Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry

PC-DC-003-001
EDWARD I. KOREN ALEXA P. FREEMAN STEVEN NEY National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc. 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 331-0500
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN,

)

WILLIAM ALSTON-EL, MICHAEL CLAY, )

JAMES DAVIS, ALLEN GLAZER, RONNIE )

GOODMAN, JAMES HARRINGTON, JOHN )

HARRIS, CARL HENDERSON, JEFFREY )

HOWARD, MICHAEL IVEY, THOMAS

)

OLIVER, FRED OWENS, AHMED PASHA, )

WALTER ROBINSON, CALVIN ROOKARD, )

CARL WILLIAMS AND ROBERT LEON

)

WILSON, individually and on

)

behalf of all other persons

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

MARION BARRY, MAYOR, AND JAMES F. )

PALMER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, in their official )

capacities,

)

Defendants.

)

Civ. No.

COMPLAINT

On behalf of themselves and the class alleged herein,

plaintiffs state the following for their complaint against

defendants:

I.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a class action brought by plaintiffs on behalf

of all inmates who are or will be confined at the District of

Columbia Department of Corrections Occoquan Facilities I, II and

III in Lorton, Virginia (hereinafter Occoquan). Plaintiffs seek

declaratory and injunctive relief for deprivations under color of

state law of the rights, privileges and immunities secured by the

Constitution of the United States and, in particular, those

secured by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments thereof.

2. Plaintiffs specifically seek relief from conditions at

Occoquan which fall below standards of human decency, inflict

needless suffering on prisoners and create an environment which threaten prisoners1 physical and mental well-being and results in

the unnecessary deterioration of prisoners confined there.

3. Occoquan I and II are administered separately from

Occoquan III. All three are medium security facilities.

Occoquan I houses sentenced felons. Occoquan II houses primarily

misdemeanants as well as felons awaiting sentencing. Occoquan

III also houses sentenced felons. On July 9, 1986, the combined

population of the facilities was approximately 1750, with a rated

capacity of 1366. On July 10, 1986, a major disturbance occurred

at Occoquan I and II. On July 11, 1986, the combined population

was reduced to 1034, but has steadily increased since that date

to approximately 1242 as of July 28, 1986.

11'

JURISDICTION

4. This action is filed under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to redress

injuries suffered by plaintiffs and the class they represent for

deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the

Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs1 claims also arise directly under the Fifth and Eighth

Amendments._ The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3).

5. Venue in the District Court for the District of Columbia

is proper. Defendants Marion S. Barry and James E. Palmer reside

in the District of Columbia and each of the claims for relief

arose in this district.

III.

PARTIES

6. Each of the named plaintiffs is currently an inmate

confined by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections

at, or subject to return to, Occoquan I, 11 or III.

7. Plaintiff William Alston-El has been confined at

Occoquan III for at least six months.

8. Plaintiff Michael Clay has been confined at Occoquan I

and II for at least seven months as a protective custody inmate

in the cellblock and in at least six dorms.

9. Plaintiff James Davis has been confined at Occoquan I

and II for at least one year, including the J-2 dorm for

approximately two months.

10. Plaintiff Allen Glazer has been confined intermittently

at Occoquan I and II and at Central Facility, Lorton Reformatory

for at least one year and continuously at Occoquan I and II since

approximately July 30, 1986.

11. Plaintiff Ronnie Goodman has been confined at Occoquan I

and II for at least fifteen months.

12. Plaintiff James Harrington is currently confined at the

Central Detention Facility, but was recently confined at Occoquan

I and II in the cellblock and is subject to return.

13. Plaintiff John Harris has been confined at Occoquan III, Dorm 5 since June 13, 1986.
14. Plaintiff Carl Henderson is currently confined at the Central Detention Facility, but was recently confined at Occoquan I and II and is subject to return.
15. Plaintiff Jeffrey Howard has been confined at Occoquan I and II for approximately three weeks.
16. Plaintiff Michael Ivey has been confined at Occoquan III, Dorm 5 since June 13, 1986.
17. Plaintiff Thomas Oliver is currently confined at Maximum Security, Lorton Reformatory, but was recently confined at Occoquan I and II and Occoquan III and is subject to return.
18. Plaintiff Fred Owens has been confined by the D.C. Department of Corrections for at least seventeen months, including Occoquan I and II, Occoquan III and the Central Detention Facility, and is currently at Occoquan III.
19. Plaintiff Ahmed Pasha has been confined at Occoquan I and II for at least three months.
20. Plaintiff Walter Robinson is currently confined at the Central Detention Facility, but was recently confined at Occoquan I and II and is subject to return.
21. Plaintiff Calvin Rookard has been confined at Occoquan I and II for at least twenty-two months.
22. Plaintiff Carl Williams has been confined at Occoquan I and II for at least two years.

23. Plaintiff Robert Leon Wilson is currently confined at

Maximum Security, Lorton Reformatory, but was recently confined at Occoquan I and II and is subject to return.

24. Defendant Marion S. Barry is the Mayor of the District of Columbia. As chief executive officer of the District, he has ultimate administrative and fiscal control of and responsibility

for, among other District agencies, the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. He has the overall control and

supervision of D.C. correctional institutions, including Occoquan I, II and III.

