offender treatment due to a mental illness and did not receive adequate mental health treatment. Magistrate Order at 3. Based upon the classes as certified, the Court finds that the Order of the magistrate judge is neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Order of the Magistrate Judge Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. #158) is OVERRULED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on this 11th day of September, 2008.
SA: hmk Copies: All Parties of Record
The Honorable Douglas N. Frazier
-4-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

200B DEC 15 AM II: 28

FORT MYERS DIVISION ROGER CANUPP, JACOB MYERS,

. J. .). ,.j~.. ~.. ":';)/1 f HllnJL£ DIS1RIC f OF FLORID~
fORT HYERS. FLORIDA '.

LAWRENCE MCGEE, in need of a next

Friend, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN

JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN,

DANIEL FABIAN, and BRUCE KRAMER

Individually, and on behalf of a Class of all

Persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

Case No: 2:04-CV-260-FtM-29DNF

VS.

LIBERTY BEMAVIORAL HEALTn CORPORATION and JERRY REGIER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Children and Families
Defendants,
----------------------------~/
INTERESTED CLASS ACTION PARTIES' MOTION TO INTERVENE ON NEW LEGAL ISSUES VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS LmERTY INTEREST AND MOTIONING FOR AN INVESTIGATION FOR AN INJUNCTIVE AND/OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER RELIEF
COMES NOW, some of the Class Action Plaintiffs, David Yzaguirre, Khalie Hamid,
Craig Williams, Aaron Marsh, Joseph Shaw, Dwayne Head, Frank Wade, Jamaal Bilal,
Samuel Lane, William Morales, Barba Neil, Michael Ward, Harden James, Richard
Spivey, Richard Spivey, Devin Allen, Daniel Sinclair, John Oakley, Robert Williams and
represented by the Florida Institutional Legal Services, pursuant Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule
24(a), (b), Intervention, are Involuntarily Civil Commitment Residents, at the Florida Civil
Commitment Center, motioning for an investigation for an Injunctive and/or Temporary
Restraining Order Relief to prohibit transfer to a more maximum-security prison facility in
violation of substantive due process of liberty interest, and unlawful use of seclusion and
re~traints from retaliation, for practicing constitutional rights and in support thereof state as
follows:

1. On May 7, 2004, the Florida Institutional Legal Services filed this Class Action Lawsuit in behalf of the Plaintiffs at the Florida Civil Commitment Center, for Declaratory and Injunction relief to enforce their rights secured under the U.S.C. Fourteenth Amendment, and

I

42 U.S.C. 12131 (ADA) for better condition of confinement in a civil commitment nature, and Plaintiffs seeks adequate treatment under Florida Administrative Code 65E and Mental Health Patient Bill of Rights, 42 U.S.C.A section 9501.
2. And the Plaintiffs has doubts about Florida Institutional Legal Services's representation to enforce their rights secured under the U.S.C. Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. 12131 (ADA) for better condition of confmement and treatment where the Plaintiffs are force to be transfer to a maximum-security prison facility in violation ofsubstantive due process of liberty interest where they will be place in more restrictive confinement that will makes the treatment poor and this Motion To Intervene is timely and in good faith. See Yniguez v. State of Ariz., 939 F.2d 727, (C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1991), "Under Sagebrush Rebellion criteria, sponsors of ballot initiative could intervene to appeal judgment holding ballot initiative unconstitutional, even though only defendant in case, i.e., governor, chose not to appeal; motion to intervene was timely, as, although most prudent course would have been to attempt intervention as soon as sponsor had doubts about Attorney General's representation, sponsor could not be faulted for relying on Attorney General's representation that he would fully defend initiative, sponsor had sufficient interest in subject matter of litigation to intervene, sponsor's interest would be practically impaired absent intervention, as declaration that initiative was facially invalid bound governor and her successors in any actions against initiative's challenger, and sponsor was inadequately represented by other parties, as governor did not appeal and Attorney General was estopped from reentering litigation as party. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 24(a), 28 U.S.C.A.u
3. This is a complaint against the Florida Department Children and Family Services, at 1317 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399, contracted with the new defendant GEO Group, Inc. at 621 N.W. 53rd Street Boca Raton, Florida 33487 to operate the Florida Civil Commitment Center for Involuntary Civil Commitment pursuant to Fla. Stat. 394.910-932 where they are in violation of the Plaintiffs (residents) procedural and substantive due process of liberty interest without color of authority to transfer Plaintiffs from the F.C.C.C. least restrictive facility to a more restrictive facility. The new Florida Civil Commitment Center is a maximum-security prison facility that is "significantly more restrictive" than other "non-secure" treatment facilities operated by Department of Children and Family Services; it is "intended for the confinement of the "most dangerous individuals" within the Florida mental health system." Where the Plaintiffs are not in the category of serious mentally ill dangerous persons
2

prisons. See Freeman v. Berge, 68 Fed. Appx. 738,740 (C.A.7 (Wis.) 2003), "Two months later, after extensive negotiations among class counsel, the named plaintiffs, and counsel for defendants, a comprehensive settlement was reached. In addition to restricting the defendants' ability to house mentally ill inmates at the prison, the agreement purports to guarantee all inmates confined there at least the same rights and privileges of inmates confined in segregation in other maximum security prisons in the state. The defendants agreed to ease the extreme isolation and sensory deprivation by restricting the time during which inmates could remain in Level One status to not more than seven days absent cause and for an additional seven days with cause. Inmates were to be provided more out-of-cell exercise, cell shutters that open to the haUway, more reading material, expanded face-to-face visitation, a minimum of three showers a week, reduced physical restraints, increased phone privileges, calendar clocks in each cell to give them some temporal reference, and dim cell lighting at night to ease sleep. Notably, the defendants also agreed to build an outdoor recreational area, regulate cell temperatures, and refrain from using certain stunning devices inside cells and from punishing prisoners by feeding them nothing but "nutri-Ioaf," a blended and baked compost of prison food. An independent monitor was appointed to ensure that the agreement was implemented properly." Shuman v. State, 358 So.2d 1333 (1978), "Those whom state seeks to involuntarily commit to a mental institution are entitled to the protection of due process and equal protection just as those who are incarcerated in a correctional institution." and Bell v. WolfISh, 441 U.S. 520, 545, (1979) ("Pretrial detainees, who have not been convicted of any crimes, retain at least those constitutional rights that we have held are enjoyed by convicted prisoners").
8. Some of the Plaintiffs are not in treatment waiting on their civil commitment trial where they should not be place in a jail like setting for punishment to sutTer a harsher form of confinement where Plaintiffs has a right to substantive due process to liberty interest. See State, Dept. of Children and Families v. Jackson, 790 So.2d 535, 537 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2001), The trial court found that, insofar as the respondents had yet to be committed, it was "inappropriate that they be forced into treatment or sutTer a harsher form of confinement for their refusal to enter treatment." Bernstein v. Pataki, 233 Fed.Appx. 21, 25 (C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2007,) However, this decision does not pre-empt a claim that a liberty interest is implicated after being placed in a facility that involves more bodily restraint than is medically necessary, a right discussed with
4

approval by the Supreme Court in a decision that this court cannot disturb. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982).
9. The Plaintiffs have a constitutional right to due process of liberty interests and equal protection clause to not be transferred to a more restrictive maximum-security facility, where Plaintiffs should have an Administrative Hearings. § 394.467(4) Fla. Stat. in which are being deprived of without color of authority. See Johnson v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers. Inc., 437 F.3d 1112, 1116 (C.A.II (Fla.) 2006), "As the Supreme Court reiterated in Terry v. Ohio, No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. 392 U.S. 1, 9, 88 S.Ct. 1868,20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (quoting Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford. 141 U.S. 250,251, 11 S.Ct. 1000,35 L.Ed. 734 (1891». In Florida, the tort of false imprisonment is defined as "the unlawful restraint of a person against his will, the gist of which action is the unlawful detention of the plaintiff and the deprivation of his liberty." Escambia County School Board v. Bragg, 680 So.2d 571, 572 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) (quoting Johnson v. Weiner, 155 Fla. 169, 19 So.2d 699, 700 (1944». In a false imprisonment action the plaintiff is required only to "establish imprisonment contrary to his will and the unlawfulness of the detention." Rivers v. DiJlards Dep't Store, Inc., 698 So.2d 1328, 1331 (Fla.DisLCt.App.1997) (quoting Rolle v. City of Jacksonville, 509 So.2d 1252 (FIa.DisLCt.App.1987»; Everell v. Florida Institute ofTechnology, 503 So.2d 1382, 1383 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) (requiring only "allegations that a person [was] ... unlawfully restrained without color of authority"); see City of St. Petersburg v. Austrino, 898 So.2d 955, 957 (FIa.Dist.Ct.App.2005).
10. The Plaintiffs as civil commitment patients should not be placed in a maximum-security facility where all their freedom of movement is taken away from them that they had a the old Florida Civil Commitment Center that will subject them under mental anguish and stress or even cause death that constitutes a violation of the of the U.S.C. Eighth Amendment right against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. See Jones 'EI v. Berge, 164 F.Supp.2d 1096, (W.D.Wis. 2001), "held that: (1) inmates demonstrated more than a negligible chance of success on the merits of their claim that conditions at the facility constituted sufficiently serious conditions of confmement to implicate the protections of the Eighth Amendment for seriously mentally ill inmates confined there, and (2) inmates had no adequate remedy at law and would suffer
5

irreparable hann if the preliminary injunction was not issued, and public interest would not served by housing seriously mentally ill inmates under conditions in which they risked irreparable emotional damage and, in some cases, a risk of death by suicide."
11. Some of the Plaintiffs are on State Probation condition for Sex Offender Treatment, and has requested Timeout from treatment because of the substantive due process liberty interest violation, but the new defendant Mr. Budz under color of state law retaliated by stating if any Plaintiff on timeout from treatment will be placed out of treatment and or start over from M.R.T. The Plaintiffs reasons for taking a timeout from treatment is because they are being deprived of their U.S.C. Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process of law of liberty interest to not be transferred to a more maximum security facility that would effect their mental and physical heaJth that would hinder their progress in the treatment program. The new F.C.C.C. is designed as a county jail or super maximum security prison built in accordance with ACA prison standards and the Florida Legislature under 394.910 even acknowledges that treatment in a prison setting is poor Id. (The Legislature further finds that the prognosis for rehabilitating sexually violent predators in a prison setting is poor.) in which the new facility is a prison. See Hadi v. Liberty Behavioral Health Corp., 927 So.2d 34, 40 (Fla. App. I Dist. 2006), "The dangerous nature of the individuals to be committed, and the fact that they are required by statute to be committed to a secure facility, supports DCF's decision to require the sexually violent predator treatment facility be constructed to the security specifications of an ACA approved prison, and that bidders have correctional experience."
12. In Hadi v. Liberty Behavioral Health Corp. is contrary and unconstitutional where the Florida Supreme Court's opinion in Westerheide v. State. 831 So.2d 93, 99 (Fla. 2002), "The Legislature further recognized that "the prognosis for rehabilitating sexually violent predators in a prison setting is poor, the treatment needs of this population are very long term, and the treatment modalities for this population are very different from [those for individuaJs who are committed] under the Baker Act." And aJso see Kansas v. Hendricks, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 2077 (U.S.Kan. 1997), "The legislature further finds that the prognosis for rehabilitating sexually violent predators in a prison setting is poor, the treatment needs of this population are very long term and the treatment modalities for this population are very different than the traditional treatment modalities for people appropriate for commitment under the [general involuntary civil commitment statute]."
6

13. Therefore the Plaintiffs are also requesting for appointment of counsel and for an administrative hearing before a judge to determine the suitability of their transfer to the more maximum-security prison facility.
WHEREFORE we the Plaintiffs motioning this Court for an Investigation for an Injunctive and/or Temporary Restraining Order Relief to prohibit transfer to a more maximum-security facility, retaliation, prosecution and unlawful use of seclusion and restraints for practicing constitutional rights.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion has been sent via U.S. Mail to Christopher M. Jones, esq., for the Florida Institutional Legal Services, at 12921 S.W. 1ST Road, suite 107-#346, Newberry, Florida 32669, State of Florida Department of
~
Children and Family Services, at 1317 Winewood' Blvd. Bldg. 6 Tallahassee, Florida 323990700, Liberty Behavioral HealthCare Corporation, at 40 I E. City Avenue, Suite 820 Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004-1155 , Timothy James Budz, Facility Administrator at the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) at 13613 S.E. Highway 70, Arcadia, Florida 34266 on this ll..day of December 2008.

UNNOTARIZED OATH WE THE UNDERSIGNED, Under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Florida Statutes 92.525(1)(b)(2); State v. Shearer, 628 So.2d 1102 (1994); and Federal Statutes 28 U.S.C. 1746: certify that the foregoing and the facts contained in it are true and correct to the best of our knowledge on this the ll..day of December 2008.
Respectfully Submitted,

@AIL//~
Khalie Hamid # 934

~ Aaron Marsh # 22

0 ph Shaw #492

CUJ~eJLJ~.

Robert Williams # 793

rank Wade # 926

7

~l2:?U .. \b).\Ll~

Samuel Lane # 628

William'Morales # 715

'7kl BalCh,<
Barba Neil # 996

?~()L
Richard Spivey # 828

d Eat erton # 636
·~..Jgft~MJ. aniel Sinclair # 862

John Oakley #) 07
Mailing Address for above Plaintiffs (residents), Florida Civil Commitment Center, 13613 S.E. Hwy 70, Arcadia, Florida 34266-7829.

8

 
 FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
ROGER G. CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN,
Plaintiffs,

2009 JAN -9 PH I: 48
U.S. O!STRICT COURT
MtnOLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS. FLORIDA

vs.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-99-DNF

ROBERT BUTTERWORTH, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Defendant.
------------------------------------/
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon review of the

"Interested Class Action Parties' Motion to Intervene on New Legal

Issues Violation of Due Process Liberty Interest and Motioning for

an Investigation for an Injunctive And/Or Temporary Restraining

Order Relief" (Doc. #219, Motion), filed by 14 FCCC residents on

December 15, 2008. Counsel representing the Plaintiffs responded

(Doc. #220, Response) on December 29, 2008.

The above-styled action is a class action and the class is

represented by counsel from the Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., and

Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc. See generally docket

history. Counsel did not file the motion sub judice, rather 14

residents from the FCCC, some of who are not included in the class,

filed the motion. In summary, the Motion raises issues regarding the

move of all FCCC residents to a new facility, which is currently

under construction. See generally Motion, Response. In Response,

counsel requests that the Court deny the motion. See generally

Response. Counsel states that they lack sufficient information to support a request for judicial intervention regarding the FCCC residents move to the new facility. rd. at 2. Further, counsel explains that they are in the process of conducting discovery concerning the construction and design of the new facility. rd.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED:

The "Interested Class Action Parties' Motion to Intervene on

New Legal Issues Violation of Due Process Liberty Interest and

Motioning for an Investigation for an Injunctive And/Or Temporary

Restraining Order Relief" (Doc. U219) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on this

~ <itt
b day of

January, 2009.

SA: alj Copies: All Parties of Record

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

 
 Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 61 Filed 03/14/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 640

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
ROGER G. CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN, DANIEL FABIAN, BRUCE KRAMER,
Plaintiffs,

or- o

c:J ~-.-.,
~1:- -:-.
:--1 r-;1 -

U1 ::r;

::0-

'1\

:;:::0

: -'
"

.s:-

\"

.
.~-.

-0
::r;

\a1\

. j

r:-?
Ul

-" ~"'-.

0

-'

vs.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-33DNF

LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE CORP., LUCY HAD I , Secretary of the Department of Children and Families,

Defendants.
__________________________________ 1

ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Hadi's and Defendant Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corporation's Motions for Protective Order (Doc. #58 and #59) filed February 24, 2005 and February 24, 2005 respectively ("Defendants' Motions"). Defendants seek a protective order pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to limit any discovery until the Court rules on Plaintiff's pending Motion for Class Certification (Doc. #27). Although Plaintiffs filed a Response to Defendants Motions for Protective Order (Doc. #60) on March 10. 2005, such Response is untimely. See Local Rule 3.01(b). The Court has taken Plaintiff's pending Motion for Class Certification (Doc. #27) under advisement and an Order is forthcoming. The Court finds that at this stage of the proceeding good cause exists to limit discovery until such time as the Court

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 61 Filed 03/14/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 641

rules on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 959 F.2d 1566, 1571 (11th Cir. 1992) .

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Hadi's and

Defendant Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corporation's Motions for

Protective Order (Doc. #58 and #59) filed February 24, 2005 and

February 24, 2005 are GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, on this

I~day of

March, 2005.

~ ~11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SA: hmk Copies to: All Parties of Record

-2-

 
 Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 110 Filed 12/30/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1175
r=:" ... F£1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRIC FORT MYERS

T OF DIVI

FLOlihli~bEC
S I O N uU

30

PH 2: 42

ROGER G. CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN,

CLEh,i';.. U f' C:S.-r :CT COUHT i1100LE DIS IRICT OF FLORIDA
Ft HYERS. FLORIDA

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-33DNF

LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL

HEALTH CARE

CORP., LUCY HADY, Secretary of the

Department of Children and Families,

Defendants.
__________________________________ 1

ORDER This matter comes before the Court after a Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held before the undersigned on Friday, December 16, 2005. The following motions, which are currently pending, were addressed by the parties and the Court: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #83) i (2) Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. #89) i (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Second Request for Production (Doc. #103) and (4) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Third Request for Production (Doc. #104). In particular, the parties agreed that Plaintiffs' experts will conduct a visit and inspection of the Florida Civil Commitment Center ("FCCC" or "Facility") over a four day period in March 2006, and that Plaintiffs shall be permitted to have a total of three experts and five attorneys (three attorneys to accompany the experts and two attorney to review records) at the Facility inspection.

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 110 Filed 12/30/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1176
With respect to the remaining issues, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #83) is GRANTED to the extent that: (a) Plaintiffs' Counselor their Experts shall be permitted to hand out business cards or other documents directly to residents at the FCCC during the inspection; however, Defendants shall be permitted an opportunity to first inspect all such documents and business cards Plaintiff intends to present to any resident prior to the inspection; (b) Plaintiffs' Experts shall be permitted to inspect and view typical resident areas including: sample living quarters for residents, including consenting residents, non-consenting residents, and residents who are restricted to living quarters due to their mental illness; therapy session rooms, recreations areas, medical treatment areas, educational rooms, dining areas, and those areas in which residents are confined due to disciplinary or other reasons. (c) Plaintiffs' Experts shall be permitted to ask informal questions of current FCCC staff during the Facility inspection, provided that: I. Any employee designated by Plaintiff as "managerial" shall not be questioned by Plaintiffs without the permission of and in the presence of Defense counsel.
-2 -

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 110 Filed 12/30/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1177

ii. The questions shall be limited in nature and scope and shall

be posed contemporaneous with the inspection and for purposes of

clarification or explanation only.

In no case shall the

questioning of a FCCC staff member delay the normal course of the

inspection or result in a detailed interview of an individual staff

member.

iii. To the extent that Plaintiffs' Experts makes notes of any

comments made by FCCC staff, such notes shall be preserved and made

available to Defendants upon request.

iv. In no case shall any remarks or comments made by FCCC staff in

response to a question by Plaintiffs' Expert during the FCCC

inspection constitute an admission for purposes of Rule

801(d) (2) (d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

In all respects Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED.

2. Defendants Motion for a Protective Order is (Doc. #89) is

GRANTED to the extent that:

(a) Plaintiffs' Counsel and Experts are required to sign

liability waivers prior to being permitted access beyond resident

restricted areas.

(b) Plaintiffs shall not be permitted to attend or observe

residents' therapy sessions; however Plaintiffs are permitted

access to residents' treatment and medical records provided said

resident executes a release pursuant to the Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), unless the

-3 -

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 110 Filed 12/30/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1178

Court enters a qualified protective order as discussed infra at ,6.

(c) Plaintiffs shall not be permitted to attend or observe treatment staff meetings.

(d) Plaintiffs shall not be permitted to interview residents in their living quarters, but instead shall conduct interviews of residents in a designated interview room.

In all other respects Defendants Motion is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Second Request for Production (Doc. #103) and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Third

Request for Production (Doc. #104) are DENIED as moot.

4. The parties shall meet no later than January 10, 2006 for

the purpose of identifying which residents are members of the class

as defined by the Court in its March 29, 2005 Order (Doc. #66).

5. Plaintiffs shall notify the Court five (5) days prior to

the Facility inspection so that the Court may make itself available

to resolve any areas of dispute between the parties that may arise

during the inspection.

6.

To the extent that Plaintiffs maintain that the Court

can enter a Protective Order pursuant to 45 C.F.R. §164.512(e) so

as not to require each resident to execute an individual HIPAA

release, Plaintiffs shall submit for the Court's review and

approval a draft protective order within thirty (30) days of this

Order.

-4 -

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 110 Filed 12/30/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1179

7. The Deputy Clerk is directed to enter a revised Case

Management and Scheduling Order extending all current deadlines by

ninety (90) days.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on this

day of

December, 2005.

~ZIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SA: hmk Copies: All Parties of Record

-5-

 
 Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 159 Filed 02/07/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1575

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

ROGER CANUPP, JACOB MYERS,

)

LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT

)

DAVIDSON, TYWAUN

)

JACKSON,mdCHARLESDURDEN, )

individually, md on behalf of a

)

Class of all persons similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs,

)

)

LUCY HADI, in her official capacity

)

as Secretary of the Department of

)

Children and Families,

)

)

Defendm!.

)

)

Case No, 2:04-cv-260-UA-DNF

PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING RESOLUTION OF POTENTIAL HIPAA OR PRJVACY CONCERNS AND REOUEST TO BE RELIEVED FROM FILING BRIEFS

The parties, by and through undersigned counsel, submit this Joint Stipulation to

resolve concerns regarding the Health Insurance Portability md AccoWltability Act.

(HIPAA). They state:

(1) On November 9, 2006, Defendant Hadi filed a "Motion to Compel and for

Protective Order Compelling Return of Work Product Privilege Document Inadvertently

Produced by Co-Defendmt Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corporation." (Dk!. #146).

(2) On December 15, 2006, Plaintiffs filed their Response. (Dkt. #151).

(3) The document at issue in these pleadings was a spreadsheet containing a list of

451 residents at FCCC which identified Axis I, Axis II diagnoses md information

regarding the intellectual capacity for FCCC residents. (Dk!. #151).

1

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 159 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1576

(4) On January 18, 2007, this Court detennined that the document was not protected

under the work product privilege and denied Defendant Hadi's Motion. (Dkt. #156).

(5) In this same order, the Court expressed concern about protecting the

confidentiality ofthe mental health and medical infonnation ofnon-class members

contained in the document. (Id.). The Court ordered both parties to submit briefs

detailing what, if any, HIPAA or privacy concerns are raised by Plaintiffs' possession of

the document. (Id.).

(6) The parties have agreed to the redaction ofthe identifying information for

residents who may not be class members.· The parties respectfully submit that the

redaction of such identifying infonnation should address any concerns regarding HIPAA

or other privacy interests ofnon-class members.

(7) Defendant Hadi will produce a redacted copy of the document to Plaintiffs on

February 8, 2007. Upon receipt of the redacted document, Plaintiffs will confirm with

Defendant Radi's counsel the destruction ofany copies ofthe original un-redacted list

and any notes or correspondence related to redacted infonnation.

(8) The residents who are class members will not have any identifying infonnation

redacted from the document as they fall under the control of this Court's "Order of

Protection of Confidential Infonnation Relating to Class Members." (Dkl. #120).

(9) The parties respectfully suggest that they have resolved all HIPAA or privacy

issues arising from Plaintiffs' possession ofthis document.

(10)

The parties request the Court no longer require the parties to submit

HIPAA briefs on or before February 8, 2007.

I By agreeing to the redaction of these names, Plaintiffs do not waive any right to present proof at a later date to establish that some ofthese residents may be class members.
2

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 159 Filed 02/07/07 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1577

Respectfully Submitted,

Bill McCollum, Attorney General
Susan Maher, Esq. Chesterfield Smith, Jr., Esq. Jason Vail, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General PL-Ol The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850) 414-3300 telephone (850) 488-4872 fax

Kristen Cooley Lentz, Esq. Cassandra Capobianco, Esq. Christopher Jones, Esq.
Florida Institutional Legal Services IOIO-B NW 8'" Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 (352) 375-2494 telephone (352) 271-4366 fax
and

sf Susan Maher Assistant Attorney General Fla. Bar No. 438359 Attorney for Defendant Hadi

Alice K. Nelson, Esq.
Southern Legal Counsel 1229 NW 12'" Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 (352) 271-8890 telephone (352) 271-8347 fax

and
Peter P. Sleasman, Esq.
Legal Advocacy Center ofCtrl FL 222 SW Broadway St. Ocala, FL 34474 (352) 482-0179 telephone (352)482-0181 fax
sf Kristen Cooley Lentz Fla. Bar No. 649635 Attorney for Plaintiffs

3

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 159 Filed 02/07/07 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1578 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 7, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk ofthe Court by using the CMlECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Jason Vail, Esq., Senior Assistant Attorney General; Chesterfield Smith, Jr., Esq., Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Susan Maher, Esq., Assistant Attorney General.
sl Kristen Cooley Lentz
4

 
 Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 230 Filed 03/16/09 Page 1 of 3 PageID 2083

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

ROGER G. CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, CHARLES DURDEN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-99-DNF

GEORGE SHELDON, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

O R D E R This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #226, Motion Reconsideration), filed on March 11, 2009, and a “Request for Motion to Intervene (Doc. #227), filed by resident Roosevelt Reed on March 12, 2009.

By way of background, this case is a class action consisting of residents from the Florida Civil Commitment Center (hereinafter “FCCC”) as the plaintiffs, who are represented by counsel from the Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., and Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc. See generally docket history. Certain FCCC residents, who may or may not be a part of the class of plaintiffs, filed the motion sub judice requesting that the

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 230 Filed 03/16/09 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2084
Court reconsider its January 9, 2009 Order (Doc. #222) denying their Motion to Intervene. Similar to their Motion to Intervene, counsel for plaintiffs did not file the motion sub judice. The residents state that they did not receive the Court’s January 9, 2009 Order of denial until March 4, 2009. Motion Reconsideration at 2. In support of their Motion for Reconsideration, inter alia, the residents assert that counsel for plaintiffs “erroneously concludes that ‘Plaintiffs’ lack sufficient information to support a request for judicial intervention regarding the FCCC residents move to the New Facility.’” Id.
The Court construes the motion as filed pursuant to Rule 60, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for relief from “final judgment, order, or proceeding.” See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (emphasis added). “Motions under this rule are directed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Chapman v. A1 Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023-24 (11th Cir. 2000). The Court reaffirms its January 9, 2009 Order. The class of plaintiffs in this action are represented by counsel and the Court will not continue to entertain pro se motions in this case. Moreover, the matters raised by the FCCC residents are unrelated to the matter litigated in this case. For these reasons, the Court also denies resident Reed’s recently filed motion to intervene.
THEREFORE, it is now ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1) The Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #226) is DENIED. 2) Resident Roosevelt Reed’s “Request for Motion to Intervene (Doc. #227) is DENIED.
-2-

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 230 Filed 03/16/09 Page 3 of 3 PageID 2085

DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 16, 2009.

COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel/Parties of Record
SA: alj

s/Richard A. Lazzara RICHARD A. LAZZARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

ROGER CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, and CHARLES DURDEN, individually, and on behalf of a Class of all persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FTM-99DNF

GEORGE SHELDON, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Children and Families,
Defendant. __________________________________

OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Dismissal of the Case (Doc. #302) filed on November 3, 2009. Plaintiffs and Defendant, pursuant to Rule 23(e) and Rule 41(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., have jointly moved the Court to approve the terms of the resolution of this action and to enter an order dismissing this action. The C ourt heard testimony and the argument of counsel at a hearing on November 17, 2009. For the reasons set forth below, the joint motion will be granted.
I. Procedural History Plaintiffs are current or former residents of the Florida

Civil Commitment Center (hereinafter “FCCC”). 1 On May 7, 2004,

plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint (Doc. #1) on behalf of

themselves and a class of similarly situated persons. Plaintiffs

and all putative class members had been involuntarily confined to

the care and custody of the State of Florida, Department of

Children and Families (hereinafter “DCF”), and confine d at the

FCCC, pursuant to The Sexually Violent Predator Act (hereinafter

the “SVPA”), §§ 394.910-394.931, Fla. Stat. (2003). The original

Defendants were the Secretary of the De partment of Children and

Families in his official capacity and Liberty Behavioral Healthcare

Corporation (hereinafter “Liberty”), the vendor to whom DCF awarded

the contract to operate and manage FCCC and its programs. Doc. #1.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged that the Defendants violated

Plaintiffs’ constitutional and federally protected rights by: (1)

failing to provide Plain tiffs with an effective sex offender

treatment program that would allow them a realistic opportunity to

meet the statutory requirements for release from confinement, in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 157-158); (2) failing to pro

vide

Plaintiffs with appropriate mental health services that would give

them an opportunity to participate in sex offender treatment and

thereby be able to be released from confinement, in violation of

1Plaintiffs Roger Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee and Hubert Davidson are still confined in the FCCC. Plaintiffs Charles Durden and Tywaun Jackson were released from the FCCC during the pendency of this litigation.
2

the Fourteenth Amendment (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 159-160); (3) failing to

accommodate Plaintiffs with qualified disabilities so as to permit

them to participate or receive benefits of the services, programs

or activities at FCCC, in violation of the Ame

ricans with

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et. seq. (hereinafter “ADA”)

(Doc. #1, ¶ ¶ 161-164); and (4) failing to provide appropriate

procedural protections for the use of punitive confinement in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due

process. (Doc. #1, ¶ 165.) Plaintiffs requested declaratory and

injunctive relief. (Doc. #1, p. 31.)

In March 2005, the Court certified the following two

subclasses of plaintiffs:

(1) residents of the FCCC who (a) have been civilly committed to custody pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat., that they are sexually violent predators; or (b) have been detained to custody pursuant to §394.915 as probable cause sexually violent p redators; and (c) who have consented to sex offender treatment, and are not receiving adequate sex offender treatment, and

(2) residents of the FCCC who (a) have been civilly committed to custody pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat., that they are sexually violent predators; or (b) have been detained to custody pursuant to §394.915 as probable cause sexually violent predators; and (c) who have been diagnosed by a treating professional with a mental illness as defined by DSM-IV, and who are not receiving adequate treatment for their mental illness.
(Doc. #66 at 9-10.)
The parties actively e ngaged in extensive discovery in 2005
and 2006. Plaintiffs retained two psychiatrists: one with
expertise in sex offender treatment and the other with expertise in
3

treatment of individuals in institutions with severe and persistent mental illness. Defendants retained a psychologist with expertise in sex offender treatment, and a psychiatrist with expertise in treating persons with severe and persistent mental illness. In 2006, Plaintiffs’ experts conducted a multi-day visit to FCCC which included a tour of the facility, interviews with class members, and reviews of class member records. (Doc. #110.) Plaintiffs also conducted depositions of DCF officials and Liberty staff.
On July 1, 2006, DCF awarded the contract to operate and manage FCCC and its programs to the GEO Group, Inc. (hereinafter “GEO”), on an interim basis. As of January 1, 2007, the contract with GEO was extended to a five-year term.
Plaintiffs moved to join GEO as a Defendant (Doc. #172), and this motion was granted. (Doc. #192.) Because of the delays that would have resulted from GEO’s full participation as a party, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to GEO. (Doc. #198.) GEO was dismissed without prejudice on June 4, 2007. (Doc. #202.) As a result, George Sheldon in his capacity as Secretary of the DCF is the only Defendan t in the case. GEO continues to operate FCCC under contract with DCF.
Plaintiffs’ experts toured FCCC for the second time in 2007, after GEO assu med operation of the facility. After a new Case Management Report and Scheduling Order was entered on October 23, 2008 (Doc. #210), the parties once again actively engaged in discovery. After receiving leave of court, Plaintiffs conducted 24
4

depositions in late 2008 and early 2009. The depositions included key DCF staff responsible for the oversight of FCCC, the FCCC director and clinical director, FCCC psychiatrists, FCCC treatment team leaders, and an FCCC contract consultant who specialized in the area of sex offender treatment.
Plaintiffs also conducted extensive document discovery. Plaintiffs’ counsel and their experts reviewed the FCCC treatment records of over 200 class members. Plaintiffs counsel reviewed all of the FCCC’s operating policies since 2001, including the complete revision by FCCC of those policies in 2009; the reports of FCCC’s Treatment Advisory Board and GEO’s internal auditing reports of FCCC; all of DCF’s contract monitoring reports of FCCC; and other DCF internal documents relating to FCCC.
Plaintiffs’ experts visited FCCC for a third t ime in 2009. This visit lasted about three days and included a tour of the new facility that was in the final stages of completion,2 the existing facility, interviews of more than 20 residents by each expert, and reviews of treatment records. At the conclusion of the tour, the experts issued supplemental expert reports. Both Pl aintiffs and Defendant filed pre-trial motions seeking to limit or exclude certain areas of expert testimony.
The parties report that in early June 2009 they began discussions to resolve this case. These discussions included
2The new facility for the FCCC opened in April 2009. 5

several detailed conference calls, an extensive in-person meeting, and written exchanges. Following these di scussions, the parties filed a motion seeking extension of all pre-trial deadlines and a continuance of the trial date. (Doc. #266.) The motion included a letter of commitment from Defendant Sheldon and the proposed final action plan. (Id.)
The Court granted the motion, removed the case from the trial calendar, and gave the parties 60 days to file a motion seeking approval of a settlement. (Doc. #269.) The parties subsequently filed a joint motion seeking the Court’s approval of a proposed plan to notify the class, provide for objections, and to set a fairness hearing on the proposed resolution. (Doc. #272.) The Court granted the motion and ordered notice to the class by September 15, 2009. (Doc. #273.) The Court also set a deadline of October 15, 2009, for objections and set a deadline of November 2, 2009, for the parties to f ile a motion for approval of the settlement. (Id.)
The parties report that a copy of the notice and the settlement agreement was provided by FCCC staff to every resident of the facility by September 1 5, 2009. (Doc. #291, Exh. A.) In addition, a copy of the notice and the plan was posted on the bulletin board of each living unit at FCCC. Further, although not required by the Court’s order, a Spanish translation of the notice and the plan was provided to each resident who speaks Spanish as a first or second language at FCCC. (Id.)
6

Twenty-one objections to the settlement were filed by 37

residents at FCCC. (Docs. #275-#290, #292-#296.) Many of the

objections express concern about the lack of a federal monitor or

court oversight for implementation of the settlement plan. Other

objections seek additional relief, such as state certified

vocational programs.

II. Legal Principles

Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires

that a settlement, voluntary dismissal, or c ompromise of a

certified class action be approved by the district court. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(e). Before granting approval “the cardinal rule is that

the District Court must find that the settlement is fair, adequate

and reasonable and is not the product of collusion between the

parties.” Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir. 1977).3

This determination is left to the sound discretion of the district

court. In re Healthsouth Corp. Sec. Litig., 572 F.3d 854, 859

(11th Cir. 2009); In re United States Oil & Gas Litig., 967 F.2d

489, 493 (11th Cir. 1992); Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982,

986 (11th Cir. 1984).

As the Eleventh Circuit recently stated,

[t]he district court reviews a class action settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable and adequate. See Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1984). The court considers these relevant factors: (1) the likelihood of success at trial; (2) the range of

3In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
7

possible recovery; (3) the point on or below the range of possible recovery at which a settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable; (4) the complexity, expense and duration of litigation; (5) the substance and amount of opposition to the settlement; and (6) the stage of proceedings at which the settlement was achieved. Id. at 986.
In re CP Ships Ltd. Sec. Litig., 578 F.3d 1306, 1314-15 (11th Cir.
2009). See also Leverso v. Southtrust Bank, 1 8 F.3d 1527, 1530
(11th Cir. 1994). A court also should consider the judgment of
experienced counsel for plaintiff class. In re Dennis Greenman
Sec. Litig., 622 F. Supp. 1430, 1438 (S.D. Fla. 1 985), rev’d on
other grounds, 829 F.2d 1539 (11th Cir. 1987). “Public policy
strongly favors the pretrial settlement of class action lawsuits.”
In re U.S. Oil & Gas Litig., 967 F.2d 489, 493 (11th Cir. 1992).
The principles set forth in Cotton continue to apply:
A threshold requirement is that the trial judge undertake an analysis of the f acts and the law relevant to the proposed compromise. A “mere boiler-plate approval phrased in appropriate language but unsupported by evaluation of th e facts or analysis of the law” will not suffice. [ ]
In addition to undertaking such an analysis, it is essential that the trial judge support his conclusions by memorandum opinion or otherwise in the record. An appellate court, in the event of an appeal, must have a basis for judging the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion. [ ]
In determining the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed compromise, the inquiry should focus upon the ter ms of the settlement. The settlement terms should be compared with the likely rewards the class would have received following a successful trial of the case. [ ] The relief sought in
8

the complaint may be helpful to estab lish a

benchmark by which to compare the settlement

terms. [ ]

.

.

.

Yet, in evaluating the terms of the compromise in relation to the likely benefits of a successful trial, the trial judge ought not try the case in the settlement hearings. [ ]

It cannot be overemphasized that neither the trial court in approving the settlement nor this Court in reviewing that approval have the right or the duty to reach any ultimate conclusions on the issues of fact and law which underlie the merits of the dispute. [ ]

Neither should it be forgotten that compromise is the e ssence of a settlement. The trial court should not make a proponent of a proposed settlement “justify each term of settlement against a hypothetical or speculative measure of what concessions might have been gained; inherent in compromise is a yielding of absolutes and an abandoning of highest hopes.” [ ]

In performing this balancing task, the trial court is entitled to rely upon the judgment of experienced counsel for the parties. [ ] Indeed, the trial judge, absent fraud, collusion, or the like, should be hesitant to substitute its own judgment for that of counsel. [ ]

In addition to examining the merits of a proposed settlement and ascertaining the views of counsel, the Court should consider other factors.

Practical considerations may be taken into account. It is often said that litigants should be encouraged to determine their respective rights between themselves. [ ] Particularly in class action suits, there is an overriding public interest in favor of settlement. [ ] It is co mmon knowledge that class action suits have a well deserved reputation as being most complex. The

9

requirement that counsel for the class be experienced attests to the complexity of the class action. [ ]

.

.

.

In these days of increasing congestion within the federal court system, settlements contribute greatly to the efficient utilization of our scarce judicial resources.

.

.

.

When, during the course of the litigation, it becomes known to the Court that a portion of the class objects to the proposed settlement, the trial judge must assume additional responsibilities. The trial court must extend to the objectors leave to be heard. [ ] However, this i s not to say that the trial judge is required to open to que stion and debate every provision of the proposed compromise.

The growing rule is that the trial court may limit its proceeding to whatever is necessary to aid it in reaching an informed, just and reasoned decision.

The Court should examine the settlement in light of the objection s raised and set forth on the record a reasone d response to the objections including findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to support the response. [ ]

In assessing the fairness of the proposed compromise, the number of objectors is a factor to be considered but is not controlling. [ ] A settlement can be fair notwithstanding a large number of class members who oppose it.

The trial judge must then make a determination

as to whether or

not to approve the

settlement, or he may make suggestions to the

parties for modifications of the proposal.

Approval must then be given or withheld.

10

Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330-32 (internal citations omitted).

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1)(B) requires the

court to provide direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class

members who would be bound by the [proposed settlement]. Notice

must be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstan ces, to

apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford

them an opportunity to present their objections.’” In re CP Ships,

578 F.3d at 1317 (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust

Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). This r equires “that the notice

apprise class members of the terms of the settlement agreement in

a manner that allows class members to make their own determination

regarding whether the settlement serves their interests.” United

States v. Alabama, 271 Fed. Appx. 896, 901 (11th Cir. 2008). The

right to adequate notice is also a component of the Due Process

Clause of the United States Constitution. Id. at 901.

III. The Final Action Plan

The proposed resolution of this case is in the form of a Final

Action Plan (Doc. #302, Appendix 5). The parties agree that during

the pendency of this case, Defendant made numerous improvements to

the treatment program at FCCC, as reflected in the current contract

requirements between DCF and GEO. (Doc. #302, App.

4.) In

addition to those im provements, the Final Action Plan includes

improvements to the oversight and staffing of the inpatient mental

health unit, the implementation of policies addressing the

11

screening and referral process for the use of anti-androgens,

comprehensive discharge planning for Phase IV residents,

modifications to the special needs treatment track, and additional

training for clinical staff and housing staff.

Specifically, the F inal Action Plan identifies twenty-one

“Focus Areas,” describes the actions to be taken by the FCCC to

address each Focus Area, identifies the title of the DCF /FCCC

person responsible for accomplishing the action, identifies a

target date by which the action is to be completed, identifies the

date the action was or will

be completed, and provides

miscellaneous comments relating to each focus area.

With two

exceptions, all of the actions identified for the Focus Areas have

been completed; the two remaining areas will be comp leted by

February, 2010.

The parties have agreed that nothing in the Final Action Plan,

or any other written document, should be construed as any type of

judicially enforceable settlement agreement, injunctive order, or

any other type of prospective relief or interpreted as an intent of

the parties that there should be continuing jurisdic tion of this

Court. It is the intent of the parties that approval of the Final

Action Plan and dismissal of the case with prejudice will terminate

further jurisdiction of this Court.

The Complaint set forth thirteen areas which plaintiffs

alleged constituted constitutional violations. The Final Action

Plan addresses twelve of these alleged constitutional violations.

12

A comparison of the Complaint allegations and the Final Action Plan treatment of those matters is as follows:
(1) Allegation: Defendant does not have all four stages of the treatment program design in place, functioning, and available to all residents. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 141.)
Final Action Plan: Defendant and GEO now hav e all four phases of the treatment program in operation. (See FCCC Policy and Procedure Manual CL-1, at 13, Doc. #302, App. 6.) The parties represent that there are currently seven residents in Phase IV, with additional residents scheduled to move up from Phase III to Phase IV in January 2010. (Doc. #302, App. 1, Budz Declaration.) In addition, since GEO assumed the FCCC contract, 27 residents in Phase IV of treatment have been released by the SVP committing courts. (Id. at App. 1.) FCCC has filed reports on two additional residents who reached maximum therapeutic benefit from the program (completion of all treatment phases) and who are awaiting court action. Defendant also implemented a policy for comprehensive discharge planning for residents and a training program for discharge planning for residents nearing release from the facility. (Doc. #302, App. 7.) Additionally, Defendant implemented a policy outlining expected time fr ames for progressing through the sex
13

offender treatment program. (Doc. #302, App. 6.) (2) Allegation: Defendant does not provide adequate treatment plans for non-participating residents that address t he goal of engaging those residents in treatment. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 142.) Final Action Plan: This is not addressed in the plan. FCCC has adopted and implemented a p olicy specifically addressing the issue of engaging t hose residents who refuse treatment activities. (Doc. #302, Ap p. 8.) Plaintiffs’ counsel determined by review of resident records that this was occurring at FCCC and at the time of settlement negotiations was not an issue. (3) Allegation: Defendant does not have adequate customs, policies and practices for identifying and assessing residents with developmental disabilities or mental illnesses that impair the effective participation in sex offender treatment. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 143.) Final Action Plan: Defendant implemented a policy to identify or assess class members for disabilities that could impact their participation in sex offender treatment. (Doc. #302, App. 9.) In addition, Defendant currently notifies the SVP Act com mitting court of jurisdiction regarding those residents who, because of the severity of their mental illness, may not be able to meaningfully participate in sex offender treatment
14

programs. (Doc. #302, App. 10.)

(4) Allegation : Defendant does not have a specialized sex

offender treatment program in place for resident

s with

developmental disabilities, learning disabilities, or major mental

illnesses which effectively prevent meaningful access and

participation in treatment. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 144.)

Final Action Plan : Defendant implemented a specialized

sex offender treatment program (Special Needs Treatment

Track) to accommodate the needs of class members with

developmental disabilities and mental illness whose

cognitive impairments hinder their participation in a

conventional sex offender treatment program. (Doc. #302,

App. 11.) Defen dant’s contractor has worked with

nationally-renowned experts James Haaven and Gerry

Blasingame in developing and implementing this special

program. (App. 1.)

Additionally, Defendant’s policy limits the number

of residents in each special track treatment group to no

more than 8-10 residents per group with two

co-facilitators. (Doc. #302, App. 6 at 30.) Defendant

provides training and supervision of clinical and housing

staff regarding the specific needs of the special track

population. (Doc. #302, Focus Area #19.) And, although

not an issue in the instant case, Defendant provides

15

specialized services for persons with hearing impairments that do not isolate them with the special track population. (Doc. #302, Focus Area #8; App. 11; ADM-6 attached as App. 12.) (5) Allegation : Defendant does not off er pharmaceutical treatment modalities such as anti-androgens or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment program. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 145.) Final Action Plan: Defendant implemente d a policy for screening and assessing all re sidents for referral for therapeutic sex drive reduction medication, including anti-androgens, and developed training for psychiatrists and clinical staff regarding the screening, assessment and integration of medications, particularly anti-androgens, as a component of treatment. (Doc. #302, Focus Areas ##6, 20; PRG-5 attached as App. 9; HLTH-52 & 53 attached as Apps. 13 & 14.) (6) Allegation: Defendant failed to make adequate provisions for family involvement in treatment rehabilitative efforts. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 146.) Final Action Plan : Defendant’s sex offender treatment plan incorporates a program that promotes family involvement at appropriate points in treatment. (Doc. #302, Focus Area #11; App. 4 at 176; App. 6 at 8.) (7) Allegation : Defendant failed to provide an adequate
16

number of properly trained and certified treatment staff and number of hours in treatment each week. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 147.)
Final Action Plan : Defendant develope d training to improve communication between clinical staff and housing staff to provide a continuum of care on housing units. (Doc. #302, Focus Area #18.) Additionally, Defendant’s contract with GEO provides for 10 hours of treatment per week. (App. 4 at 100.) Based on expert deposition testimony in this case, the 10 hours of treatment is in line with what o ther similar sex offender treatment programs around the country are providing. (8) Allegation: Defendant is simply warehousing residents, and has not recommended one resident for discharge from the facility based on completion of the treatment program. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 148.) Final Action Plan: The parties report that since GEO assumed operation of FCCC, it has filed 17 formal reports for residents having reached maximum therapeutic benefit from the program (completion of all treatment phases). Fifteen of those residents were released by the SVP committing courts and two are awaiting court action. (Doc. #302, A pp. 1.) Additionally, Defendant adopted policies for identifying and notifying the SVP committing courts with j urisdiction about residents who may have
17

difficulty meaningfully participating in the sex offender treatment program, including residents who (a) are incompetent to proceed in the SVP case and are unlikely to be restored to competency; (b) are so severely mentally ill that they cannot participate in the sex offender treatment program as a result of their mental illness; or (c) are terminally ill. (Doc. #302, Focus Areas ##3, 4, 12; App. 10; ADM-13 attached as App. 15; HLTH-98 attached as App. 16.) (9) A llegation: Defendant does not provide adequate individualized service plans for residents. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 149.) Final Action Plan: FCCC has adopted and revised specific policies regarding the development of individual comprehensive care plans for residents receiving treatment. (Doc. #302, App. 10.) In addition, Defendant provides training to FCCC staff to improve individual service plans to include regular updates, more individualized content, and clear objective and measurable goals. (Doc. #302, Focus Area #17; App. 10.) (10) Allegation : Defendant does no t employ an adequate number of psychiatric staff to handle the specialized needs of residents with severe mental illness. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 150.) Final Action Plan : Defendant added one additional part-time psychiatrist to its staffing plan for residents
18

with severe and persistent mental illness. (Doc. #302, Focus Area #14; App. 4 at 83.) (11) Allegation: Defendant does not have sufficient staff to address the daily needs of residents with serious mental illness. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 151.) Final Action Plan : In addition to increasing the psychiatrist staffing noted above, Defendant now provides a full-time psychiatric nurse on the residential mental health unit. (Doc. #302, Focus Area #16; App. 4 at 83.) Additionally, Defendant provides training to enhance communication between clinical staff and housing staff for continuum of care. (Doc. #302, Focus Area #18.) (12) Allegation: Defendant failed to provide mental health services of adequate frequency, duration, and substance to meet the needs of residents with severe mental illness. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 152.) Final Action Plan : As noted above, Defendant has increased the level of staffingon the mental health unit by adding a psychiatric nurse and an additional half-time psychiatrist. (Doc. #302, Focus Areas ##14, 16; App. 4 at 83.) Defendant req uires GEO to attain full accreditation or outside oversight of the inpatient unit. (Doc. #302, Focus Area #2; App. 4 at 28, 41, 144; CL-10 attached as App. 17.) Additionally, Defendant implemented a policy by which outside consultants review
19

the records of any resident who has been on the inpatient living unit for more than one year. (See Focus Area #1; App. 17.) (13) Allegation: Defendant does not provide sufficient staff to address the needs of residents with developmental disabilities. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 153.) Final Action Plan: As noted above, Defend ant and FCCC have developed and staffed a Special Needs Treatment Track to accommodate the needs of clas s members with developmental disabilities w hose cognitive impairments hinder their participation in a conventional sex offender treatment program. (Doc. #302, App. 6 at 29; App. 11.) In addition, Defendant limits the number of residents in each special track treatment group to no more than 8-10 residents per group with two co-facilitators, (see Focus Area #7; App. 6 at 30), and provides training and supervision of FCCC clinical and housing staff regarding the specific needs of the special track population (Doc. #302, Focus Area #19.) The Final Action Plan also addresses additional items that were not raised in the Complaint. These include the provision of vocational and work programs, (Doc. #302, Focus Area #10; App. 6), and a process for informing state committing courts of jurisdiction regarding those residents who are terminally ill and may be
20

appropriate for release from FCCC, (see Focus Area #12; App. 16). IV. Application of Principles for Approval of Settlement With the terms of the Final Action Plan in min d, the Court
will apply the legal principles governing whether it should approve the settlement and voluntary dismissal.
(A) Fraud or Collusion The threshold issue is the presence or absence of fraud or collusion between the parties. In determining whe ther there was fraud or collusion, the court examines whether the settlement was achieved in good faith through arms-length negotiations, whether it was the product of collusion between the parties and/or their attorneys, and whether there was anyevidence of unethical behavior or want of skill or lack of zeal on the part of class counsel. Bennett, 737 F.2d at 987 n.9. In the instant case, the Court finds that there have been arms-length negotiations and no collusion between the parties and their attorneys. There has been neither unethical behavior nor a want of skill or lack of zeal. The parties negotiated the Final Action Plan after five years of litigation over a five-week period. The negotiations took place by in-person meetings, written correspondence, and conference calls. Plaintiffs consulted their experts throughout the negotiation process. The monies paid to Plaintiffs’ attorneys represent reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses only, and no attorney fees are being paid as part of the
21

settlement. This is further evidence of a lack of collusion. Thus, the Court finds thethreshold requirement has been satisfied.
(B) Fairness, Adequacy and Reasonableness of Settlement In evaluating the fa irness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement, the Court looks to a non-exclusive list of six basic factors: (1) likelihood of success at trial; (2) range of possible recovery; (3) point on or below the range of possible recovery at which a settlement is fair, adeq uate and reasonable; (4) complexity, expense and duration of litigation; (5) stage of proceedings at which the settlement was achieved; and (6) substance and amount of opposition to the settlement. Bennett, 737 F.2d at 986. The Co urt finds that all factors favor approval of the settlement. (1) Likelihood of Success at Trial Courts judge the fairness of a proposed compromise by weighing the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits against the amount and form of the relief achieved in the settlement. Newberg on Class Actions, at 11-90 (3d ed. 1992). However, courts are not to decide the merits of the case or resolve unsettled legal questions. Id.; see also Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. 1982) (stating “[i]n examining a proposed compromise . . . the court does not try the case. The very purpose of the compromise is to avoid the delay and expense of such a trial” [citation omitted]). See also Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330 (stating
22

appropriate analysis is of facts and law relevant to compromise; court should not try the case nor should court order a proponent of a proposed settlement to “justify each term of settlement against a hypothetical or speculative measure of what concessions might have been gained; inherent in compromise is a yielding of absolutes and an abandoning of highest hopes” (citation omitted)). Indeed, a trial court in approving class action settlements has neither the duty nor even the right to reach any u ltimate conclusions on the issues of fact and law which underlay the merits of the dispute. Id. at 1330.
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982), is the leading case on the rights of persons confined to institutions. The Court concluded that an institutionalized mental incompetent “enjoy[ed] constitutionally protected interests in conditions of reasonable care and safety, reasonably nonrestrictive confinement conditions, and such training as may be required by these interests.” Id. at 324. There is no doubt that persons involuntarily in institutions have a substantive due process right to minimally adequate treatment. That treatment is defined as that which “may be reasonable in light of [a person’s] liberty interests in safety and freedom from unreasonable restraints.” Id. at 322. In determining reasonableness, courts are required to show deference to a decision made by a professional judgment, and
liability may be imposed only when the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice or standards as
23

to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.

Id. at 323.

The Constitution does not require, however, that residents at

FCCC receive optimal treatment and mental health services. Id. at

323. Minimal levels of care are suff icient. Id. Under the

professional judgment standard decisions made by trained

professionals are entitled to a presumption of correctness, and

constitutional violations only exist if there is a substantial

departure from accepted professional judgment, practice or

standards. Id. Courts can only make certain that professional

judgment in fact was exercised and are prohibited from specifying

which of several professionally accepted choices should be made.

Id. at 321. Consequently,

to prove a constitutional

violation, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that FCCC’s p ractices

and administrative or clinical decisions pertaini ng to

confinement and treatment are such a substantial departure from

accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to

demonstrate that the person responsible did not base the decision

on such a judgment. Id. at 323.

The impetus for the litigation arose from Plaintiffs’

allegations of constitutionally inadequate conditions at FCCC.

Plaintiffs sought to improve the mental health and sex offender

treatment to the level re quired by the professional judgment

standard. The evidence clearly establishes that the treatment

24

provided at FCCC has changed and improved since the case was filed in 2004.
In light of the minimal constitutional standards, Plaintiffs had a genuine concern about proving that the current treatment at FCCC fell below professional judgment st andards. For example, a recent court decision in a case against an Illinois sex offender commitment facility found that a similar treatment program did not violate constitutional standards even though the treatment there was not "optimal." See Hargett v. Adams, No. 02-C-1456, 2005 WL 399300, *19-20 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 14, 2005). In addition, after reviewing the expert reports and depositions, Plainti ffs were concerned that the Court might regard Plaintiffs’ expert testimony as simply creating a dispute between well-qualified experts over how care should be best provided. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321 (noting that it is “not appropriate for the courts to specify which of several professionally acceptab le choices should have been made.”).
Thus, the Court finds that the first factor weighs in favor of approval of the parties’ settlement plan.
(2) Range of Possible Recovery (3) Point on or Below Range of Recovery that Settlement is
Fair, Adequate and Reasonable These two factors can be addressed together for the purposes of applying the standard for approving settlement. See Behrens v. Wometco Enters., Inc., 118 F.R.D. 534, 541 (S.D. Fla. 1988)(noting
25

the second and third prongs of Bennett are easily combined). The range of possible recovery at trial is determined by what Plaintiffs could prove is the constitutional minimum for the provision of sex offender treatment and mental health treatment at FCCC. It is difficult to gauge the range of possible recovery in an injunctive case for an area of law that is not well-litigated, but the range is limited by Youngberg. Thus, Plaintiffs reasonably believe Defendant has implemented improvements that are beyond what the Court may have ordered as injunctive relief based on the evidence available at trial. In the Court’s view, this belief is well-founded and reasonable. Therefore, these two factors support approval of the settlement.
(4) Complexity, Expense and Duration of Case This factor requires a court to make an educated estimate of the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the trial. Miller v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 559 F.2d 426, 428 (5th Cir. 1977). The Court ordered this case to follow Track Three, Local Rule 3.05(b)(3)(M.D. Fla.), for complex cases. Most class actions are complex, and this case has the added complexity resulting from a class of involuntarily institutionalized persons some of whom have mental health issues and all of whom have been alleged or found to have sex offender issues. In addition to its complexity, this case is an expensive one. In preparing the case, Plaintiffs’ counsel alone has spent over $250,000 in costs and expenses to cover three
26

multi-day site visit s for their experts, taking 24 depositions around the state and country, and producing tens of thousands of class member records and other documents over the course of litigation. Trial was scheduled to last 10 days. (Doc. #210.) The expense at trial would be further increased because of the number of experts involved on both s ides. There is no question that the trial i n this case would have been complex, would have required significant expe nse to the parties, and would have required substantial judicial labor. Therefore, this factor also weighs in favor of approval of the settlement.
(5) Stage of Proceedings at which Resolution Achieved The parties agreed on the Final Action Plan more than five years after the filing of the Complaint in the case. This was not a rushed agreement reached in the initial stages of a lawsuit. The parties completed exhaustive discovery over a period of years, both parties were fully prepared for trial, and the settlement is a reasoned resolution of differences. Therefore, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. (6) Substance and Amount of Opposition There are approximately 700 residents at FCCC. While the number of class members fluctuates, over 350-400 of the 700 residents at the facility are class members. Of that number, only 21 objections from a total of 37 residen ts were filed during the objection period. Moreover, out of the number of residents filing
27

objections, only 23 are in fact members of the class. (Doc. #314, Exh. 3.)
At the outset, one objection alleged inadequate notice to the class members of the propose d settlement.4 Doc. #285, ¶5. As previously discussed, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) requires that the Court direct notice to all class mem bers in a “reasonable” manner. Alabama, 271 Fed. Appx. at 900 (citations omitted). The notice must reach the affected parties and convey the required information. Id. at 901 (citations omitted). In reviewing a notice of proposed settlement to determine compliance with the Due Process Clause, the Court should look “solely to the language of the notices and the manner of their distribution.” Id. at 900 (citations omitted). The notice of settlement reached every FCCC resident by hand delivery and post ings in the dorms at the FCCC, and contained clear language advising all parties of the proposed settlement. See supra at 6-7 (dis cussing method of providing notice in this case). Thus, the Court finds the notice provided in this case was reasonable.
The most substantive objection concerned the lack of a federal monitor or court oversight. (See Docs. #280, ¶2; #282; #283; #284; #296, ¶6.) The Court finds there are sufficient means of monitoring the quality of care provided at FCCC to compensate for the lack of federal or court oversight. First, Defendant requires
4The objector raising the issue of notice is not a member of the class action. Doc. #314, Exh. B.
28

GEO to achieve full accreditation and oversight of the inpatient unit through CARF accreditation. (Doc. #302, Focus Areas ##1 & 2.) The Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (hereinafter “CARF”) is an independent organization that inspects and accredits treatment facilities. To be accredited, the facility must meet CARF standards and pass a site inspection by surveyors. Second, the Defendant actively engages in contract monitoring with GEO. (Doc. #302, App. 4 at 28, 38-9.) Second, all aspects of the program are subject to all state contractual monitoring requirements. Third, GEO contracts with the TAB and other expert consultants. These individuals, nationally-renowned sex offender treatment providers, review policies and procedures, visit the facility, provide training to staff members, and provide suggestions for improved treatment modalities. (Doc. #302, App. 1.) Fourth, for residen ts with severe and persistent mental illnesses, the Defendant requires the review of any resident housed for more than a year on FCCC’s mental health unit by an outside clinical team. (See Focus Area #1; App. 17.) Finally, Plaintiffs’ counsel continues to monitor the provision of s ervices at the facility. As recently as September 29, 2009, Plaintiffs’ counsel visited the facility where they interviewed residents and reviewed treatment records. Any time Pl aintiffs’ counsel alerted to any treatment-related issues, counsel contacted counsel for Defendant and Defendant’s counsel then relayed the information to Defendant and GEO. Plaintiffs’ counsel received a swift response from both
29

Defendant and GEO regarding any issues brought to their attention.

Some of the objections were overly vague, such as, requesting

“more meaningful or adequate treatment.” ( Doc. #275.) O ther

objections pertained to matters unrelated to the Complaint. (Doc.

#288 (complaining, inter alia, about being included as a class

member).) At least one of the objections contained allegations

more appropriate for filing in a petition for writ of habeas

corpus. (Doc. #288.)

Finally, some objectors want more relief than was encompassed

by the allegations in the Complaint. (See Doc. #277 (complaining

of conditions of confinement at the new facility).). Those

objections are outside the scope of the constitutional violations

alleged in the Complaint or are outside the scope of what

Plaintiffs’ attorneys thought they could est

ablish as a

constitutional minimum at trial. Their general dis satisfaction

with the resolution of the case does not mean the resolution is not

fair, adequate, and reasonable under the circumstances. See Perez

v. Asurion Corp., 501 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1382 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

(holding objectors wanting a "bett er deal" than provided in the

settlement did not warrant rejecting the final settlement plan when

weighed against the B ennett factors and the judgment of class

counsel).

(C) Judgment of Experienced Class Counsel

Attorneys for both Pla intiffs and Defendant have decades of

30

class action litigation experience. Under such circumstances, both sides can evaluate the case in light of a complete understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their side. A court "should keep in mind the unique ability of class and defense counsel to assess the potential risks and rewards of litigation, and a presumption of correctness is said to attach to a class settlement reached in arms length negotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery." Manual for Complex Litig., § 30.41 (2d Ed. 1985); see also Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330; Lelsz v. Kavanagh, 783 F. Supp. 286 (N.D. Tex. 1991), aff’d, 983 F.2d 1061 (5th Cir.).
The parties have actively litigated this case for more than five years. After carefully considering the claims, the state of the law, and the evidence, all counsel believe that this agreement represents a fair and reasonable resolution to Plaintiffs’ claims. These opinions should be considered in light of their "length of involvement in the litigation, competence, experience in the particular type of litigation, and the amount of discovery completed." Newberg on Class Actions, ¶ 11.47 (1992 Supp.).
Over the five-year course of this litiga tion, Plaintiffs’ attorneys expended nearly one million dollars of compensable attorney time and litigation expenses. Defendant a greed to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $249,000.00 as payment of Plaintiffs’ out-of-pocket litigation expenses. This amount includes items such as the payment of experts, deposition costs, and other costs associated with the prosecution of the case. Th is amount is the
31

only compensation to be paid to Plaintiffs’ counsel and they have agreed not to seek an award of fees and costs from the court.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Dismissal of the Case (Doc. #302) filed by Plaintiffs and Defendant is GRANTED. This case is dismissed with prejudice. 2. Defendant must provide notice to the FCCC residents regarding approval of the settlement and dismissal of this action on or before December 2, 2009 , by utilizing the same methods previously ordered by the Court in its September 14, 2009 Order. On or before December 7, 2009 , an FCCC official shall file an affidavit confirming that every resident at the facility was given notice of the approval of the settlement and dismissal of this action. 3. The Clerk of Cou rt shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions, and close this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on this 23rd day of November, 2009.
Copies: All Parties of Record
32

 
 Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 391 Filed 02/24/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3792
Case: 10-1 0135 Date ~RE!lU)2/24/2 01 2 Pag e: 1 of 1
UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Eleventh Circ uit

No. 10- 10135 - 1::>1>
District Court Docket No. 2:04-cv-002 60-UA -ON F
ROGER G. CANUPP, ind ividually and on beha lf of a Class of all
persons similarl y si tuated, cl aI. ,
Plaint ifTs-Appell ees, MICHAEL C. DONOVAN,
Movant - Appell ant, versus LIB ERTY BEHAVIORAL I·IEALTHCARE CORP. , et aI. ,
Defendants, GEORGE H. SHELDON, Secretary of the Depattment of Children and Famili es,
Defendant - Appellee.

1'"!LlcD U.S. COURT OF APPL ;\LS
ae VU'H H CIRCU IT DE U ·..VII3 ER I. 21) I I
j()1!1\ U:Y CL.!' RK

Appea l fi'om the United States District Court for the Middle District of Fl orida
JUD GMENT
It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and dec reed that the attached opin ion included herein by refere nce, is ente red as the judgment of thi s Court.
Entered: December 0 I, 20 I I For the Court: John Ley, C lerk of Court
By: Djuanlla Clark

Issued as Man date: Feb ruary 24, 2012

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 391 Filed 02/24/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID 3793 Case: 10-10135 Date ~tlanf:9)2/01/2011 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10135 Non-Argument Calendar

FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DECEMBER 1, 2011
JOHN LEY CLERK

D.C. Docket No. 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF

ROGER G. CANUPP, individually and on behalf of a Class of all persons similarly situated, et al.,
MICHAEL C. DONOVAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, Movant-Appellant,

versus

LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE CORP., et aI.,
Defendants,
GEORGE H. SHELDON, Secretary of the Department of Children and Families,
Defendant-Appellee.

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 391 Filed 02/24/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3794
Case: 10-10135 Date ~Ranf:S}2/01/2011 Page: 2 of 4
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(December 1, 2011) Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Michael C. Donovan, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's judgment approving a class-action settlement agreement in a conditions-ofconfinement suit, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Florida Civil Commitment Center ("FCCC"). Donovan argues (1) that the FCCC is violating federal law by failing to provide an effective sex offender treatment program that would allow him to meet the requirements for release from involuntary civil commitment; (2) that the FCCC is providing inadequate mental health services that would allow him to meet the requirements for release from involuntary civil commitment; and (3) that the FCCC is violating his right to procedural due process through its use of punitive confinement. 1
I Donovan also argues that the FCCC is failing to accommodate residents with disabilities and that the court's judgment fails to contain an oversight provision. Because Donovan raises these issues for the first time on appeal, we do not consider them. See Access Now v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330-31 (l1th Cir. 2004) (declining to consider issues, arguments or Jegal theories not raised initially before the district court).
2

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 391 Filed 02/24/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID 3795
Case: 10-10135 Date ~8emf: 8)2/01/2011 Page: 3 of 4
We review a district court's approval of a class-action settlement agreement
for abuse of discretion. Leverso v. South Trust Bank ofAla., 18 F.3d 1527, 1531
(11 th Cir. 1994).
Rule 23(e) ... does not provide any standards for such approval. It is now abundantly clear, however, that in order to approve a settlement, the district court must find that it "is fair, adequate and reasonable and is not the product of collusion between the parties." Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir.l977).... In addition, our judgment is informed by the strong judicial policy favoring settlement as well as by the realization that compromise is the essence of settlement. See United States v. City of Miami, 614 F.2d 1322, 1344 (5th Cir.1980).
Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1984) (footnotes and
citations omitted).
The following factors inform the court as to whether the terms of a class-
action settlement agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate:
(1) the likelihood of success at trial; (2) the range of possible recovery; (3) the point on or below the range of possible recovery at which a settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable; (4) the complexity, expense and duration oflitigation; (5) the substance and amount ofopposition to the settlement; and (6) the stage ofproceedings at which the settlement was achieved.
Id. In considering the settlement, the court is entitled to rely upon the judgment of
experienced counsel for the parties. Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (11 th
Cir. 1977). "Indeed, the trial court, absent fraud, collusion, or the like, should be
3

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 391 Filed 02/24/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID 3796 Case: 10-10135 Date ~amt:9)2/01/2011 Page: 4 of 4
hesitant to substitute its own judgment for that of counsel." Id. Finally, the court should examine the settlement in light of the objections, and provide a reasoned response to those objections. Id. at 1331.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by approving the settlement agreement as fair, adequate, and reasonable because it properly considered the factors enumerated in the standard set forth by this court, explained its findings, and addressed Donovan's objections.
AFFIRMED.
4

 
 Case 2:04-cv-00260-MMH-DNF Document 65 Filed 03/22/2005 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
ROGER G. CANUPP, JACOB MYERS, LAWRENCE MCGEE, HUBERT DAVIDSON, TYWAUN JACKSON, and CHARLES DURDEN,
Plaintiffs,

FILED

05 MAR 22 Pi112:, 7

0, ."

<:i

~

';, iL'J

:' I f ' ,~

.-,-'

vs.

Case No. 2:04-cv-260-FtM-33DNF

LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL

HEALTHCARE

CORP., LUCY HADI, Secretary of the

Department of Children and Families,

Defendants. --------------------------------------/
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Reiger's

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Pleadings and/or

Partial Summary Judgement (Doc. #24 ) filed July 22, 2004

("Defendant's Motion"). Defendant seeks "partial judgment on the

pleadings

and/or partial summary judgement

of the

procedural due process claims by Plaintiff Kramer in Count [4]

attacking the confinement policies of Liberty Behavioral Health

Corp [oration] ." Defendant's Motion, page 1 (emphasis added)1.

Defendant in its incorporated Memorandum of Law ambiguously claims that "the Court lacks jurisdiction of the claims alleging lack of a discharge process and post-discharge care." Motion at page 11. First, it is unclear whether Defendant intends this argument to apply to Plaintiffs' Complaint generally or apply to Plaintiff Kramer only. Second, it is unclear whether Plaintiff contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction concerning the fact or duration of a plaintiff's confinement at the FCCC. Clearly, 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 vests the Court with jurisdiction to entertain such claims. The Court, however, does not construe Plaintiffs' Complaint as challenging the statutory discharge process established under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Section 394.910, et .§.iill., Fla.Stat. (2003). Rather, the Court reads Plaintiffs' Complaint as challenging the sufficiency of a Stage IV community treatment
(continued ...)

Case 2:04-cv-00260-MMH-DNF Document 65 Filed 03/22/2005 Page 2 of 2
On March 14, 2005, the Court entered an Order dismissing certain named Plaintiffs (including Plaintiff Kramer) and Count 4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. #62). Consequently, the Court finds Defendant's Motion moot.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant Reiger's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Partial Summary Judgement (Doc. #24) is DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Myers, Florida, on this 22~ day of March, 2005.

SA: hmk Copies: All Parties of Record

·i~!t~E:;'~O~-it IN frED STATl~S DISTRICT HJDCE

\ .. continued) program. Complaint, page 9, 145, page 11, 152.
-2-

 
 Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 272-2 Filed 08/21/09 Page 1 of 11 PageID 2871
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 272-2 Filed 08/21/09 Page 2 of 11 PageID 2872
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CANUPP, ET AL. v. SHELDON
Canupp, et al. v. Sheldon, 2:04-cv-260-UA-DNF, is a lawsuit filed in the Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division. The case was filed in May 2004 and challenges the constitutional adequacy of the mental health treatment and sex offender treatment provided at the Florida Civil Commitment Center. In August 2005, the Court certified two subclasses:
(1) residents of the FCCC who (a) have been civilly committed to custody pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat., that they are sexually violent predators; or (b) have been detained to custody pursuant to §394.915 as probable cause sexually violent predators; and (c) who have consented to sex offender treatment, and are not receiving adequate sex offender treatment, and
(2) residents of the FCCC who (a) have been civilly committed to custody pursuant to §394.917, Fla. Stat., that they are sexually violent predators; or (b) have been detained to custody pursuant to §394.915 as probable cause sexually violent predators; and (c) who have been diagnosed by a treating professional with a mental illness as defined by DSM-IV, and who are not receiving adequate treatment for their mental illness.
The lawyers for Plaintiffs and Defendant Sheldon have agreed to settle this lawsuit. DCF has been making changes at FCCC since the lawsuit was filed in 2004. These changes are reflected at FCCC and in the contract with GEO. The settlement plan includes improvements to the oversight and staffing of the inpatient mental health unit, the creation of policies addressing the screening and referral process for the use of antiandrogens, comprehensive discharge planning for Phase IV residents, improvements to the special track of treatment, and improved training for clinical staff and TST housing staff.
The settlement plan is attached to this notice. It explains what the Defendant will do to address each issue, when the improvements will happen, and who is responsible for making sure the improvements occur. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ attorneys signed an agreement with Defendant recouping their out-of-pocket expenses in prosecuting the claims raised in this litigation.
If you are a class member, then you have the right to object to the proposed settlement plan. Objections must be postmarked by October 15, 2009. You may file written objections to the settlement and dismissal of the case by mailing your reasons for objection to: Clerk, Middle District of Florida, 2110 First Street, Ft. Myers, FL 33901. Please reference the case name and case number in your objection.
After the period for objections is over, the Court will hold a hearing on the settlement plan. The hearing is scheduled for ____________, 2009 at __:__. The hearing will take place in Courtroom ___, United States Courthouse, 2110 1st Street, Ft. Myers, Florida, 33901.

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 272-2 Filed 08/21/09 Page 3 of 11 PageID 2873

FLORIDA CIVIL COMMITMENT CENTER PLAN OF ACTION

Date: July 10, 2009, 1:30pm

Item

Focus Area

Action Plan

( 1 )

( 2 )

POLICIES/PROGRAMS

1

Create a policy or process for an outside

consultant or evaluator to review the

records of any resident who has been in

the inpatient living unit for more than one

year.

( 3 )
Department of Children and Families (DCF) shall designate a clinical team from another state treatment facility. This team shall not be from a GEO run facility or consist of DCF headquarter staff. At a minimum, the clinical team shall be comprised of a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, registered nurse and other disciplines as clinically indicated.

Title Responsible
Party
( 4 )

Target Date ( 5 )

DCF Chief of Mental Health (MH) Treatment Facilities

7/10/2009

FCCC shall identify all residents currently in the Chronic Care Unit (CCU) who have continuously resided in the unit for greater than one year.

FCCC Clinical Director

7/15/2009

FCCC shall copy the files of those identified residents and send to the designated clinical team for review.

FCCC Clinical Director

8/1/2009

The clinical team shall review a minimum of five (5) residents monthly until completed.

DCF Chief of MH Treatment Facilities

9/01/2009

Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) Policy CL-10, “Residential Mental Health Services”, shall be revised to reflect that the residents in the CCU shall have an annual review by the DCF designated clinical team. The clinical team shall review the resident’s record to determine

FCCC Clinical Director

7/20/2009 1

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 272-2 Filed 08/21/09 Page 4 of 11 PageID 2874

Date: July 10, 2009, 1:30pm

progress in treatment in the event they have resided on the CCU for greater than a year.

2

Create a policy or process for

DCF Contract LI702, Attachment I, Section

FCCC

10/31/2010

accreditation or outside oversight of the B.6.a.(8) requires FCCC to achieve full CARF

Clinical Director

inpatient unit.

accreditation within 18 months of occupying the

new facility.

FCCC Policy CL-10, “Residential Mental Health Services,” shall be revised to reflect that the CCU shall achieve and maintain CARF accreditation standards for Inpatient Treatment (Section 3M).

FCCC Clinical Director

7/20/2009

3

Create a policy or process for identifying FCCC Policy ADM-13, “Competency Evaluation

FCCC

and notifying courts of jurisdiction courts and Training,” shall be revised to reflect that the Clinical Director

about residents who are not restorable for court of jurisdiction shall be notified when

purpose of competency to proceed.

residents are deemed nonrestorable for

purposes of competency to proceed. The report

shall be submitted to the court within 10 working

days of a finding of non-restorability.

7/20/2009

The clinical director shall meet with the

FCCC

8/1/2009

competency restoration team on a monthly

Clinical Director

basis to review resident status and ensure

reports are being submitted timely.

4

Create a policy or process for identifying FCCC Policy CL-4 “Integrated Care Planning”

FCCC

7/20/2009

and notifying courts of jurisdiction about shall be revised pertaining to annual reports to

Clinical Director

residents with severe and persistent

the court of jurisdiction. For committed

mental illnesses who are committed and residents who have severe and persistent

not participating in sex offender treatment mental illnesses, the annual report shall include

programming as a result of their mental information on the resident’s status, length of

illness.

stay in the Chronic Care Unit (CCU), and

current capacity for meaningful participation in

the sex offender treatment program.

5

Create a policy for comprehensive

discharge planning for Phase IV

residents.

FCCC shall develop and implement a separate policy entitled, “Comprehensive Discharge Planning for Phase IV Residents.” The policy shall address vocational aptitude, preparation

FCCC Clinical Director

8/1/2009 2

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 272-2 Filed 08/21/09 Page 5 of 11 PageID 2875

6

Create a policy for screening and

assessing all residents for referral for

therapeutic sex drive reduction

medication, including anti-androgens.

for return to the workforce, and identification of and planning for barriers to successful community reintegration. During the intake process, all residents shall be provided with a psychoeducational information sheet that includes types of medications prescribed for sex drive reduction, adverse side effects of medications, potential benefits of medications, and myths. All residents who express interest at the time of intake shall be referred to a psychiatrist for further assessment.
Psycho educational information sheets shall be distributed to all current residents by a member of the FCCC clinical team. All current residents who express interest shall be referred to the psychiatrist for further assessment.
All residents demonstrating problematic sexual thoughts, fantasies, or behaviors shall be referred for evaluation by a psychiatrist. Issues are identified via resident behavior and information gathered during treatment and case management.
FCCC Policy HLTH-52, “Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors,” and FCCC Policy HLTH-53, “Use of Anti-Androgen Medications,” regarding therapeutic sex drive reduction shall be revised to reflect screening and assessment for referral for use of medication, including anti-androgens. Individuals who are interested in further exploring the possible use of medication shall be referred to a psychiatrist.
A screening tool shall be implemented at the facility to assist clinical staff in evaluating risk and need regarding therapeutic sex drive reduction. The tool shall be used at the time of admission to assess baseline level, and shall be filed in the medical record. If residents verbalize

Date: July 10, 2009, 1:30pm

FCCC Clinical Director

7/20/2009

FCCC Clinical Director

8/1/2009

3

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 272-2 Filed 08/21/09 Page 6 of 11 PageID 2876

Date: July 10, 2009, 1:30pm

a request for medication, a note shall be entered in the medical record and the appropriate referral made to a psychiatrist.

Staff shall be trained on the policy and the tool

at the weekly clinical staff meeting.

7

Create a policy that limits the treatment FCCC Policy CL-1, “Program Description:

FCCC

7/20/2009

group size for the special needs track to Comprehensive Treatment Programming for

Clinical Director

no more than 8-10 residents per group

Persons Who Have Sexually Offended,” shall be

with two co-facilitators.

revised to reflect the current practice outlined in

the FCCC Program Description which limits

treatment group size in Phase II and above for

the special needs track to no more than eight

(8) to ten (10) residents per group with two

facilitators.

8

Create a policy that provides for the

FCCC shall create and implement a new policy

FCCC

7/20/2009

provision of services to persons with

entitled, “Program Services to Persons with

Clinical Director

hearing impairments that does not isolate Special Needs.” The policy shall outline

them with other special needs residents. services for special needs clients including ADA

limitations. The policy shall clearly provide that

residents shall receive individualized care based

on their level of need, including ensuring dignity

and respect are adequately maintained.

Specifically, hearing impaired individuals shall

not be located with special needs residents

unless clinically indicated.

Staff shall be trained on this policy at the weekly

FCCC

8/1/2009

staff meeting.

Clinical Director

9

Create a policy outlining expected

The Comprehensive Treatment Program is

FCCC

7/20/2009

timeframes for progressing through

outcome-based, not time-based. Minimum

Clinical Director

phases of treatment and for completion of timeframes shall be added to both the FCCC

the program as a whole.

Program Description and FCCC Policy CL-1,

“Program Description: Comprehensive

Treatment Programming for Persons Who Have

Sexually Offended.”

10 Create a vocational program that provides FCCC has recently enhanced the vocational

meaningful work training and

program as well as retained a vocational

opportunities to assist in re-integration

instructor who oversees the vocational program.

into the community upon release.

The vocational instructor facilitates vocational

FCCC Director of Programs

7/20/2009 4

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 272-2 Filed 08/21/09 Page 7 of 11 PageID 2877

development and planning classes for all Phase IV residents. These services assist residents in acquiring and developing needed skills to successfully reintegrate into the community upon release.
The program is based on standards outlined in the CARF manual for vocational programming.
As described in Policy CL-1, “Program Description: Comprehensive Treatment Programming for Persons Who Have Sexually Offended,” all residents in Phase IV of the Comprehensive Treatment Program receive a vocational assessment. Based on the outcome of this assessment, the treatment team shall develop a vocational plan which may include training in computer literacy (basic computer skills, keyboard training, business and software applications), horticulture, commercial janitorial services, food services, educational programming, and painting.
In addition, FCCC offers 2700 hours per week for resident employment opportunities, which provide a variety of work training skills.

Date: July 10, 2009, 1:30pm

11 Create a program that promotes family involvement at appropriate point in
treatment.

FCCC shall implement a family program, as described in Contract LI702 and the FCCC Program Description utilizing four unit managers, that includes offering an orientation session to all newly admitted families of residents, psycheducational classes for family members to understand the program, and family therapy to residents in Phase IV, to assist with reintegration into the community.

FCCC Clinical Director

As clinically appropriate and with proper consent of the resident, families shall be informed of these opportunities. For example,

8/1/2009 5

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 272-2 Filed 08/21/09 Page 8 of 11 PageID 2878

Date: July 10, 2009, 1:30pm

12 Create a policy or process for notifying courts of jurisdiction of terminally ill
residents.

families shall be notified of these services through the family email network disseminated by FCCC or by regular mail. Documentation of family notification shall be entered in the resident record.
FCCC Policy HLTH-98, “Care of the Terminally Ill,” shall be revised to outline the guidelines for notifying the court and public defenders when a resident is identified with a terminal illness.

FCCC Attorney

8/1/2009

13 Create a policy or process for intake

FCCC Policy PRG-5, “Routine Mental Health

screening that identifies individuals who Screening and Evaluation,” shall be revised to

have special needs, in order to facilitate include screening criteria to identify individuals

their immediate placement in programs

who have special needs in order to facilitate

designed to meet those needs.

their immediate placement in programs

designed for those needs. The Intake

Screening Form shall be modified to capture

any special needs/mental health concerns.

FCCC Director of Programs

7/20/2009

Staff shall be trained on the revised form during the weekly clinical staff meeting.

STAFFING

14 At a minimum, an additional part-time

FCCC shall recruit an additional .5 FTE

psychiatrist for residents with severe and psychiatrist.

persistent mental illness

FCCC Director of Programs
GEO Chief Medical
Officer

8/1/2009 8/1/2009

FCCC shall utilize a locum’s physician network in addition to having a recruitment plan consisting of on-line and print advertising with the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the Society for Correctional Physicians (Corr Docs) and the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC).

DCF Contract LI702, Exhibit B, Staffing shall be amended to include the additional .5 FTE psychiatrist.

DCF Contract Manager

8/1/2009

15 Psychiatrist attendance and involvement FCCC shall ensure the involvement of the

GEO

in team meetings for residents prescribed psychiatrist in the team meetings held every 180

Chief Medical

medication for traditional mental illnesses days for residents prescribed medication for

Officer

8/1/2009 6

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 272-2 Filed 08/21/09 Page 9 of 11 PageID 2879

Date: July 10, 2009, 1:30pm

or prescribed to lower sexual arousal.

traditional mental illnesses or prescribed to lower sexual arousal.

This involvement shall be added to the psychiatrist’s job description.

GEO Chief Medical
Officer

7/20/2009

The psychiatrist shall promptly notify the resident’s treatment team of any changes to medications or the psychiatric treatment plan. It shall be the responsibility of the treatment team to follow-up with the psychiatrist.

GEO Chief Medical
Officer

8/1/2009

FCCC shall amend policy CL-4 “Integrated Care Planning”, to mandate involvement of the psychiatrist in the treatment planning of any resident prescribed medication for traditional mental illnesses or for therapeutic sex drive reduction.

16 Full time psychiatric nurse on residential FCCC shall assign a full time psychiatric nurse,

FCCC

mental health unit.

one team leader and two clinical therapists to

Health Services

the residential mental health units (4 FTEs).

Administrator

7/20/2009

DCF Contract LI702, Exhibit B, Staffing, shall be amended to reflect that one of the existing nurse positions is filled with a full-time psychiatric nurse.

DCF Contract Manager

8/1/2009

TRAINING

17 Training to improve Individual Service

FCCC Policy CL-4, “Integrated Care Planning,”

FCCC

Plans (ISP) to include regular updates,

shall be modified to include four hours of service

Facility

more individualized content and clear

planning training yearly.

Administrator

objective and measurable goals. This is

applicable to ISPs for the residents with

The GEO Corporate Vice President of Clinical

7/20/2009 7

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 272-2 Filed 08/21/09 Page 10 of 11 PageID 2880

severe and persistent mental illness and residents participating in all tracks of the sex offender treatment program.

Programs shall provide the initial training on properly completing the service plan and writing observable, measurable, and individualized goals. Attendance shall be taken to ensure full participation by applicable staff.

Date: July 10, 2009, 1:30pm

FCCC Facility Administrator

8/1/2009

18 Training to improve communication

TST staff shall receive a one-time round of

FCCC

between Clinical Staff and Therapeutic

enhanced training and yearly in-service training. Clinical Director

Security Technician (TST) housing staff to During training by clinical staff, TSTs and other

provide continuum of care on housing

training participants are instructed on the

units.

necessity of teamwork and appropriate

communication of risk and need. This shall be

incorporated into the existing curricula.

9/01/09

In addition to two (2) TST staff assigned to the residential mental health units, there shall be one (1) additional TST assigned to the Residential Mental Health Unit (3.0 FTEs) to facilitate ongoing training and improved communication with clinical staff.

On-going supervision by the team leaders and/or unit managers shall occur.

FCCC Clinical Director

8/1/2009

19 Training and supervision of clinical staff Clinical staff shall receive training in working

FCCC

12/31/2009

and TST housing staff regarding the

with special needs residents from Gerry

Clinical Director

and

specific needs of the special needs track Blasingame, LMFT, or a comparable consultant

12/31/2010

population and how to modify treatment in the field, by December 2009 and again by

and care for this population.

December 2010.

TST staff shall receive a one-time round of enhanced training and yearly in-service training. During the yearly training, there shall be a section regarding working with residents with special needs. This training shall be provided by the staff who attended training by Gerry Blasingame or a comparable consultant in the field.

FCCC shall designate a minimum of two (2)

FCCC

10/31/2009 8

Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DNF Document 272-2 Filed 08/21/09 Page 11 of 11 PageID 2881

Date: July 10, 2009, 1:30pm

staff to attend the annual Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) conference (or a comparable conference), including workshops on treating sexual offenders with special needs.

Clinical Director

The staff in attendance shall be required to

present current updates in special needs

treatment to other FCCC clinical staff upon

return to the facility.

20 Training for psychiatrists and clinical staff Brad Johnson, M.D., a member of the FCCC

regarding screening, assessment and

Treatment Advisory Board, provided anti-

integration of medications, particularly

androgen training to psychiatrists and clinical

anti-androgens, as a component of

staff during May 2007.

treatment.

FCCC shall retain Dr. Johnson or a comparable

outside consultant annually, to train

psychiatrists and clinical staff regarding

screening, assessment and integration of

medications, particularly anti-androgens, as a

component of treatment. Attendance at the

training shall be documented.

FCCC Facility Administrator

1/31/2010

The GEO Chief Medical Officer shall be responsible for training all new hires occurring between annual training sessions.

21 Training to improve discharge planning for FCCC staff shall receive annual training in

FCCC

residents nearing release from the facility. discharge planning for residents nearing release Clinical Director

from the facility.

8/1/2009

A random sample of discharge summaries shall be reviewed by supervisory staff monthly to ensure adequate discharge planning and to observe and recommend opportunities for improvement to staff.

FCCC Clinical Director

9/15/2009

9

 
 Canupp Action Plan Status Updates Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DONcFtobDeorc3um0,e2n0t 30092-4 Filed 11/03/09 Page 1 of 7 PageID 3136

ITEM

FOCUS AREA

ACTION PLAN

TITLE

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY POLICIES/PROGRAMS

Department of Children and Families (DCF) shall designate a

DCF Chief of

clinical team from another state treatment facility. This team shall Mental Health (MH)

not be from a GEO run facility or consist of DCF headquarter staff. Treatment Facilities

At a minimum, the clinical team shall be comprised of a psychiatrist,

psychologist, social worker, registered nurse and other disciplines

as clinically indicated.

FCCC shall identify all residents currently in the Chronic Care Unit FCCC Clinical

(CCU) who have continuously resided in the unit for greater than

Director

one year.

TARGET DATE
7/10/2009
7/15/2009

Create a policy or process for an

1

outside consultant or evaluator to review the records of any resident who has been in the inpatient living

FCCC shall copy the files of the designated clinical team

those identified for review.

residents

and

send

to

FCCC Clinical Director

8/1/2009

unit for more than one year.

The clinical team shall review a minimum of five (5) residents

DCF Chief of MH 9/1/2009

monthly until completed.

Treatment Facilities

STATUS Completed
Completed Completed In Progress

DATE COMPLETED

COMMENTS

7/10/2009

DCF has designated Northeast Florida State Hospital (NEFSH) as the facility who will designate a clinical team to review resident files.

7/14/2009

A list was provided to DCF by GEO that included all residents currently in the CCU. There are a total of fourteen (14) residents that have continuously resided in the unit for greater than one year.

7/22/2009

Electronic copies of files have been received and are being sent FED EX to NEFSH for the Clinical Team to Review.

Resident Files have been sent to NEFSH for the clinical team to review.

Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) Policy CL-10, “Residential Mental Health Services”, shall be revised to reflect that the residents in the CCU shall have an annual review by the DCF designated clinical team. The clinical team shall review the resident’s record to determine progress in treatment in the event they have resided on the CCU for greater than a year.

FCCC Clinical Director

7/20/2009 Completed

7/20/2009

Policy Revision: CL-10 “Residential Mental Health Services” – Reflect Annual Review by designated clinical team.

DCF Contract LI702, Attachment I, Section B.6.a.(8) requires

FCCC Clinical 10/31/2010 In Progress

FCCC to achieve full CARF accreditation within 18 months of

Director

Create a policy or process for occupying the new facility.

2

accreditation or outside oversight FCCC Policy CL-10, “Residential Mental Health Services,” shall be FCCC Clinical 7/20/2009 Completed

7/20/2009 GEO submitted to DCF, Policy Revision: CL-10 “Residential

of the inpatient unit.

revised to reflect that the CCU shall achieve and maintain CARF

Director

Mental Health Services” – Achieve and maintain CARF

accreditation standards for Inpatient Treatment (Section 3M).

accreditation.

FCCC Policy ADM-13, “Competency Evaluation and Training,” shall FCCC Clinical 7/20/2009 Completed

be revised to reflect that the court of jurisdiction shall be notified

Director

Create a policy or process for when residents are deemed nonrestorable for purposes of

identifying and notifying courts of competency to proceed. The report shall be submitted to the court

3

jurisdiction courts about residents within 10 working days of a finding of non-restorability.

who are not restorable for purpose

of competency to proceed. The clinical director shall meet with the competency restoration

FCCC Clinical

8/1/2009 Completed

team on a monthly basis to review resident status and ensure

Director

reports are being submitted timely.

7/20/2009

GEO submitted to DCF, Policy Revision: ADM-13 “Competency Evaluation and Training” – Reflect court notification.

8/1/2009

GEO submitted Meeting Minutes: Competency Restoration Team discussion re: Policy ADM-13 and timeliness of court reports.

Canupp Action Plan Status Updates Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DONcFtobDeorc3um0,e2n0t 30092-4 Filed 11/03/09 Page 2 of 7 PageID 3137

ITEM 4 5

FOCUS AREA

ACTION PLAN

Create a policy or process for identifying and notifying courts of jurisdiction about residents with
severe and persistent mental illnesses who are committed and not participating in sex offender treatment programming as a result

FCCC Policy CL-4 “Integrated Care Planning” shall be revised pertaining to annual reports to the court of jurisdiction. For committed residents who have severe and persistent mental illnesses, the annual report shall include information on the resident’s status, length of stay in the Chronic Care Unit (CCU), and current capacity for meaningful participation in the sex offender treatment program.

of their mental illness.

TITLE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY FCCC Clinical
Director

FCCC shall develop and implement a separate policy entitled,

Create a policy for comprehensive “Comprehensive Discharge Planning for Phase IV Residents.” The

discharge planning for Phase IV policy shall address vocational aptitude, preparation for return to

residents.

the workforce, and identification of and planning for barriers to

successful community reintegration.

During the intake process, all residents shall be provided with a

psychoeducational information sheet that includes types of

medications prescribed for sex drive reduction, adverse side effects

of medications, potential benefits of medications, and myths. All

residents who express interest at the time of intake shall be

referred to a psychiatrist for further assessment.

FCCC Clinical Director
FCCC Clinical Director

Psycho educational information sheets shall be distributed to all current residents by a member of the FCCC clinical team. All current residents who express interest shall be referred to the psychiatrist for further assessment.

TARGET DATE
7/20/2009
8/1/2009 7/20/2009

STATUS Completed
Completed Completed

DATE COMPLETED

COMMENTS

7/20/2009

GEO submitted to DCF, Policy Revision: CL-4 “Integrated Care Planning” . This policy was revised to include annual report information.

7/20/2009

GEO submitted to DCF New Policy: CL-22 “Comprehensive Discharge Planning for Phase IV Residents” – Address issues presented in plan of action.

7/20/2009

Psychoeducational Information Sheets – FCCC Approved the use of and provided copies to residents. Signed sheets will be maintained in the client record.
8/1/09: GEO submitted Form Resubmission: Psycho educational Medication form revised to include resident’s level of interest. Now Reference HLTH-52B.
Policy Revision: PRG-5 “Routine Mental Health Screening and Evaluation” was revised to reflect the referral to psychiatrist if indicated.

All residents demonstrating problematic sexual thoughts, fantasies, or behaviors shall be referred for evaluation by a psychiatrist. Issues are identified via resident behavior and information gathered during treatment and case management.

8/1/09: GEO submitted Policy Revision: PRG-5 “Routine Clinical Screening and Evaluation” – Revised to reflect that the resident will receive a copy of the psycho educational material as part of the screening.

Create a policy for screening and

assessing all residents for referral

6

for therapeutic sex drive reduction FCCC Policy HLTH-52, “Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors,” and FCCC FCCC Clinical

8/1/2009 Completed

medication, including anti- Policy HLTH-53, “Use of Anti-Androgen Medications,” regarding

Director

androgens.

therapeutic sex drive reduction shall be revised to reflect screening

and assessment for referral for use of medication, including anti-

androgens. Individuals who are interested in further exploring the

possible use of medication shall be referred to a psychiatrist.

8/1/2009

GEO Submitted to DCF a copy of the referral form utilized when resident is referred to Psychiatry.
GEO submitted Policy Revision: HLTH-52 “Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor” – Reflect screening and assessment and referral for use of medications.
GEO submitted Policy Revision: HLTH-53 “Use of AntiAndrogen Medications” – Reflect screening and assessment and referral for use of medications.

A screening tool shall be implemented at the facility to assist clinical staff in evaluating risk and need regarding therapeutic sex drive reduction. The tool shall be used at the time of admission to assess baseline level, and shall be filed in the medical record. If residents verbalize a request for medication, a note shall be entered in the medical record and the appropriate referral made to a psychiatrist.

FCCC Clinical Director

8/1/2009 Completed

8/1/2009

GEO submitted Form Revision: HLTH 52A - Screening tool to evaluate risk and need regarding therapeutic sex drive; Used by therapists whenever demonstrating cause. GEO submitted Form Revision: Intake Screening Form revised to evaluate risk and need regarding therapeutic sex drive; Used at the time of admission.

Canupp Action Plan Status Updates Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DONcFtobDeorc3um0,e2n0t 30092-4 Filed 11/03/09 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3138

ITEM

FOCUS AREA

ACTION PLAN
Staff shall be trained on the policy and the tool at the weekly clinical staff meeting.

TITLE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY FCCC Clinical
Director

FCCC Policy CL-1, “Program Description: Comprehensive

FCCC Clinical

Create a policy that limits the Treatment Programming for Persons Who Have Sexually

Director

treatment group size for the Offended,” shall be revised to reflect the current practice outlined in

7

special needs track to no more the FCCC Program Description which limits treatment group size in

than 8-10 residents per group with Phase II and above for the special needs track to no more than

two co-facilitators.

eight (8) to ten (10) residents per group with two facilitators.

TARGET DATE
8/1/2009
7/20/2009

STATUS Completed Completed

DATE COMPLETED

COMMENTS

8/1/2009 7/20/2009

GEO submitted Training Minutes and Sign-In Sheets to provide evidencing of staff training on policy and tool. Dates: 7/2/09, 7/9/09 and 7/23/09.
Policy Revision submitted by GEO to DCF. Policy CL-1 “Program Description” was revised to outline the special needs group size

FCCC shall create and implement a new policy entitled, “Program

FCCC Clinical 7/20/2009 Completed

Services to Persons with Special Needs.” The policy shall outline

Director

services for special needs clients including ADA limitations. The

policy shall clearly provide that residents shall receive individualized

care based on their level of need, including ensuring dignity and

respect are adequately maintained. Specifically, hearing impaired

Create a policy that provides for individuals shall not be located with special needs residents unless

the provision of services to clinically indicated.

8

persons with hearing impairments

that does not isolate them with

other special needs residents.

7/20/2009

New Policy Submitted by GEO to DCF: CL-23 “Program Services to Persons with Special Needs” This policy outlines services for the special needs population.
Policy ADM-6 "Translation of Records and Language Assistance for Residents" has been revised by GEO and submitted to DCF. The policy was revised to add language related to the housing and treatment of residents with special needs

Staff shall be trained on this policy at the weekly staff meeting.

FCCC Clinical Director

8/1/2009 Completed

Create a policy outlining expected The Comprehensive Treatment Program is outcome-based, not

FCCC Clinical 7/20/2009 Completed

timeframes for progressing through time-based. Minimum timeframes shall be added to both the FCCC

Director

9

phases of treatment and for Program Description and FCCC Policy CL-1, “Program Description:

completion of the program as a Comprehensive Treatment Programming for Persons Who Have

whole.

Sexually Offended.”

8/1/2009 7/20/2009

GEO submitted Training Minutes and Sign-In Sheet to provide evidence of staff training on policy and tool. Date: 7/23/09
GEO submitted to DCF a Policy Revision: CL-1 “Program Description”, which now includes minimum timeframes. The Program Description was also revised to include the minimum timeframes.

Canupp Action Plan Status Updates Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DONcFtobDeorc3um0,e2n0t 30092-4 Filed 11/03/09 Page 4 of 7 PageID 3139

ITEM

FOCUS AREA

ACTION PLAN
FCCC has recently enhanced the vocational program as well as retained a vocational instructor who oversees the vocational program.

TITLE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY FCCC Director of
Programs

TARGET DATE
7/20/2009

The vocational instructor facilitates vocational development and planning classes for all Phase IV residents. These services assist residents in acquiring and developing needed skills to successfully reintegrate into the community upon release.

The program is based on standards outlined in the CARF manual

Create a vocational program that for vocational programming.

10

provides meaningful work training and opportunities to assist in reintegration into the community
upon release.

As described in Policy CL-1, “Program Description: Comprehensive Treatment Programming for Persons Who Have Sexually Offended,” all residents in Phase IV of the Comprehensive Treatment Program receive a vocational assessment. Based on

the outcome of this assessment, the treatment team shall develop a

vocational plan which may include training in computer literacy

(basic computer skills, keyboard training, business and software

applications), horticulture, commercial janitorial services, food

services, educational programming, and painting.

In addition, FCCC offers 2700 hours per week for resident employment opportunities, which provide a variety of work training sk

STATUS Completed

DATE COMPLETED

COMMENTS

7/20/2009

GEO submitted to DCF Policy Revision: CL-1 “Program Description”, which now includes a Vocational Assessment component.

The Integrated Care Plan form was revised to include a Vocational Plan Template.

A List of Vocation Program Areas with the number of residents currently working in each area was submitted.

FCCC shall implement a family program, as described in Contract FCCC Clinical

8/1/2009 Completed

LI702 and the FCCC Program Description utilizing four unit

Director

managers, that includes offering an orientation session to all newly

admitted families of residents, psychoeducational classes for family

members to understand the program, and family therapy to

residents in Phase IV, to assist with reintegration into the

community.

Create a program that promotes

11 family involvement at appropriate As clinically appropriate and with proper consent of the resident,

point in treatment.

families shall be informed of these opportunities. For example,

families shall be notified of these services through the family email

network disseminated by FCCC or by regular mail. Documentation

of family notification shall be entered in the resident record.

8/1/2009

Family Correspondence: GEO sent email on 7/24/2009.
GEO provided Handout: Family Programming Information Handout introducing the new Family Program to Families and Residents.
GEO provided Release Form: Release form to contact family and/or support network.

Canupp Action Plan Status Updates Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DONcFtobDeorc3um0,e2n0t 30092-4 Filed 11/03/09 Page 5 of 7 PageID 3140

ITEM 12
13

FOCUS AREA

ACTION PLAN

Create a policy or process for notifying courts of jurisdiction of
terminally ill residents.

FCCC Policy HLTH-98, “Care of the Terminally Ill,” shall be revised to outline the guidelines for notifying the court and public defenders when a resident is identified with a terminal illness.

TITLE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY FCCC Attorney

FCCC Policy PRG-5, “Routine Mental Health Screening and Evaluation,” shall be revised to include screening criteria to identify Create a policy or process for individuals who have special needs in order to facilitate their intake screening that identifies immediate placement in programs designed for those needs. individuals who have special needs, in order to facilitate their The Intake Screening Form shall be modified to capture any special immediate placement in programs needs/mental health concerns. designed to meet those needs. Staff shall be trained on the revised form during the weekly clinical staff meeting.

FCCC Director of Programs
FCCC Director of Programs

TARGET DATE
8/1/2009 7/20/2009
8/1/2009

STAFFING

FCCC shall recruit an additional .5 FTE psychiatrist. FCCC shall GEO Chief Medical 8/1/2009

utilize a locum’s physician network in addition to having a

Officer

recruitment plan consisting of on-line and print advertising with the

American Psychiatric Association (APA), the Society for

At a minimum, an additional part- Correctional Physicians (Corr Docs) and the National Commission

14

time psychiatrist for residents with on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC). severe and persistent mental DCF Contract LI702, Exhibit B, Staffing shall be amended to

DCF Contract

illness

include the additional .5 FTE psychiatrist, for a total of 1.5 FTE.

Manager

8/1/2009

STATUS Completed Completed
Completed Completed
Completed

DATE COMPLETED

COMMENTS

8/1/2009

GEO submitted Revised Policy: HLTH-98 “Care of the Terminally Ill” – Revised to reflect court/PD notification.

7/20/2009

GEO submitted to DCF Policy Revision: PRG-5 “Routine Mental Health Screening and Evaluation” – To include screening criteria for special needs and Form Revision: “Intake Screening Form” – Form to capture special needs data.

8/1/2009 8/1/2009 7/29/2009

GEO submitted Training Minutes and Sign-In Sheet to provide evidence of staff training on policy and tool. Dates: 7/23/09.
Position is currently being advertised.
8/1/09 Update: Recruit Psychiatrist: FCCC has retained two new part time psychiatrists. FCCC psychiatrist schedule attached.
Contract has been amended and is currently in DCF legal for review.
Contract amendment was executed on July 29, 2009

FCCC shall ensure the involvement of the psychiatrist in the team meetings held every 180 days for residents prescribed medication for traditional mental illnesses or prescribed to lower sexual arousal.

GEO Chief Medical Officer

8/1/2009

Completed

15

Psychiatrist attendance and involvement in team meetings for residents prescribed medication for
traditional mental illnesses or prescribed to lower sexual arousal.

This involvement shall be added to the psychiatrist’s job description. The psychiatrist shall promptly notify the resident’s treatment team of any changes to medications or the psychiatric treatment plan. It shall be the responsibility of the treatment team to follow-up with the psychiatrist.

GEO Chief Medical 7/20/2009 Officer

Completed

FCCC shall amend policy CL-4 “Integrated Care Planning”, to

GEO Chief Medical 8/1/2009 Completed

mandate involvement of the psychiatrist in the treatment planning of

Officer

any resident prescribed medication for traditional mental illnesses

or for therapeutic sex drive reduction.

FCCC shall assign a full time psychiatric nurse, one team leader

FCCC Health 7/20/2009 Completed

and two clinical therapists to the residential mental health units (4

Services

FTEs).

Administrator

16

Full time psychiatric nurse on residential mental health unit.

7/20/2009

GEO has submitted a revised position description for the psychiatrist, which includes this task. Policy CL:4 has also been revised to incorporate involvement of the psychiatrist.

7/20/2009

Revised Psychiatrist job description submitted by GEO to DCF.

7/20/2009 7/20/2009

Revised policy submitted by GEO to DCF. Policy CL-4 “Integrated Care Planning” – Mandates involvement of the psychiatrist
Revised Table of Organization submitted by GEO to DCF. Revised table of Organization outlines new staffing plan to include full time psychiatric nurse, team leader and two therapists.
8/1/2009 GEO submitted Table of Organization Revision: Revised to reflect the TST reporting structure.

Canupp Action Plan Status Updates Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DONcFtobDeorc3um0,e2n0t 30092-4 Filed 11/03/09 Page 6 of 7 PageID 3141

ITEM

FOCUS AREA

ACTION PLAN
DCF Contract LI702, Exhibit B, Staffing, shall be amended to reflect that one of the existing nurse positions is filled with a full-time psychiatric nurse.

TITLE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY DCF Contract
Manager

TARGET DATE
8/1/2009

STATUS Completed

TRAINING

Training to improve Individual FCCC Policy CL-4, “Integrated Care Planning,” shall be modified to FCCC Facility

Service Plans (ISP) to include include four hours of service planning training yearly.

Administrator

regular updates, more

17

individualized content and clear The GEO Corporate Vice President of Clinical Programs shall objective and measurable goals. provide the initial training on properly completing the service plan

FCCC Facility Administrator

This is applicable to ISPs for the and writing observable, measurable, and individualized goals.

residents with severe and Attendance shall be taken to ensure full participation by applicable

persistent mental illness and staff.

TST staff shall receive a one-time round of enhanced training and FCCC Clinical

yearly in-service training. During training by clinical staff, TSTs and

Director

other training participants are instructed on the necessity of

teamwork and appropriate communication of risk and need. This

Training to improve communication shall be incorporated into the existing curricula.

between Clinical Staff and

18

Therapeutic Security Technician In addition to two (2) TST staff assigned to the residential mental (TST) housing staff to provide health units, there shall be one (1) additional TST assigned to the

continuum of care on housing Residential Mental Health Unit (3.0 FTEs) to facilitate ongoing

units.

training and improved communication with clinical staff.

7/20/2009 Completed 8/1/2009 Completed
9/1/2009 Completed

On-going supervision by the team leaders and/or unit managers shall occur.
Clinical staff shall receive training in working with special needs residents from Gerry Blasingame, LMFT, or a comparable consultant in the field, by December 2009 and again by December 2010.

FCCC Clinical Director
FCCC Clinical Director

8/1/2009 Completed
12/31/2009 and
12/31/2010

DATE COMPLETED

COMMENTS

7/29/2009

Contract has been amended and is currently in DCF legal for review.

Contract amendment was executed on July 29, 2009

7/20/2009 8/1/2009

Policy Revision by GEO submitted to DCF: CL-4 “Integrated Care Planning” – Modified to include 4 hours of service planning training yearly. GEO provided Training Agenda and Sign-In Sheet to provided evidencing of staff training on care planning and documentation. Dates: 7/30/09.

9/1/2009 8/1/2009

GEO submitted training log of all TSTs who have attended the 40-hour enhanced training. At this time, 100% of filled, non-vacant TST positions have completed the training.
GEO submitted training slides which outline the role of TST’s to include teamwork and communication. This slide is reviewed during the 40-hour training workshop
GEO submitted a random staffing schedule to demonstrate that three TSTs are scheduled to work on the mental health unit.
Supervision: Each of the four Unit Managers provide group supervision to the TST’s once per month on each shift. Schedule and Topic Review submitted by GEO.

TST staff shall receive a one-time round of enhanced training and

19

Training and supervision of clinical staff and TST housing staff
regarding the specific needs of the special needs track population and

yearly in-service training. During the yearly training, there shall be section regarding working with residents with special needs. This training shall be provided by the staff who attended training by Gerry Blasingame or a comparable consultant in the field.

a

how to modify treatment and care for this population.

FCCC shall designate a minimum of two (2) staff to attend the annual Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA)

FCCC Clinical Director

10/31/2009 Completed

10/30/2009 Annual ATSA Conference: Tim Budz and Robin Wilson
attended the attended the ATSA Conference and presented

conference (or a comparable conference), including workshops on

current updates regarding special needs treatment during

treating sexual offenders with special needs.

two (2) clinical team meetings. attendance logs submitted.

The staff in attendance shall be required to present current updates in special needs treatment to other FCCC clinical staff upon return to the facility.

Canupp Action Plan Status Updates Case 2:04-cv-00260-UA-DONcFtobDeorc3um0,e2n0t 30092-4 Filed 11/03/09 Page 7 of 7 PageID 3142

ITEM 20 21

FOCUS AREA

ACTION PLAN

Brad Johnson, M.D., a member of the FCCC Treatment Advisory Board, provided anti-androgen training to psychiatrists and clinical staff during May 2007.

Training for psychiatrists and

clinical staff regarding screening, FCCC shall retain Dr. Johnson or a comparable outside consultant

assessment and integration of annually, to train psychiatrists and clinical staff regarding screening,

medications, particularly anti- assessment and integration of medications, particularly anti-

androgens, as a component of androgens, as a component of treatment. Attendance at the

treatment.

training shall be documented.

TITLE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY FCCC Facility Administrator

Training to improve discharge planning for residents nearing
release from the facility.

The GEO Chief Medical Officer shall be responsible for training all new hires occurring between annual training sessions.
FCCC staff shall receive annual training in discharge planning for residents nearing release from the facility.
A random sample of discharge summaries shall be reviewed by supervisory staff monthly to ensure adequate discharge planning and to observe and recommend opportunities for improvement to staff.

FCCC Clinical Director
FCCC Clinical Director

TARGET DATE
1/31/2010
8/1/2009 9/15/2009

STATUS
Completed On-going

DATE COMPLETED

COMMENTS

8/1/2009 9/14/2009

GEO submitted Training Minutes and Sign-In Sheet to provide evidence of staff training on discharge planning. Dates: 7/30/2009. Sample Discharge Summary Review: Evidence of Supervisory Review to ensure adequate discharge planning and to observe and/or recommend opportunities for improvement.

 
 Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 1 of 38
CLOSED,DNF,RYCE,SL DOC
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04−cv−00260−UA−DNF

Canupp, et al v. Liberty Behavioral, et al Assigned to: Judge Unassigned Judge Referred to: Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier Demand: $0 Case in other court: 09−15949−D
09−16334D 10−10110−D 10−10111−D 10−10112−D 10−10113−D 10−10114−D 10−10115−D 10−10116−D 10−10117−D 10−10118−D 10−10135−D 10−10567−D 10−11826−D Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/07/2004 Date Terminated: 11/24/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison Condition) Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Roger G. Canupp individually and on behalf of a Class of all persons similarly situated

represented by Alice K. Nelson Southern Legal Counsel, Inc. 1229 NW 12th Ave Gainesville, FL 32601−4113 352/271−8890 Email: alice.nelson@southernlegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cassandra Capobianco Florida Institutional Legal Services Suite 412 14260 W Newberry Rd Newberry, FL 32669 352/375−2494 Fax: 352−331−5202 Email: cassandra@floridalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Michael Jones Florida Institutional Legal Services Suite 412 14260 W Newberry Rd Newberry, FL 32669 352/375−2494 Fax: 352/331−5202 Email: christopher@floridalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen Cooley Lentz Florida Institutional Legal Services Suite 412

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 2 of 38

14260 W Newberry Rd Newberry, FL 32669 352/375−2494 Fax: 352/331−5202 Email: kristen@floridalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa White Shirley Simon, Eddins &Greenstone Suite 610 3232 McKinney Ave Dallas, TX 75204 214/276−7680 Fax: 214/276−7699 Email: lshirley@sgpblaw.com TERMINATED: 05/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Prescott Sleasman Florida Institutional Legal Services Suite 412 14260 W Newberry Rd Newberry, FL 32669 352/375−2494 Fax: 352/331−5202 Email: peter@floridalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jacob Myers individually and on behalf of a Class of all persons similarly situated

represented by Alice K. Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cassandra Capobianco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen Cooley Lentz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa White Shirley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Prescott Sleasman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 3 of 38

Lawrence McGee in need of a next friend and individually and on behalf of a Class of all persons similarly situated

represented by Alice K. Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cassandra Capobianco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen Cooley Lentz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa White Shirley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Prescott Sleasman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hubert Davidson individually and on behalf of a Class of all persons similarly situated

represented by Alice K. Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cassandra Capobianco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen Cooley Lentz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa White Shirley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Prescott Sleasman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 4 of 38

Tywaun Jackson individually and on behalf of a Class of all persons similarly situated

represented by Alice K. Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cassandra Capobianco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen Cooley Lentz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa White Shirley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Prescott Sleasman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Charles Durden individually and behalf of a Class of all persons similarly situated

represented by Alice K. Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cassandra Capobianco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen Cooley Lentz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa White Shirley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Prescott Sleasman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 5 of 38

Daniel Fabian individually and on behalf of a Class of all persons similarly situated TERMINATED: 03/15/2005

represented by Alice K. Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cassandra Capobianco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen Cooley Lentz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Prescott Sleasman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bruce Kramer individually and on behalf of a Class of all persons similarly situated TERMINATED: 03/15/2005

represented by Alice K. Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cassandra Capobianco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen Cooley Lentz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Prescott Sleasman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor Plaintiff
Roosevelt Reed TERMINATED: 03/16/2009

represented by Roosevelt Reed #99−1199 Florida Civil Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Hwy. 70 Arcadia, FL 34266 PRO SE

V.

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 6 of 38

Defendant
Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp. TERMINATED: 01/16/2007

represented by Barbara C. Fromm Jolly &Peterson, PA PO Box 37400 Tallahassee, FL 32315 850/422−0282 Fax: 850/422−1913 Email: bcf@jollylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John W. Jolly , Jr. Jolly &Peterson, PA PO Box 37400 Tallahassee, FL 32315 850/422−0282 Fax: 850/422−1913 Email: jwj@jollylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Renee Haymes Federal Bureau of Prisons HOLC Bldg. − Room 936E 320 First St NW Washington, DC 20534 202−233−1094 Fax: 202−233−2252 Email: jhaymes@bop.gov TERMINATED: 10/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jerry Regier in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Children and Families TERMINATED: 12/20/2004

represented by Cecilia Bradley Office of the Attorney General* PL−01 − The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3300 Fax: 850/488−4872 Email: Cecilia_Bradley@oag.state.fl.us TERMINATED: 07/06/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chesterfield Smith , Jr. Office of the Attorney General* State Program Litigation PL−01 − The Capitol 400 S Monroe St Tallahassee, FL 32399−0700 850/414−3665 Fax: 850−488−4872 Email: chesterfield_smith@oag.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail Office of the Attorney General* PL−01 − The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3300 Email: Jay.vail@myfloridalegal.com TERMINATED: 02/23/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 7 of 38

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Lucy Hadi Secretary of the Department of Children and Families TERMINATED: 03/26/2007

represented by Caryl Kilinski Attorney General's Office* The Capitol PL−01 Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3300 ext: 3632 Fax: 850/488−4872 Email: Caryl_Kilinski@oag.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cecilia Bradley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chesterfield Smith , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan A. Maher Office of the Attorney General* The Capitol 400 S Monroe St PL−01 Tallahassee, FL 32399−6536 850/414−3300 Fax: 850/488−4872 Email: susan.maher@myfloridalegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
George H. Sheldon Secretary of the Department of Children and Families

represented by Susan A. Maher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
GEO, Inc. TERMINATED: 06/04/2007

Movant
Timothy Budz TERMINATED: 04/06/2007

represented by Gregory A. Kummerlen Wiederhold, Moses, Kummerlen &Waronicki, PA* Suite 240 560 Village Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561/615−6775 Fax: 561/615−7225 Email: gkummerlen@wmrfla.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 8 of 38

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Palmer Adkins Coppins, Monroe, Adkins &Dincman, PA 1319 Thomaswood Dr Tallahassee, FL 32308 850/422−2420 Fax: 850/422−2730 Email: gadkins@coppinsmonroe.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Ann Sullivan Davis Guilday, Tucker, Schwartz &Simpson, PA 1983 Centre Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32308 850/224−7091 Fax: 850/222−2593 Email: jen@guildaylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Dr. Angela Garrido TERMINATED: 04/06/2007

represented by Gwendolyn Palmer Adkins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Ann Sullivan Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
David Yzaguirre TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by David Yzaguirre #934 Florida Civil Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
Khalie Hamid TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Khalie Hamid #934 Florida Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
Craig Williams TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Craig Williams #650 Florida Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
Aaron Marsh TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Aaron Marsh #122 Florida Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 9 of 38

Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
Joseph Shaw TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Joseph Shaw #492 Florida Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
Dwayne Head TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Dwayne Head #253 Florida Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
Frank Wade TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Frank Wade #926 Florida Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
Samuel Lane TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Samuel Lane #628 Florida Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
William Morales TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by William Morales #715 Florida Civil Commitment Center 13619 SE Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
Barba Neil TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Barba Neil #996 Florida Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
Michael Ward TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Michael Ward #453 Florida Civil Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Hwy. 70 Arcadia, FL 34266 PRO SE

Movant

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 10 of 38

Harden James TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Harden James #802 Florida Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7289 PRO SE

Movant
Devin Allen TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Devin Allen #990420 Florida Civil Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Hwy. 70 Arcadia, FL 34266 PRO SE

Movant
Daniel Sinclair TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Daniel Sinclair #862 Florida Civil Commitment Center Mail Box 862 Bldg. E Apt. 2206 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
John Oakley TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by John Oakley #107 Florida Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant
Robert Williams TERMINATED: 01/09/2009

represented by Robert Williams #793 Florida Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Highway 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Movant Joseph W. Finfrock

represented by Joseph W. Finfrock #990959 Florida Civil Commitment Center 13613 S.E. Hwy. 70 Arcadia, FL 34266 PRO SE

Movant Robert Zaferes

represented by Robert Zaferes #990971 Florida Civil Commitment Center 13619 S.E. Hwy. 70 Arcadia, FL 34266−7829 PRO SE

Date Filed 05/07/2004

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT for injunctive relief sought filed Filing fee $ 150.00 Receipt # F005213 (sll) (Entered: 05/07/2004)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 11 of 38

05/07/2004 05/07/2004 05/07/2004 05/17/2004 05/17/2004 05/17/2004 06/16/2004 06/16/2004 06/18/2004 06/21/2004
06/28/2004 07/02/2004 07/06/2004 07/06/2004 07/06/2004
07/12/2004 07/12/2004 07/13/2004 07/13/2004

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
2 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER ( Signed by Judge John E. Steele ) ctc (lap) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
3 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − TRACK 2. (ctc) (lap) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
4 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer of pendency of other actions re: order of compliance to local rule (sll) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of [3−1] track 2 notice by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer (sll) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
6 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer Re: [2−1] order (sll) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
7 NOTICE of filing waiver of service by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer (sll) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
8 NOTICE of filing waiver of service by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer (sll) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
9 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Jerry Regier by Chesterfield Smith Jr., Cecilia Bradley, Edwin Jason Vail (sll) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
10 PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer (unopposed) for telephonic case management meeting referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (proposed order attached) (sll) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
11 ORDER granting [10−1] consent motion (unopposed) for telephonic case management meeting ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
12 MOTION by Jerry Regier with memorandum in support to extend time to answer or otherwise plead referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (proposed order attached) (sll) (Entered: 07/02/2004)
13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE by Jerry Regier Re: [2−1] order (sll) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
14 MOTION by Liberty Behavioral with memorandum in support to extend time to answer or otherwise plead referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (proposed order attached) (sll) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
15 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER directing Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corporation to file a certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement within 11 days. ( Signed by Judge John E. Steele ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer R. Haymes on behalf of Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp. (Haymes, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Barbara C. Fromm, John W. Jolly Jr. on behalf of Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp. (slu, ) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
18 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
19 SUGGESTION of track change by Roger G. Canupp, Hubert Davidson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Tywaun Jackson, Bruce Kramer, Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp., Lawrence McGee, Jacob Myers, Jerry Regier. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 07/13/2004)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 12 of 38

07/14/2004 07/20/2004 07/20/2004 07/22/2004 07/22/2004
07/23/2004 07/27/2004
08/04/2004 08/10/2004 08/11/2004 08/13/2004 08/16/2004 08/16/2004 08/17/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004
08/30/2004

20 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp.. (Fromm, Barbara) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
21 ORDER granting 12 Motion for extension of time to answer Jerry Regier answer due 7/23/2004. . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 7/20/2004. (slu, ) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
22 ORDER granting 14 Motion for extension of time to answer Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp. answer due 7/23/2004. . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 7/20/2004. (slu, ) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
23 Defendant's ANSWER to complaint and Defenses by Jerry Regier.(Smith, Chesterfield) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
24 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Partial) and/or for Partial Summary Judgment by Jerry Regier. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit Index# 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Jean Evans# 3 Exhibit Order, Marsh v. State of Florida# 4 Exhibit Affidavit of Bruce Kramer# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4 Cover Sheet# 6 Exhibit Incident Reports pages 1−70# 7 Exhibit Incident Reports Pages 71−140# 8 Exhibit Incident Reports Pages 141−174# 9 Exhibit Affidavit of Gregory Venz)(Smith, Chesterfield) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
25 ANSWER to complaint by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp..(Jolly, John) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
26 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant Regier's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and/or for Partial Summary Judgment by Roger G. Canupp, Hubert Davidson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Tywaun Jackson, Bruce Kramer, Lawrence McGee, Jacob Myers. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
27 MOTION to certify class by Roger G. Canupp, Hubert Davidson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Tywaun Jackson, Bruce Kramer, Lawrence McGee, Jacob Myers. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
28 NOTICE by Jerry Regier of filing additional exhibits re motion for judgment on the pleadings and/or msj (Attachments: # 1)(Smith, Chesterfield) (Entered: 08/10/2004)
29 MOTION to extend time to serve response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp., Jerry Regier. (Fromm, Barbara) (Entered: 08/11/2004)
30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File response by Roger G. Canupp, Hubert Davidson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Tywaun Jackson, Bruce Kramer, Lawrence McGee, Jacob Myers. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 08/13/2004)
31 ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time to File response no later than 8/30/04 . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 8/16/2004. (slu, ) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
32 ORDER granting 29 Motion to extend time to file response no later than 9/13/04 . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 8/16/2004. (slu, ) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
33 ORDER denying as moot 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 8/17/2004. (slu, ) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
34 MOTION for discovery Pursuant to Rule 56(f) by Roger G. Canupp, Hubert Davidson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Tywaun Jackson, Bruce Kramer, Lawrence McGee, Jacob Myers. (Capobianco, Cassandra) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
35 RESPONSE in opposition re 24 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Partial) and/or for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Roger G. Canupp, Hubert Davidson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Tywaun Jackson, Bruce Kramer, Lawrence McGee, Jacob Myers. (Capobianco, Cassandra) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
36 REQUEST for oral argument by Roger G. Canupp, Hubert Davidson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Tywaun Jackson, Bruce Kramer, Lawrence McGee, Jacob Myers. (Capobianco, Cassandra) (Entered: 08/30/2004)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 13 of 38

08/30/2004 08/31/2004 09/14/2004 09/16/2004 09/21/2004 09/30/2004 10/13/2004 10/21/2004 11/05/2004 11/05/2004 11/10/2004 12/14/2004 12/14/2004 12/20/2004 01/18/2005
01/18/2005
01/21/2005 01/28/2005 02/04/2005

37 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Hubert Davidson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Tywaun Jackson, Bruce Kramer, Lawrence McGee, Jacob Myers Notice of filing Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
38 MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Jerry Regier. (Vail, Edwin) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
39 RESPONSE in opposition re 34 MOTION for discovery Pursuant to Rule 56(f) filed by Jerry Regier. (Vail, Edwin) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
40 ORDER granting 38 Motion for Extension of Time to File . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 9/16/2004. (slu, ) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
41 Case reassigned to Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington. Judge John E. Steele no longer assigned to the case. New case number: 2:04−cv−260−FTM−33DNF (LAG, ) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
42 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Hubert Davidson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Tywaun Jackson, Bruce Kramer, Lawrence McGee, Jacob Myers of filing declaration (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
43 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 27 MOTION to certify class by Jerry Regier. (Smith, Chesterfield) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
44 ORDER granting 43 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 27 MOTION to certify class Responses due no later than 11/10/2004. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 10/21/2004. (slu, ) (Entered: 10/22/2004)
45 RESPONSE to motion re 27 MOTION to certify class with memorandum and exhibits filed by Jerry Regier. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
46 REQUEST for oral argument re 27 MOTION to certify class, 45 Response to motion by Jerry Regier. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
47 NOTICE by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp. re 45 Response to motion (Jolly, John) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
48 MOTION to substitute party by Jerry Regier. (Bradley, Cecilia) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
49 NOTICE by Jerry Regier Notice of Serving Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production (Bradley, Cecilia) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
50 ORDER granting 48 Motion to substitute party. Lucy Hadi rep by Cecilia Bradley added. Jerry Regier terminated . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 12/20/2004. (slu, ) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
51 ORDER granting 34 Motion for discovery . The Court will defer ruling on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #24) until Plaintiff has completed its Rule 56(f) discovery. Such discovery shall be completed no later than 4/30/05. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 1/18/2005. (slu) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
52 ORDER denying as moot re 36 Request for oral argument filed by Bruce Kramer, Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee,, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 1/18/2005. (slu) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
53 MOTION for reconsideration by Jerry Regier. (Attachments: # 1)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
54 NOTICE by Lucy Hadi re 45 Response to motion (Attachments: # 1)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 01/28/2005)
55 MOTION to dismiss Plaintiffs Bruce Kramer and Daniel Fabian and Count 4 of Class Action Complaint by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 02/04/2005)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 14 of 38

02/04/2005
02/04/2005 02/24/2005 02/25/2005 03/10/2005
03/14/2005 03/14/2005
03/17/2005 03/18/2005 03/22/2005 03/29/2005 04/07/2005 04/08/2005 04/12/2005
04/28/2005
04/29/2005 07/01/2005

56 RESPONSE to motion re 53 MOTION for reconsideration filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
57 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer re 27 MOTION to certify class (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
58 MOTION for protective order by Lucy Hadi. (Bradley, Cecilia) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
59 MOTION for protective order by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp.. (Jolly, John) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
60 RESPONSE to motion re 58 MOTION for protective order, 59 MOTION for protective order filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
61 ORDER granting 58 Motion for protective order, granting 59 Motion for protective order . Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/14/2005. (slu) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
62 ORDER granting 55 Motion to dismiss . The Clerk of Court shall correct the caption of this action to reflect the dismissal of Plaintiffs Fabian and Kramer. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/14/2005. (slu) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
63 ORDER denying as moot 53 Motion for reconsideration re 51 Order on motion for discovery, 62 Order on motion to dismiss, 61 Order on motion for protective order, . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 3/17/2005. (slu) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
64 NOTICE of Appearance by Lisa White Shirley on behalf of all plaintiffs (Shirley, Lisa) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
65 ORDER denying as moot 24 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings . Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/22/2005. (slu) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
66 ORDER granting to the extent that the Court will certify two separate subclasses (see order for details) 27 Motion to certify class . Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/29/2005. (slu) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
67 MOTION for reconsideration re 66 Order on motion to certify class by Jerry Regier. (Attachments: # 1)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
68 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 04/08/2005)
69 ORDER granting 68 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 67 MOTION for reconsideration re 66 Order on motion to certify class Responses due by 4/28/2005. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 4/12/2005. (slu) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
70 RESPONSE in opposition re 67 MOTION for reconsideration re 66 Order on motion to certify class filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
71 NOTICE by Lucy Hadi response to Plaintiffs' request for production (Vail, Jason) Modified on 4/29/2005 (slu). (Entered: 04/29/2005)
72 ORDER denying 67 Motion for reconsideration . The Clerk of Court shall designate this action as a Track 3 Case in accordance with Local Rule 3.05. The parties shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule 3.05(a)(3) and shall file an Amended Case Management Report within 20 days of this Order. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/30/05. (slu) (Entered: 07/01/2005)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 15 of 38

07/06/2005
07/11/2005 07/18/2005 07/19/2005 07/19/2005 07/20/2005
07/28/2005
08/03/2005 08/18/2005 08/18/2005 08/19/2005
08/22/2005 08/22/2005
08/26/2005 09/02/2005 09/06/2005
10/07/2005

73 AMENDED RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − track 3 Notice of pendency of other actions due by 7/18/2005.Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/6/2005. (BJH, ) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
74 NOTICE by Lucy Hadi response to Plaintiff's third request for production of documents. (js) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
75 NOTICE of pendency of other actions re 73 order of compliance to Local Rule by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp. Related case(s): no (Haymes, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
76 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
77 NOTICE by Lucy Hadi (Bradley, Cecilia) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
78 ORDER directing the Plaintiff to meet and confer with opposing counsel for the filing of a Case Management Report within TWENTY days of this Order. The Case Management Report shall be filed within TEN days of the meeting. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/20/2005. (mem) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
79 Unopposed MOTION for leave to hold telephonic Rule 3.05 case management meeting by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Daniel Fabian, Bruce Kramer. (Capobianco, Cassandra) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
80 ORDER granting 79 Unopposed Motion for Telephonic Rule 3.05 Case Management Meeting . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 8/3/2005. (js) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
81 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Sleasman, Peter) Modified on 8/23/2005 (slu). STRICKEN PURSUANT TO DOCUMENT 85 (Entered: 08/18/2005)
82 Unopposed MOTION status conference re 81 Case Management Report by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
83 MOTION to compel Facility Inspection by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Request to Enter on Land# 2 Exhibit 2 − Hadi's Formal Objections# 3 Exhibit 4 − Vail May 4 Correspondence# 4 Exhibit 4 − Plantinffs' May 12 Response# 5 Exhibit 5 − Vail May 24 Correspondence# 6 Exhibit 6 − Dr Burns Declaration# 7 Exhibit 7 − Dr Berlin Declaration# 8 Exhibit 8 − Resident Handbook)(Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
84 ORDER denying at this time 82 Motion for status conference . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 8/22/2005. (slu) (Entered: 08/23/2005)
85 ORDER striking re 81 Case Management Report. The Parties shall meet and confer in person at the office of Plaintiffs' Counsel within 10 days of this Order. A Case Management Report shall be filed within 10 days of the meeting. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 8/22/2005. (slu) (Entered: 08/23/2005)
86 MOTION for Extension of Time to File rsp mo/compel by Lucy Hadi. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
87 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Jones, Christopher) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
88 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/1/2007 10:00 AM before Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington. Bench Trial set for trial term 3/5/2007 09:00 AM before Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington. (See Order for all deadlines)Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 9/6/2005. (BJH, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
89 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 83 Motion to compel,, and mo/protective order filed by Jerry Regier. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 10/07/2005)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 16 of 38

10/10/2005 10/13/2005 10/17/2005 10/24/2005 10/27/2005
10/31/2005 11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/07/2005
11/08/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/10/2005 11/14/2005 11/14/2005 11/29/2005

90 RESPONSE to motion re 83 MOTION to compel Facility Inspection Adoption filed by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp.. (Jolly, John) (Entered: 10/10/2005)
91 MOTION for Jennifer R. Haymes to withdraw as attorney by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp.. (Haymes, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
92 ENDORSED ORDER granting 91 Unopposed Motion by Jennifer R. Haymes to withdraw as attorney. The Clerk is directed to remove Jennifer R.Haymes from the service list and notice all parties. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 10/17/2005.(bas) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
93 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
94 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 86 Motion for Extension of Time to File, granting 93 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff shall file their Response to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order within ten (10) days of the date of this Order . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 10/27/2005. (js) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
95 NOTICE of Hearing: Preliminary Pretrial Conference RESET for 11/10/2005 11:00 AM (Time change only) in Courtroom C before Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (BJH, ) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
96 RESPONSE re 89 Memorandum in opposition Response to Motion for Protective Order filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List and Exhibits 1−5)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
97 MOTION to continue pretrial preliminary conference by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
99 ORDER granting 97 Motion to continue Pretrial Preliminary Conference. The Pretrial Preliminary Conference currently scheduled for Thursday, November 10, 2005 shall be continued until Thursday, December 15, 2005, at 1:30p.m. before the undersigned . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 11/7/2005. (js) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
98 NOTICE canceling Preliminary Pretrial Conference hearing scheduled for 11/10/05. This hearing will be reset by separate notice. (BJH, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
100 MOTION to continue hearing sch Dec. 15, 05 by Lucy Hadi. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
101 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byRoger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
102 ORDER granting 100 Motion to continue. The Pretrial Preliminary Conference shall be continued until Friday, December 16, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 11/10/2005. (js) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
103 MOTION to compel Production of Documents (Second Request for Production) by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
104 MOTION to compel Production of Documents (Third Request for Production) by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
105 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 103 Motion to compel, 104 Motion to compel filed by Lucy Hadi. (Attachments: # 1)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 11/29/2005)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 17 of 38

11/29/2005 11/29/2005 12/13/2005 12/16/2005 12/30/2005
01/03/2006
01/03/2006 01/06/2006 01/30/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006

106 RESPONSE to motion re 103 MOTION to compel Production of Documents (Second Request for Production) filed by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp.. (Jolly, John) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
107 RESPONSE to motion re 104 MOTION to compel Production of Documents (Third Request for Production) filed by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Jolly, John) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
108 NOTICE of supplemental authority re 103 MOTION to compel Production of Documents (Second Request for Production), 106 Response to motion to Compel Production of Documents (Second Request to Produce) by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
109 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Douglas N. Frazier : PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 12/16/2005. Court to enter Order and amended Scheduling Order Court Reporter: R. Joy Stancel (BJH, ) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
110 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 83 Motion to compel, granting in part and denying in part 89 Motion for Protective Order, denying as moot 103 Motion to compel, denying as moot 104 Motion to compel. The parties shall meet no later than 1/10/06 for the purpose of identifying which residents are members of the class as defined by the Court in its 3/29/05 Order 66 . The Deputy Clerk is directed to enter a revised Case Management and Scheduling Order extending all current deadlines by 90 days. (See Order for further details). . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 12/30/2005. (slu) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
111 FIRST AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/3/2007 09:00 AM before Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington. Bench Trial set for trial term 6/4/2007 09:00 AM before Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington. (See Order for all deadlines)Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 12/30/05. (BJH, ) Modified on 1/3/2006 (BJH, ). Modified on 10/19/2006 (BJH, ). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
112 SECOND AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER amending scheduling order to reflect correct discovery date. See Order for deadlines.Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 1/3/2006. (BJH, ) Modified on 10/19/2006 (BJH, ). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
113 TRANSCRIPT of Preliminary Pretrial Conference held on December 16, 2005 before Judge Douglas N. Frazier. Court Reporter: R. Joy Stancel. (js) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
114 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden of filing proposed protective order regarding confidentiality of class member information (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Protective Order)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
115 RESPONSE in opposition re 104 MOTION to compel Production of Documents (Third Request for Production) re doc 114, notice of filing agreed protective order filed by Lucy Hadi. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
116 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden of Firm Change for Peter P. Sleasman (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
117 RESPONSE re 115 Response in opposition to motion Response to Defendant Hadi's Objection to Proposed Protective Order filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
118 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden of Filing Revised Proposed Protective Order Regarding Confidentiality of Class Member Information (Attachments: # 1 Revised Proposed Protective Order)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 01/31/2006)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 18 of 38

02/08/2006 02/08/2006 03/20/2006 03/24/2006
03/24/2006
04/07/2006 04/07/2006 04/07/2006
04/12/2006 05/09/2006 05/18/2006
05/24/2006 05/25/2006 06/15/2006 06/26/2006 06/30/2006
07/03/2006 07/06/2006

119 STATUS REPORT on Discovery (Joint) by Alice K. Nelson. (Nelson, Alice) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
120 ORDER of protection of confidential information relating to class memebers. See order for details. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 2/8/06. (js) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
121 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden of Dates of Plaintiffs' Expert Facility Inspection (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
122 MOTION to compel Undisputed Documents from Plaintiffs' Second and Third Requests for Production by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
123 MOTION to compel Disputed Documents from Plaintiffs' Second and Fourth Requests for Production by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
124 RESPONSE in opposition re 123 MOTION to compel Disputed Documents from Plaintiffs' Second and Fourth Requests for Production filed by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp.. (Jolly, John) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
125 RESPONSE to motion re 122 MOTION to compel Undisputed Documents from Plaintiffs' Second and Third Requests for Production filed by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp.. (Jolly, John) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
126 RESPONSE in opposition re 122 MOTION to compel Undisputed Documents from Plaintiffs' Second and Third Requests for Production, 123 MOTION to compel Disputed Documents from Plaintiffs' Second and Fourth Requests for Production filed by Lucy Hadi. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
127 Unopposed MOTION for to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiffs by all plaintiffs. (Shirley, Lisa) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
128 ORDER directing counsel Christopher Michael Jones to be admitted. See order for details. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 5/9/2006. (js) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
129 ORDER granting 127 Motion to withdraw as attorney for plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court is directed to remove Lisa White Shirley from the service list and notice all parties . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 5/18/2006. (js) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
130 ORDER denying as moot 122 Motion to compel . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 5/24/2006. (slu) Modified on 7/3/2006 (slu). (Entered: 05/24/2006)
Case Reassigned to Unassigned Judge. New case number: 2:04−cv−260−FtM−99DNF. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington no longer assigned to the case. (slu) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
Remark : no further action will be taken re 128 as Mr. Jones has complied. (LAG, ) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
131 NOTICE of Appearance by Susan A. Maher on behalf of Lucy Hadi (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
132 ORDER granting in part, denying in part, and deferring in part 123 Motion to compel production of disputed documents pursuant to Plaintiffs' second and Fourth requests for Production. See Order for details . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 6/30/2006. (js) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
133 MOTION for Cecilia Bradley to withdraw as attorney by Lucy Hadi. (Bradley, Cecilia) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
134 ORDER granting 133 Motion to withdraw as attorney. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 7/6/2006. (laf) (Entered: 07/06/2006)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 19 of 38

07/17/2006 07/17/2006 07/28/2006 07/31/2006 08/02/2006 08/04/2006 08/14/2006 08/29/2006 10/17/2006 10/18/2006
10/26/2006
11/09/2006
11/15/2006 11/17/2006 12/01/2006

135 RESPONSE re 132 Order on motion to compel, at court's request filed by Lucy Hadi. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
136 RESPONSE re 132 Order on motion to compel, per this Court's request filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Capobianco, Cassandra) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
137 MOTION for protective order by Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Jolly, John) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
138 SUGGESTION of Mootness byLiberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Jolly, John) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
139 RESPONSE to motion re 137 MOTION for protective order filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Nelson, Alice) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
140 ORDER denying 137 Motion for protective order . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 8/4/2006. (js) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
141 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp re 138 Suggestion of Plaintiffs' Notice of Non−Opposition to Liberty's Suggestion of Mootness (Nelson, Alice) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
142 STANDING ORDER: Filing of documents that exceed twenty−five pages. Signed by All Divisional Judges on 8/28/2006. (kma) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
143 Unopposed MOTION to extend time to complete deadlines in second amended scheduling order by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
144 ORDER granting 143 Motion to extend time. The Deputy Clerk is directed to modify the Second Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order 112 labeling such Order "Third Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order." The Deputy Clerk shall not add a four−month extension of time to the "Motions to Add Parties or to Amend Pleadings" deadline. The Deputy Clerk shall add a four−month extension of time to all other remaining deadlines. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 10/18/2006. (slu) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
145 THIRD AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER:Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/17/2007 09:00 AM before Judge Unassigned Judge., Bench Trial set for trial term 10/1/2007 09:00 AM before Judge Unassigned Judge. See Order for all deadlines. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 10/26/2006. (BJH, ) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
146 MOTION to compel and for Protective Order Compelling Return of Work Product Privileged Document Inadvertenty Produced by Co−Defendant Liberty Behavorial Health Corporation by Lucy Hadi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H)(Maher, Susan) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 11/09/2006)
147 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant Hadi's Motion for Protective Order by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
148 ORDER granting 147 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 147 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant Hadi's Motion for Protective Order. Responses due on or before 12/4/2006. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 11/17/2006. (laf) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
149 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 146 MOTION to compel and for Protective Order Compelling Return of Work Product Privileged Document Inadvertenty Produced by Co−Defendant Liberty Behavorial Health Corporation by all plaintiffs. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 20 of 38

12/04/2006 12/15/2006
12/19/2006 12/26/2006 01/16/2007 01/17/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007 01/30/2007 02/07/2007
02/09/2007 02/14/2007 02/15/2007
02/16/2007

150 ORDER granting 149 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiffs shall file a responsive pleading no later than December 15, 2006. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 12/4/2006. (js) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
151 RESPONSE to motion re 146 MOTION to compel and for Protective Order Compelling Return of Work Product Privileged Document Inadvertenty Produced by Co−Defendant Liberty Behavorial Health Corporation filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
152 ORDER that Defendant Hadi shall mail a copy of the disputed document to the attention of U.S. Magistrate Judge Frazier no later than December 27, 2006 for the Court's in camera review. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 12/19/2006. (slu) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
153 NOTICE by Lucy Hadi re 152 Order of Compliance with Court Order of December 19, 2006 (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
154 ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL dismissing Complaint as to defendant Liberty Behavioral Healthcare, Corporation. The Clerk shall withhold the entry of judgment until the conclusion of the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 1/16/2007. (RKM) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
155 ORDER denying re 123 MOTION to compel Disputed Documents from Plaintiffs' Second and Fourth Requests for Production filed by Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Roger G. Canupp, Hubert Davidson, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 1/17/2007. (slu) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
156 ORDER denying 146 Motion to compel. The parties shall submit a brief on or before February 8, 2007. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 1/17/2007. (slu) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
157 ORDER directing the Clerk of Court to file the "disputed document" received from Defendant Hadi in camera. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 1/18/2007. (slu) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
158 OBJECTION re 155 Order, of the Magistrate Judge Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Capobianco, Cassandra) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
159 JOINT STIPULATION regarding resolution of potential HIPAA or privacy concerns and request to be relieved from filing briefs re 156 Order on motion to compel by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Lucy Hadi, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) Modified on 2/8/2007 (slu). (Entered: 02/07/2007)
160 ORDER that the parties are no longer required to submit briefs detailing what if any privacy concerns are raised by Plaintiffs' possession of the spreadsheet containing a list of 451 FCCC residents and diagnoses. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 2/9/2007. (slu) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
161 Emergency MOTION for Rule 35 Interviews / Mental Status Examinations examination by Lucy Hadi. (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
162 ORDER directing Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden to respond to 161 Emergency MOTION for Rule 35 Interviews / Mental Status Examinations examination. Responses due by 2/20/2007. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 2/15/2007. (slu) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
163 Unopposed MOTION to extend time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Objections to the Order of the Magistrate Judge Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel by Lucy Hadi. (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 02/16/2007)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 21 of 38

02/16/2007 02/16/2007 02/16/2007 02/20/2007 02/21/2007 02/21/2007 02/23/2007
02/23/2007
02/23/2007 02/26/2007
02/27/2007 02/27/2007 03/02/2007 03/07/2007
03/08/2007

164 NOTICE by Lucy Hadi re 161 Emergency MOTION for Rule 35 Interviews / Mental Status Examinations examination of Filing Exhibits A and B in Support (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of Anita M. Schlank# 2 Exhibit B − Jeffrey S. Janofsky, M.D.)(Maher, Susan) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
165 NOTICE by Lucy Hadi re 164 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Notice of Filing Amended Certificate of Service (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
166 NOTICE by Lucy Hadi re 163 Unopposed MOTION to extend time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Objections to the Order of the Magistrate Judge Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Notice of Filing Amended Certificate of Service (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
167 RESPONSE in opposition re 161 Emergency MOTION for Rule 35 Interviews / Mental Status Examinations examination filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
168 ORDER granting 163 Motion to extend time. Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's objections 158 on or before the close of business on 2/27/07. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 2/21/2007. (slu) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
169 MOTION to substitute attorney and notice of appearance by Lucy Hadi. (Kilinski, Caryl) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 02/21/2007)
170 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 161 Emergency MOTION for Rule 35 Interviews / Mental Status Examinations examination : Motion Hearing set for 2/26/2007 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom C before Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. The parties must contact Bette−Jo Herren (239−461−2007)before 10:00 on 2/26/07 to furnish a telephone number.(BJH, ) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
171 ORDER granting 169 Motion to substitute attorney. The Clerk of Court is directed to remove Jason Vail as attorney of record for the Defendant and notice all parties. The Clerk of Court is directed to add Caryl Kilinkski as the attorney of record for the Defendant and notice all parties. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 2/23/2007. (slu) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
172 First MOTION for joinder of GEO, Inc. as a defendant by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C)(Capobianco, Cassandra) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 02/23/2007)
173 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Douglas N. Frazier : Motion Hearing held on 2/26/2007 re 161 Emergency MOTION for Rule 35 Interviews / Mental Status Examinations examination filed by Lucy Hadi. Court to set a hearing. Parties to advise the Court as to possible dates. Court Reporter: Martina Reporting Services (BJH, ) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
Case Reassigned to Judge Marcia Morales Howard. New case number: 2:04−cv−260−FtM−MMH−DNF. Judge Unassigned Judge no longer assigned to the case. (slu) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
174 RESPONSE re 158 Objection In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Objections to the Order of the Magistrate Judge Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Robert A. Butterworth. (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
175 MOTION for leave to file Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Objections by all plaintiffs. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
176 REPLY to response to motion re 161 Emergency MOTION for Rule 35 Interviews / Mental Status Examinations examination filed by Robert A. Butterworth. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of Dr. Max Linn# 2 Exhibit B − Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Anita Schlank# 3 Exhibit C − Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Janofsky)(Maher, Susan) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
AMENDED Case Reassignment New case number: 2:04−cv−260−FtM−34DNF. (slu) (Entered: 03/08/2007)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 22 of 38

03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/12/2007
03/12/2007 03/13/2007 03/14/2007
03/14/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/16/2007 03/19/2007
03/19/2007 03/19/2007 03/26/2007 03/26/2007

177 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 161 Emergency MOTION for Rule 35 Interviews / Mental Status Examinations examination : Motion Hearing set for 3/14/2007 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6B before Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (BJH, ) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
178 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Take Additional Depositions by all plaintiffs. (Capobianco, Cassandra) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
179 REPLY to response to motion re 161 Emergency MOTION for Rule 35 Interviews / Mental Status Examinations examination and 176 Defendant Butterworth's Reply filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
180 RESPONSE in opposition re 172 First MOTION for joinder of GEO, Inc. as a defendant filed by Robert A. Butterworth. (Maher, Susan) Modified on 3/13/2007 (slu). Document attached does not appear to be related to document selected; Counsel notified for clarification (Entered: 03/12/2007)
181 RESPONSE in opposition re 172 First MOTION for joinder of GEO, Inc. as a defendant To correct docket #180 filed by Robert A. Butterworth. (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
182 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Douglas N. Frazier : Motion Hearing held on 3/14/2007 re 161 Emergency MOTION for Rule 35 Interviews / Mental Status Examinations examination filed by Lucy Hadi, 178 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Take Additional Depositions filed by Charles Durden, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Roger G. Canupp, Bruce Kramer, Jacob Myers, Daniel Fabian, Lawrence McGee. Court heard from counsel. Court to grant dkt. 178. Plaintiffs to provide expert reports to the Court. The Court will decide this matter accordingly. Written order to follow. Court Reporter: Martina Reporting Services (BJH, ) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
183 ORDER granting 178 Motion to take additional depositions. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 3/14/2007. (slu) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
184 NOTICE by Robert A. Butterworth filing proposed protocol for Defendant's expert interviews (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
185 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden re 184 Notice (Other) of outstanding issues related to Defendant's Motions for clinical interviews (Capobianco, Cassandra) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
186 NOTICE of change of address by Peter Prescott Sleasman (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
187 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Douglas N. Frazier : Telephone Hearing held on 3/19/2007 re 161 Emergency MOTION for Rule 35 Interviews / Mental Status Examinations examination filed by Lucy Hadi. Court will take this matter under advisement and the examinations will not go forward at this time. Written order will be entered. Court Reporter: Martina Reporting Services (BJH, ) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
188 RESPONSE in opposition re 175 MOTION for leave to file Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Objections filed by Robert A. Butterworth. (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
189 ORDER temporarily denying 161 Motion for examination. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 3/19/2007. (slu) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
190 Joint MOTION To Extend Certain Deadlines in the Third Amended Case management and Scheduling Order by Robert A. Butterworth. (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
191 ORDER that pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court shall substitute Robert A. Butterworth as the proper named Defendant for Lucy Hadi on the docket in this matter. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 3/22/2007. (slu) (Entered: 03/26/2007)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 23 of 38

03/27/2007 03/27/2007 04/04/2007 04/05/2007 04/06/2007
04/06/2007 04/11/2007 04/17/2007 04/18/2007
04/18/2007
06/04/2007 06/19/2007

192 ORDER granting 172 Motion for joinder. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 3/26/2007. (slu) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
193 ORDER granting 161 Motion for examination. (See order for additional details). Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 3/27/2007. (slu) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
194 EMERGENCY MOTION to quash Subpoenas, EMERGENCY MOTION for protective order by Timothy Budz, Angela Garrido. (Sullivan, Jennifer) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. Modified on 4/4/2007 (slu). (Entered: 04/04/2007)
195 Emergency MOTION to stay discovery temporarily and to defer ruling on Joint Motion to Extend Certain Deadlines in Third Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order by Robert A. Butterworth. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiffs' Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories)(Maher, Susan) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 04/05/2007)
196 ORDER that the Court's March 14, 2007, Order 183 is vacated to the extent that the Order permitted depositions of employees and/or contractors of GEO, Inc. Denying as moot 194 Motion to quash; denying as moot 194 Motion for protective order; denying as moot 195 Motion to stay discovery. Plaintiffs shall effectuate service of process on GEO, Inc. within 10 days from the date on this Order. Plaintiffs, Defendant Butterworth, and Defendant GEO, Inc. shall submit a joint proposed Fourth Amendment Case Management and Scheduling Order within 20 days from the date Plaintiffs effectuate service of process on GEO, Inc. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 4/5/2007. (slu) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
197 ORDER granting 175 Motion for leave to file. Plaintiff may file a Reply no longer than 3 pages in length on or before Tuesday, April 17, 2007, upon which time Plaintiffs' Objections will be deemed ripe for review. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 4/5/2007. (slu) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
198 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice of GEO pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i) by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden (Lentz, Kristen) Modified on 4/12/2007 (slu). (Entered: 04/11/2007)
199 PLAINTIFFS' limited reply re 174 Response filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) Modified on 4/17/2007 (slu). (Entered: 04/17/2007)
200 DEFENDANT BUTTERWORTH'S RESPONSE re 196 Order on motion to quash, Order on motion for protective order, Order on motion to stay discovery, and Proposed Fourth Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order filed by Robert A. Butterworth. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogatories [Original} # 2 Exhibit B − Plaintiffs' Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories [First Supplement] # 3 Exhibit C − Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories [Second Supplement])(Maher, Susan) Modified on 4/18/2007 (slu). Modified on 9/6/2007 (slu). Proposed Fourth Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order is stricken pursuant to 204 (Entered: 04/18/2007)
201 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE re 196 Order on motion to quash, Order on motion for protective order, Order on motion to stay discovery, and Supplemental Case Management Report filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Sleasman, Peter) Modified on 4/18/2007 (slu). Modified on 9/6/2007 (slu). Proposed Fourth Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order is stricken pursuant to 204 (Entered: 04/18/2007)
202 ORDER that Plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice of GEO pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i) 198 is granted and Defendant GEO is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall correct the caption of the case to reflect the termination of Defendant GEO, Inc.. Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 6/4/2007. (slu) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
203 MOTION to extend time to meet case management deadlines by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 24 of 38

09/06/2007
03/20/2008
08/04/2008 09/11/2008 10/06/2008 10/10/2008 10/23/2008
10/28/2008 10/30/2008 11/07/2008 11/10/2008
11/12/2008 11/17/2008
11/19/2008 11/26/2008 12/15/2008

Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
204 ORDER granting 203 Motion to extend time deadlines. The deadlines set forth in the Third Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order are stayed. The Clerk of Court shall strike the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Proposed Fourth Amended Case Management and Scheduling Orders 200 &201 . Signed by Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 9/6/2007. (slu) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
205 NOTICE of pendency of fully briefed objections by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden re 158 Objection (Lentz, Kristen) Modified on 3/20/2008 to edit docket text (SLU). (Entered: 03/20/2008)
206 Case reassigned to Unassigned Judge. New case number: 2:04−cv−260−FtM−99DNF. Judge Marcia Morales Howard no longer assigned to the case. (LAG) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
207 OPINION AND ORDER overruling 158 Objections to the Order of the Magistrate Judge Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 9/11/2008. (RKM) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
208 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 13 Certificate of compliance Amended by George H. Sheldon. (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
209 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
210 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/17/2009 at 09:00 AM before Judge Unassigned Judge, Bench Trial set for trial term 9/1/2009 at 09:00 AM before Judge Unassigned Judge. See Order for all deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 10/23/2008. (BJH) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
211 NOTICE of change of address by Kristen Cooley Lentz (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
212 AMENDED NOTICE of change of address by Kristen Cooley Lentz (Lentz, Kristen) Modified on 10/30/2008 to edit docket text (SLU). (Entered: 10/30/2008)
213 Joint MOTION to amend/correct 210 Case management and scheduling order by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
214 ORDER granting 213 motion to amend/correct. The parties are permitted to each take twenty (20) depositions. The Courtroom Deputy for the Honorable Douglas N. Frazier is directed to enter an "Amended Case Management Order," amending the deadlines for the parties experts reports. (see order for details) Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 11/10/2008. (SLU) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
215 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 11/12/2008. (BJH) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
216 Joint MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Extend Confidentiality Agreement by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
217 ORDER granting 216 Motion to extend confidentiality agreement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 11/19/2008. (SLU) Modified on 11/20/2008 to edit signed by judge (SLU). (Entered: 11/19/2008)
218 NOTICE by George H. Sheldon re 193 Order on motion for examination Experts site visit (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
219 INTERESTED CLASS ACTION PARTIES' MOTION to intervene on new legal issues violation of due process liberty interest and motions for an investigation for an injunctive and/or temporary restraining order relief by David Yzaguirre, Khalie Hamid, Craig Williams, Aaron Marsh, Joseph Shaw, Dwayne Head, Frank Wade, Jamaal Bilal, Samuel Lane, William Morales, Barba Neil, Michael Ward, Harden

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 25 of 38

12/29/2008 12/30/2008 01/09/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 03/10/2009 03/11/2009 03/12/2009 03/13/2009
03/13/2009
03/16/2009 03/16/2009

James, Richard Spivey, Devin Allen, Daniel Sinclair, John Oakley and Robert Williams. (kma) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 12/18/2008)
220 RESPONSE to motion re 219 MOTION to intervene filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
221 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden of Expert Tours (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
222 ORDER denying 219 Motion to intervene. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 1/8/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
223 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Order on Confidentiality by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript Excerpt, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
224 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Argument on Motion for Order on Confidentiality by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
225 MOTION to compel Production of Documents Sought by Subpoena Duces Tecum by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix A − E, # 2 Appendix Appendix F)(Sleasman, Peter) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 03/10/2009)
226 MOTION for reconsideration re 222 Order on motion to intervene by Khalie Hamid, Aaron Marsh, Joseph Shaw, Dwayne Head, Jamaal Bilal, Samuel Lane, William Morales, Barba Neil, Devin Allen, Daniel Sinclair, Robert Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
227 REQUEST to intervene by Roosevelt Reed. (SLU) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 03/12/2009)
228 ORDER granting 223 Motion to amend order on confidentiality. The Court's February 8, 2006 Order of Protection of Confidential Information Relating to Class Members 120 , previously extended to include Dr. Douglas Shadle 217 , is now extended to include GEO, Inc., the current contractor operating the FCCC, and GEO's employees and agents. The docket entry shall so reflect. The Clerk of Court shall correct the caption of the case to reflect the substitution of the proper named Defendant Secretary of the Department of Children and Families. Denying as moot 224 Motion request for oral argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 3/13/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
229 ORDER directing Timothy Budz, George H. Sheldon to respond to 225 MOTION to compel Production of Documents Sought by Subpoena Duces Tecum. (Responses due by 3/24/2009), (Miscellaneous Hearing set for 4/1/2009 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom C before Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier). All parties, including Timothy J. Budz, must be present for the hearing. The party raising the privilege must be prepared to submit a privilege log. Failure to comply with the requirements of this Order will subject the party or attorney to appropriate sanctions under the Rules. The Clerk of Court shall fax and mail this Order to Timothy J. Budz. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 3/13/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
230 ORDER ATTACHED denying 226 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 227 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 3/16/2009. (SKH) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
231 SUPPLEMENT MOTION for reconsideration re 222 Order on motion to intervene by David Yzaguirre, Khalie Hamid, Craig Williams, Aaron Marsh, Joseph Shaw, Dwayne Head, Frank Wade, Jamaal Bilal, Samuel Lane, William Morales, Barba Neil, Michael Ward, Harden James, Richard Spivey, Devin Allen, Daniel Sinclair,

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 26 of 38

03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/25/2009 03/26/2009
03/30/2009 03/30/2009 04/01/2009 04/01/2009
04/06/2009 04/08/2009
04/17/2009 04/17/2009 05/01/2009

John Oakley, Robert Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
232 ORDER denying as moot 231 Motion for reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 3/24/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
233 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 225 MOTION to compel Production of Documents Sought by Subpoena Duces Tecum by Timothy Budz. (Kummerlen, Gregory) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
234 RESPONSE to motion re 225 MOTION to compel Production of Documents Sought by Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by Timothy Budz. (Kummerlen, Gregory) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
235 ENTERED IN WRONG CASE CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/21/2010 at 09:00 AM in Ft. Myers Courtroom 5 D before Judge Unassigned Judge, Jury Trial set for trial term 7/6/2010 at 09:00 AM in Ft. Myers Courtroom 5 D before Judge Unassigned Judge. See Order for all deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 3/26/2009. (BJH) Modified on 3/26/2009 (BJH). ENTERED IN WRONG CASE (Entered: 03/26/2009)
236 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 233 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 3/30/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
237 OBJECTION re 225 MOTION to compel Production of Documents Sought by Subpoena Duces Tecum. (Kummerlen, Gregory) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
238 RESPONSE to motion re 225 MOTION to compel Production of Documents Sought by Subpoena Duces Tecum [Limited Response Pursuant to Court Order of March 13, 2009 229 filed by George H. Sheldon. (Maher, Susan) Modified on 4/2/2009 to edit docket text (SLU). Modified on 4/6/2009 (SLU). Stricken pursuant to 240 (Entered: 04/01/2009)
239 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier: Motion Hearing held on 4/1/2009 re 225 MOTION to compel Production of Documents Sought by Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden, Roger G. Canupp, Hubert Davidson, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee. Mr. Budtz sworn to testify. Written Order to follow. Court Reporter: R. Joy Stancel (BJH) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
240 ORDER that the Response filed on behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Children and Families 238 is stricken. Granting 225 Motion to compel (see order for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 4/3/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
241 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on April 1, 2009, before Judge Douglas N. Frazier. Court Reporter/Transcriber R. Joy Stancel, OCR,Telephone number 239/461−2064. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter. Redaction Request due 4/29/2009, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/11/2009, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/7/2009. (JS) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
242 OBJECTION re 240 Order on motion to compel Motion to Quash Subpoena and Order Compelling Production and Motion for Protective Order with Supporting Memorandum of Law by Timothy Budz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Dale Frick)(Kummerlen, Gregory) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
243 MOTION for reconsideration re 240 Order on motion to compel by Timothy Budz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Dale Frick)(Kummerlen, Gregory) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
244 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendent's Expert Anita Schlank by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 27 of 38

05/01/2009 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 05/04/2009
05/06/2009
05/06/2009 05/08/2009 05/11/2009 05/11/2009 05/15/2009 05/21/2009

Exhibit Exhibits 1 and 2)(Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
245 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 242 Objection, 243 MOTION for reconsideration re 240 Order on motion to compel by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
246 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendant's Expert Max Linn by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3, # 2 Exhibit 4 − 5, # 3 Exhibit 6 − 7, # 4 Exhibit 8 − 10)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
247 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically To Strike Dr. Douglas Shadle As An Expert Witness by George H. Sheldon. (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
248 NOTICE of filing amended certificate by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden re 245 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 242 Objection, 243 MOTION for reconsideration re 240 Order on motion to compel MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 242 Objection, 243 MOTION for reconsideration re 240 Order on motion to compel (Sleasman, Peter) Modified on 5/5/2009 to edit docket text (SLU). (Entered: 05/04/2009)
249 NOTICE by George H. Sheldon re 247 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically To Strike Dr. Douglas Shadle As An Expert Witness [Notice of Filing Exhibits A through H] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit B − Defendant's Interrogatories to Dr. Shadle, # 3 Exhibit C − Defendant's Second Request for Production, # 4 Exhibit D − Plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogatories to Dr. Shadle, # 5 Exhibit E − Plaintiffs' Response to Def's 2d Request for Production, # 6 Exhibit F − Excerpt from Deposition of Dr. Shadle − pp. 68−77, # 7 Exhibit G − Excerpt from Deposition of Dr. Shadle − p. 9, # 8 Exhibit H − Excerpt from Deposition of Dr. Shadle − pp. 128−132)(Maher, Susan) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
250 ORDER granting 245 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 243 MOTION for reconsideration re 240 Order on motion to compel. Responses due by 5/8/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 5/5/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
251 RESPONSE in opposition re 243 MOTION for reconsideration re 240 Order on motion to compel and In Opposition Re (242) Objections filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
252 RESPONSE in opposition re 244 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendent's Expert Anita Schlank filed by George H. Sheldon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit expert report, # 2 Exhibit deposition excerpts, # 3 Exhibit Hargett v. Adams)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
253 RESPONSE in opposition re 246 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendant's Expert Max Linn filed by George H. Sheldon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
254 RESPONSE in opposition re 247 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically To Strike Dr. Douglas Shadle As An Expert Witness filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B, # 2 Exhibit C − F)(Capobianco, Cassandra) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
255 AMENDED ORDER amending re 240 Order on motion to compel, Motions denied without prejudice: 243 MOTION for reconsideration re 240 Order on motion to compel filed by Timothy Budz. The parties shall comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) on or before May 27, 2009 (see order for details). Timothy Budz shall produce Request 13 (see order for details) on or before May 29, 2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 5/21/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 05/21/2009)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 28 of 38

05/27/2009 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 06/10/2009
06/11/2009 06/16/2009 06/19/2009
07/01/2009 07/09/2009
07/14/2009 07/15/2009 07/16/2009 07/16/2009 07/30/2009
08/06/2009 08/21/2009

256 NON PARTY, TIMOTHY J. BUDZ'S AMENDED MOTION for reconsideration re 255 Amended order by Timothy Budz. (Kummerlen, Gregory) Modified on 5/28/2009 to edit docket text (SLU). (Entered: 05/27/2009)
257 Joint MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Joint Motion for Trial Date Certain by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
258 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Remove Attorney Name from Electronic Notifications by GEO, Inc., Timothy Budz. (Sullivan Davis, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
259 RESPONSE in opposition re 256 Amended MOTION for reconsideration re 255 Amended order filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) Modified on 6/11/2009 to edit docket text (SLU). (Entered: 06/10/2009)
260 ORDER granting 258 Motion to remove attorney name (Jennifer Sullivan Davis) from electronic notifications. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 6/11/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
261 Joint MOTION to extend time to complete mediation by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
262 MOTION to compel Production of Budgetary Information from Nonparty, Timothy Budz by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sleasman, Peter) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 06/19/2009)
263 STATUS REPORT by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
264 RESPONSE to motion re 262 MOTION to compel Production of Budgetary Information from Nonparty, Timothy Budz filed by Timothy Budz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Dale Frick (not notarized))(Kummerlen, Gregory) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
265 ORDER granting 261 Motion to extend time for mediation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 7/14/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
266 Joint MOTION to stay Pre−Trial Deadlines and Trial by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
267 ORDER denying 256 Motion for reconsideration re 240 Order on motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 7/16/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
268 ORDER granting 266 Motion to stay. All pre−trial deadlines are stayed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 7/16/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
269 ORDER removing this case from the September 2009 trial calendar. The Clerk shall terminate the pending motions. Within 60 days, the parties shall file the settlement documents and the appropriate motion to confirm the settlement or file a report with the Court as to the progress of the settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 7/30/2009. (brh) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
270 ORDER ATTACHED directing directing Clerk to admininstratively close this case during the period of the parties' settlement negotiations. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/6/2009. (DMB) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
271 Joint MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically approval of process to notify class of proposed settlement by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Notice and Settlement Plan)(Lentz, Kristen) Modified on 8/24/2009 (SLU). Counsel advised error on/with pleading; refiled @ 272 ; motion terminated (Entered: 08/21/2009)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 29 of 38

08/21/2009
09/14/2009
09/21/2009 09/21/2009 09/23/2009
09/24/2009 09/30/2009 10/02/2009 10/08/2009 10/13/2009 10/13/2009 10/13/2009 10/13/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009

272 Joint MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically approval of process to notify class of proposed settlement Correction of Docket # 271 by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed notice and settlement plan)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
273 ORDER granting 272 Motion for approval of procedure to notify class of proposed settlement and the Settlement Plan as set forth in Exhibit A, is preliminarily approved subject to further consideration and hearing by this Court. A hearing shall be held on Tuesday November 17, 2009 @ 9:00 a.m. before the undersigned in Courtroom A of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building, 2110 First Street, Fort Myers, FL 33901 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Settlement Plan on the terms and conditions provided therin is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class (see order for details). Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 9/14/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
274 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically objecting to settlement by Joseph W. Finfrock. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Florida Civil Commitment Center Policy and Procedure Manual)(SLU) Modified on 10/21/2009 (SLU). STRICKEN pursuant to 297 (Entered: 09/21/2009)
275 OBJECTION to settlement re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Earl Everett. (SLU) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
276 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by D. R. Erickson, Robert Jafent, Wayne A. Aliff, Tores Prophet, Rayvon Boatman, John Lane, Bernard Newsome, Louis Vargas, Lawrence Nelson, David Carter, Anthony Zielinski, Marvin Armstrong, Lucas Tom, Geoffrey Ohlich, Juan Giraldo, Moses Blakes, Eddie L. Milom, Fred Brinkley, Jr by D. R. Erickson, Robert Jafent, Wayne A. Aliff, Tores Prophet, Rayvon Boatman, John Lane, Bernard Newsome, Louis Vargas, Lawrence Nelson, David Carter, Anthony Zielinski, Marvin Armstrong, Lucas Tom, Geoffrey Ohlich, Juan Giraldo, Moses Blakes, Eddie L. Milom, Fred Brinkley, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter to Suzonne Kline from D.R. Erickson, # 2 Exhibit FCCC Resident Grievance &Resident Communication Forms)(SLU) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
277 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Roderick D. Lee. (SLU) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
278 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Frank Rafael Enriquez. (SLU) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
279 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by James Roy Guinn. (SLU) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
280 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Jamaal Bilal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
281 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Fernando Luis Viruet. (SLU) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
282 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by D. R. Erickson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
283 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Ronald C. Hood, Jr. (SLU) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
284 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Richard Spivey. (SLU) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
285 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Alonzo Newsome. (SLU) Modified on 10/16/2009 to edit docket text (SLU). (Entered: 10/16/2009)
286 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Daryl Leslie Lavender. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Notice of Proposed Settlement of Canupp, et al. v. Sheldon, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D − LUAG Emphasizes the Need for Continued Reform of Washingtong SVP Program (Part

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 30 of 38

10/15/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009
10/15/2009 10/16/2009
10/16/2009 10/16/2009 10/19/2009 10/19/2009 10/19/2009 10/21/2009
10/21/2009
11/02/2009
11/02/2009
11/02/2009 11/03/2009
11/03/2009

II))(SLU) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
287 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Jose Santiago. (SLU) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
288 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Michael Curtis Donovan. (submitted as a two−sided document) (SLU) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
289 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Robert Burke. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Notice of Proposed Settlement of Canupp, et al. v. Sheldon, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(SLU) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
290 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Michael D. Griggs. (SLU) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
291 NOTICE by George H. Sheldon re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief [Notice of Filing Compliance Affidavit] (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Timothy J. Budz)(Maher, Susan) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
292 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Kenneth A. Widel. (SLU) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
293 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Kenneth W. Patterson. (SLU) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
294 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Tom Barker. (SLU) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
295 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Luis Olivera filed by next friend Tom Barker. (SLU) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
296 OBJECTION re 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Terry Freeze. (SLU) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
297 ORDER to strike re: 274 Motion for miscellaneous relief filed by Joseph W. Finfrock. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 10/20/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
298 JOINT MOTION to Appear Telephonically at the fairness hearing by Frank Rafael Enriquez, Alonzo Newsome. (SLU) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 10/21/2009)
299 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum by Jamaal Bilal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 11/02/2009)
300 Joint MOTION to extend time to File Motion to Approve Settlement by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, George H. Sheldon, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
Mail returned as Undeliverable/No such person re: 297 Order to strike. Mail was not resent to John Lane. (SLU) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
301 ORDER granting 300 Motion to extend time and the deadline is extended by one day. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 11/3/2009. (SLU) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
302 Joint MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Approval of Settlement and Dismissal of Case by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, George H. Sheldon, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index to Appendix, # 2 Appendix 1 − Budz Declaration, # 3 Appendix 5 − Canupp Final Action Plan, # 4 Appendix 6 − CL−1 Program Description, # 5 Appendix 7 − App 7 − CL−22 Discharge Planning, # 6 Appendix 8 − CL−2, # 7 Appendix 9 − PRG−5 Mental Health Screening, # 8 Appendix 10 − CL−4 Integrated Care Planning, # 9 Appendix 11 − CL−23 Special Needs Program, # 10 Appendix 12 − ADM−6 Language Assistance, # 11 Appendix 13 − HLTH 52 − SSRI, # 12 Appendix 14 − HLTH−53 − Anti−Androgens, # 13 Appendix 15 − ADM−13 Competency Evaluation and Training, # 14 Appendix 16 − HLTH−98 Care of the Terminally Ill, # 15 Appendix 17 − CL−10 Residential Mental Health

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 31 of 38

11/03/2009 11/04/2009 11/04/2009 11/04/2009 11/05/2009 11/05/2009 11/05/2009 11/05/2009
11/06/2009 11/06/2009 11/06/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/17/2009 11/17/2009

Services, # 16 Appendix 4a − FCCC GEO Contract, # 17 Appendix 4b − FCCC Geo Contract, # 18 Appendix 4c − FCCC GEO Contract)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
303 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden re 302 Joint MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Approval of Settlement and Dismissal of Case of Filing Documents Under Seal (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
304 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 297 Order to strike, 273 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Joseph W. Finfrock. (SLU) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
305 NOTICE of appeal and APPLICATION for certificate of appealability for affidavit of indigency filed by Joseph W. Finfrock. (Docketed as a request for certificate of appealability only) (SLU) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
306 MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Joseph W. Finfrock. (SLU) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
307 RESPONSE in opposition re 298 MOTION to Appear Telephonically filed by George H. Sheldon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of Tim Budz, # 2 Exhibit B − Excerpts from FCCC Classification Report)(Maher, Susan) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
308 RESPONSE in opposition re 299 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by George H. Sheldon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Excerpt from FCCC Classification Report, # 2 Exhibit B − Orders on Bilal from Middle and Northern Districts)(Maher, Susan) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
309 RESPONSE to motion re 298 MOTION to Appear Telephonically filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
310 NOTICE by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden of Supplemental Declarations in Support of Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Declaration of Dr. Kathryn Burns, # 2 Supplement Declaration of Dr. Fred Berlin)(Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
311 ORDER denying 305 Motion for certificate of appealability; denying 306 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/6/2009. (RKM) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
312 RESPONSE to motion re 299 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Roger G. Canupp, Jacob Myers, Lawrence McGee, Hubert Davidson, George H. Sheldon, Tywaun Jackson, Charles Durden. (Lentz, Kristen) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
313 ORDER denying 298 Motion to Appear Telephonically; denying 299 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/6/2009. (RKM) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
314 NOTICE by George H. Sheldon (Joint Notice) of Filing List of Resident Objectors and Class Status of Each (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Budz Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B − List of Resident Objectors and Class Status of Each)(Maher, Susan) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
317 REPLY in opposition to response to 298 MOTION to Appear Telephonically filed by Alonzo Newsome. (kma) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
315 NOTICE by George H. Sheldon re 302 Joint MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Approval of Settlement and Dismissal of Case of Filing Attachments to Budz Declaration, Doc. 302, Appendix 1 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Johnson CV, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Murphy CV)(Maher, Susan) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
316 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge John E. Steele: Settlement Conference held on 11/17/2009. Court Reporter: Jeffrey G. Thomas (BJH) (Entered: 11/17/2009)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 32 of 38

11/17/2009 11/17/2009 11/23/2009
11/23/2009
11/24/2009 12/04/2009 12/09/2009 12/09/2009
12/16/2009
12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/17/2009

Mail returned as Undeliverable/No such person re: 301 Order on motion to extend time. Mail was not resent to John Lane. (SLU) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
Sealed document S−3. (SLU) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 304 Notice of interlocutory appeal. (kma) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
318 OPINION AND ORDER granting 302 Motion for approval of settlement and dismissal of case. The case is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant must provide notice to the FCCC residents regarding approval of the settlement and dismissal of this action on or before December 2, 2009, by utilizing the same methods previously ordered by the Court in its September 14, 2009 Order. On or before December 7, 2009, an FCCC official shall file an affidavit confirming that every resident at the facility was given notice of the approval of the settlement and dismissal of this action. the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/23/2009. (RKM) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
319 JUDGMENT (Signed by Deputy Clerk) (SLU) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
320 NOTICE of compliance re 318 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by George H. Sheldon (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Tim Budz)(Maher, Susan) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
Mail returned as Undeliverable/No such person re: 319 Judgment, 318 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail was not resent to John Lane. (SLU) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
321 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 318 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Jamaal Bilal. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Objections to Discharge Planning Clause 21 of the Parties Proposed Settlement Agreement Motion for the Appointment of a Monitor to Oversee Terms of Settlement Agreement)(SLU) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 321 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (slp) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
322 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 319 Judgment by Anthony Zielinski. Filing fee not paid. (SLU) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
323 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 319 Judgment by Marvin Armstrong. Filing fee not paid. (SLU) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
324 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 319 Judgment by Fred Brinkley, Jr. Filing fee not paid. (SLU) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
325 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 319 Judgment by Lawrence Nelson. Filing fee not paid. (SLU) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
326 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 319 Judgment by David Carter. Filing fee not paid. (SLU) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
327 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 319 Judgment by D. R. Erickson. Filing fee not paid. (SLU) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
328 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 319 Judgment by Robert Zaferes. Filing fee not paid. (SLU) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
329 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 319 Judgment by Eddie L. Milom. Filing fee not paid. (SLU) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
330 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 319 Judgment, 318 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Daryl Leslie Lavender. Filing fee not paid. (SLU) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 33 of 38

12/23/2009 12/30/2009 12/31/2009 12/31/2009 12/31/2009 12/31/2009 12/31/2009 12/31/2009 12/31/2009 12/31/2009

331 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 232 Order on motion for reconsideration, 230 Order on motion for reconsideration Order on motion to intervene, 222 Order on motion to intervene, 318 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Earnest Bell, Sammy James Douse, Neil Barba, Aaron Marsh, Joseph Shaw. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Court Approved Settlement of Canupp, et al. v. Sheldon)(SLU) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
332 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 318 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Michael Curtis Donovan. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) Modified on 3/9/2012 (kma). (Entered: 12/30/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 322 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 323 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 324 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 325 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 326 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 327 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 328 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 329 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 12/31/2009)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 34 of 38

12/31/2009
12/31/2009
12/31/2009
01/11/2010 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 01/12/2010 01/12/2010 01/12/2010 01/12/2010 01/13/2010 01/15/2010 01/25/2010 01/25/2010 01/29/2010 02/03/2010
02/03/2010

TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 330 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 331 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 332 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (kma) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
334 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Aaron Marsh for proceedings held on 01/08/09 before Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier re 331 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
339 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Joseph Shaw re 331 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
340 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Sammy James Douse re 331 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
335 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Daryl Leslie Lavender re 330 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
336 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Michael Curtis Donovan re 332 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
337 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Neil Barba re 331 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
338 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Earnest Bell re 331 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
333 MOTION to appoint conflict free counsel on appeal by D. R. Erickson, Lawrence Nelson, David Carter, Fred Brinkley, Jr. (SLU) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 01/13/2010)
341 ORDER of USCA dismissing for lack of jurisdiction as to 304 Notice of interlocutory appeal filed by Joseph W. Finfrock. EOD: 01/13/10; USCA number: 09−15949D. (kma) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
342 MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Jamaal Bilal. (SLU) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
343 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Jamaal Bilal for proceedings held on 11/17/2009 before Judge John E. Steele re 321 Notice of appeal. USCA number: 09−16334−D. (slp) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
346 MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Jamaal Bilal. (SLU) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
344 MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by Fred Brinkley, Jr, David Carter, D. R. Erickson, Lawrence Nelson, Anthony Zielinski. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit USCA Appearance of Counsel form)(SLU) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 02/03/2010)
345 AFFIDAVIT of indigency by D. R. Erickson. (SLU) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 35 of 38

02/08/2010 02/08/2010 02/08/2010 02/22/2010 02/22/2010 02/22/2010 03/01/2010 03/10/2010
03/15/2010
03/15/2010
03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/22/2010
04/07/2010 04/07/2010

347 MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis by Daryl Leslie Lavender. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
348 AFFIDAVIT of indigency by Daryl Leslie Lavender. (SLU) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
349 COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT by Jeffrey G. Thomas re 321 Notice of appeal, satisfactory arrangements for paying the cost of the transcript have not been made. USCA number: 09−16334−D. (slp) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
350 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSED for want of prosecution as to 323 Notice of appeal filed by Marvin Armstrong. EOD: 02/18/10; USCA number: 10−10111−D. (slp) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
351 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSED for want of prosecution as to 328 Notice of appeal filed by Robert Zaferes. EOD: 02/18/10; USCA number: 10−10116−D. (slp) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
352 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSED for want of prosecution as to 329 Notice of appeal filed by Eddie L. Milom. EOD: 02/22/10; USCA number: 10−10117−D. (slp) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
353 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by D. R. Erickson for all hearings re 327 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
354 ORDER deeming 332 Notice of Appeal untimely; denying 344 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; denying 342 and 346 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency; denying 347 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis for lack of standing. Residents Brinkley, Carter, Nelson, and Zielinski must each file a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis on or before March 19, 2010. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 3/10/2010. (RKR) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
355 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSED for want of prosecution as to 331 Notice of appeal filed by Aaron Marsh, Joseph Shaw, Neil Barba, Earnest Bell, Sammy James Douse. EOD: 03/12/10; USCA number: 10−10566−D. (slp) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
356 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSED for want of prosecution as to 331 Notice of appeal filed by Aaron Marsh, Joseph Shaw, Neil Barba, Earnest Bell, Sammy James Douse. EOD: 03/12/10; USCA number: 10−10567−D. (slp) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
357 MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Earnest Bell. (originally received in USCA on 3/10/10) (SLU) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
358 MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Sammy James Douse. (originally filed in USCA on 3/10/10) (SLU) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
359 MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Aaron Marsh. (originally filed in USCA on date not specified) (SLU) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
361 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Aaron Marsh for proceedings held on 01/08/09, 03/16/09 &03/24/09 before Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier re 331 Notice of appeal. USCA number: 10−10134−D. (slp) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
360 ORDER denying 333 Motion to appoint counsel; denying 357 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency; denying 358 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency; denying 359 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 3/22/2010. (RKR) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of 354 . (slp) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of 360 . (slp) (Entered: 04/07/2010)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 36 of 38

04/14/2010 04/14/2010 04/14/2010 04/14/2010 04/16/2010 04/16/2010 04/20/2010
04/21/2010
04/28/2010 05/03/2010 05/04/2010 05/05/2010 05/05/2010 05/05/2010 05/06/2010 05/14/2010 05/26/2010

362 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING for want of prosecution as to 322 Notice of appeal filed by Anthony Zielinski. EOD: 04/12/10; USCA number: 10−10110−D. (slp) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
363 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING for want of prosecution as to 324 Notice of appeal filed by Fred Brinkley, Jr.. EOD: 04/12/10; USCA number: 10−10112−D. (slp) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
364 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING for want of prosecution as to 325 Notice of appeal filed by Lawrence Nelson. EOD: 04/12/10; USCA number: 10−10113−D. (slp) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
365 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING for want of prosecution as to 326 Notice of appeal filed by David Carter. EOD: 04/12/10; USCA number: 10−10114−D. (slp) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
366 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 318 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Michael Curtis Donovan. Filing fee not paid. (SLU) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
367 NOTICE of proposed order for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order by Michael Curtis Donovan (SLU) Modified on 4/22/2010 (SLU). STRICKEN pursuant to 368 (Entered: 04/19/2010)
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re 366 Notice of appeal. Eleventh Circuit Transcript information form forwarded to pro se litigants and available to counsel at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under Forms and Publications/General. (slp) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
368 ORDER directing the Clerk to strike 367 Notice of proposed order for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order filed by Michael Curtis Donovan. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/21/2010. (RKR) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
369 ORDER deeming untimely and not taken in good faith 366 Notice of appeal filed by Michael Curtis Donovan. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/28/2010. (RKR) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
370 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING as to 330 Notice of appeal filed by Daryl Leslie Lavender. EOD: 04/29/10; USCA number: 10−10118−D. (slp) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
371 RESPONSE re 368 Order filed by Michael Curtis Donovan. (SLU) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
372 ORDER of USCA (certified copy)DISMISSING as to 331 Notice of appeal filed by Aaron Marsh, Joseph Shaw, Neil Barba, Earnest Bell, Sammy James Douse. EOD: 05/03/10; USCA number: 10−10134−D. (slp) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
373 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING as to 331 Notice of appeal filed by Aaron Marsh, Joseph Shaw, Neil Barba, Earnest Bell, Sammy James Douse. EOD: 05/03/10; USCA number: 10−10563−D. (slp) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
374 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING as to 331 Notice of appeal filed by Aaron Marsh, Joseph Shaw, Neil Barba, Earnest Bell, Sammy James Douse. EOD: 05/03/10; USCA number: 10−10565−D. (slp) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of 369 re 366 Notice of appeal (slp) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
375 TRANSCRIPT information form filed for proceedings held on all transcripts on file re 366 Notice of appeal. USCA number: 10−11826−D. (slp) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
376 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING as to 366 Notice of appeal filed by Michael Curtis Donovan. EOD: 05/24/10; USCA number: 10−11826−D. (slp) (Entered: 05/26/2010)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 37 of 38

06/01/2010 08/05/2010
08/05/2010
08/05/2010 08/16/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/18/2010 08/24/2010
09/07/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 04/11/2011 06/17/2011

377 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING for want of prosecution as to 327 Notice of appeal filed by D. R. Erickson. EOD: 05/27/10; USCA number: 10−10115−D. (slp) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
378 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing Re Settlement held on 11/17/09 before Judge John E. Steele. Court Reporter/Transcriber Jeffrey G. Thomas,Telephone number (239) 461−2033. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or purchased through the Court Reporter. Redaction Request due 8/26/2010, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/7/2010, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/3/2010. (JGT) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
379 NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal. Court Reporter: Jeffrey G. Thomas (JGT) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
380 NOTIFICATION that transcript has been filed by Jeffrey G. Thomas re: 321 Notice of appeal USCA number: 09−16334−D (slp) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
381 RESPONSE re 379 Notice to counsel of filing of official transcript filed by Michael Curtis Donovan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
382 MOTION to appoint counsel by Michael Curtis Donovan. (SLU) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 08/17/2010)
383 MOTION for certified hard copies of the record on appeal by Michael Curtis Donovan. (SLU) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier. (Entered: 08/17/2010)
384 MOTION for extension of time to file document (brief) by Michael Curtis Donovan. (SLU) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
385 LETTER NOTICE of change of address and REQUEST for docket sheet by Jamaal Bilal (SLU) Modified on 8/18/2010 (SLU). Response and page count for docket sheet provided on 8/18/10 (Entered: 08/18/2010)
386 ORDER denying as moot 382 Motion to appoint counsel ; denying 383 Motion for copies; Plaintiff may receive "certified copies" by informing the Court which documents he wants copied and remitting payment for said copies at the following rate: 0.50 cents per page copies, plus a $9.00 charge for certification; denying as moot 384 Motion for extension of time to file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 8/23/2010. (SLU) (Entered: 08/24/2010)
387 RESPONSE re 386 Order on motion to appoint counsel Order on motion for copies Order on motion for extension of time to file filed by Michael Curtis Donovan. (SLU) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
388 CERTIFICATE of readiness sent to USCA re: 321 Notice of appeal. ROA consists of: volume of pleadings: 11 volume of transcripts: 3 USCA number: 09−16334−DD (slp) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
RECORD on appeal sent to USCA re 321 Notice of appeal. Transmittal includes certified copy of docket sheet, volume of pleadings: 11, volume of transcripts: 3, USCA number 09−16334−DD (slp) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
389 CERTIFICATE of readiness sent to USCA re: 332 Notice of appeal. ROA consists of: volume of pleadings: 11 volume of transcripts: 3 USCA number: 10−10135−DD (slp) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
390 USCA judgment (certified copy) affirming the decision of the District Court as to 321 Notice of appeal filed by Jamaal Bilal Entered on docket 03/07/11. Issued as Mandate on: 06/15/11 USCA number: 09−16334−DD. (slp) (Entered: 06/27/2011)

Case: 2:04-cv-260 As of: 02/03/2013 12:31 PM EST 38 of 38

02/24/2012

391 USCA judgment affirming the decision of the District Court as to 332 Notice of appeal filed by Michael Curtis Donovan Entered on docket 12/01/11. Issued as Mandate on: 02/24/12 USCA number: 10−10135−DD. (slp) (Entered: 03/09/2012)