25. Defendant James F. Palmer is the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. He has the

overall control and supervision of D.C.

institutions, including Occoquan I, II and III.

IV.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

correctional

26. This is a class action under Rules 23 (a) and 23(b)(l)

and (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 27. Plaintiffs are representative parties of a class of all

persons who are under the control of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections and who are confined at Occoquan or who may be so confined in the future.

28. Plaintiffs are members of the class and their claims are typical of all class members. Plaintiffs are represented by

competent counsel and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

29. The class is so numerous that joinder of the numbers is impracticable. Current members of the class number over 1200.

30. The lawsuit challenges various conditions of confinement at the prisons and there are questions of law and fact common to the class.

31. The defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds

generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate

final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the

class.

V. A.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Living Conditions

32.

The Department of Corrections has been enjoined

from exceeding certain population limits at the Central Detention

Facility (hereinafter Jail); Lorton Reformatory, Central Facility

(hereinafter Central); and Lorton Reformatory, Maximum Security

(hereinafter Maximum). Because of these court-ordered limits,

and the absence of adequate alternatives to incarceration, such

as work release programs, halfway houses, supervised furloughs

and third party custody programs, Occoquan, which is not under

any court-ordered limits, has been forced to receive prisoners

beyond any reasonable capacity.

33.

Plaintiffs are subject to frequent transfers within

the D.C. Department of Corrections because, in the absence of

adequate alternatives to incarceration, defendants constantly

shuffle inmates from one facility to another in an effort to

comply with these population limits. Each of the named

plaintiffs has been or is subject to such transfers.

34.

The principal living units at Occoquan are

dormitories. According to American Correctional Association

(hereinafter ACA) minimum standards, only minimum security

inmates should be housed in dormitories with a maximum of 50

prisoners per dorm in order to protect inmates from unnecessary

risk of harm. Nevertheless, these dorms are being used to house

medium security prisoners.

35.

There is one cellblock for the three Occoquan

facilities which mainly houses prisoners confined to protective

custody, administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation.

36.

Prior to the July 10 disturbance, Occoquan was

severely overcrowded. The population exceeded the maximum rated

capacity which itself is substantially above standards used for

other medium security dormitories within the Department of

Corrections.

37.

After July 10, 1986, many prisoners were

temporarily moved to other facilities during the repair work at

Occoquan I and II, but the influx of new prisoners has already

increased the population to more than 25% over what it was

following the disturbance. Severe overcrowding at Occoquan III

has persisted throughout this period. At present, even with the

temporary reduction at Occoquan I and II, the population at each

of the three facilities exceeds standards employed by the

Department of Corrections for medium security dormitories.

38.

Substantially all of the dormitories house more

than the ACA standard of 50 minimum security men per dorm. In

several dorms, more than double that number of prisoners must

sleep together in a single room. The beds are placed so close

together that they nearly touch and there is no reasonable

assurance of physical integrity while prisoners are sleeping or

otherwise occupying their beds. Double-bunking is commonplace,

particularly in Occoquan III, including 5 Dorm, and J Dorm and

the Youth dorm (M) at Occoquan I and II.

39.

Prisoners lack adequate storage lockers for their

clothes, cosmetics, books, papers and other possessions. Many

use paper boxes or bags to store these items. Where cabinets or

lockers have been provided, locks are frequently missing or broken.

40.

There are not enough toilets or showers in many

dorms; mattresses are not cleaned between use by prisoners and

there is a lack of adequate clothing. These conditions,

exacerbated by the overcrowding, increase the risk of the spread

of communicable diseases.

41.

Because of the overcrowding, noise levels in the

dormitories are high, exceeding reasonable limits in some dorms

to the point where it is necessary to almost shout to be heard.

42.

There is no ventilation system. In order to

ventilate the dorms, it is necessary to open the windows and

doors, which draws in dust and fumes. Screens are frequently

torn or missing causing serious infestations of flies and other

insects. In one dorm, hot water or steam pipes run to it from

the kitchen and other living units. The back part of this unit

is exceedingly hot. The fans that are mounted in that part of

the dorm only aggravate the situation by blowing hot air into the

rest of the dorm.

43.

Loose plaster over the T.V. area of one dorm is

falling and at least one inmate has been hit in the head and

injured.

B. Fire Hazards

44.

Occoquan was a fire hazard, presenting a grave risk

of injuries and death to those who lived there before July 10.

Fires set during the July 10 disturbance spread quickly inside

the dorms and from roof line to roof line. There were no

automatic sprinklers installed under the wooden rafters or on the

ceilings of the dorms at the time, nor have any been installed

since then.

45.

Occoquan is still a fire hazard. Almost all the

dorms are deficient in crucial ways. Minimally adequate fire

standards require two exits from each living area but some dorms

and anterooms have only one exit. In some dorms, exits are

blocked by beds or cabinets or boxes. Many electric smoke

detectors are disconnected and very few, if any, dorms contain

battery-powered smoke detectors. Mattresses are not flame-

retardant which enables any fire to spread quickly. This problem

is exacerbated by the general clutter of books, papers and

clothing often stashed in paper bags and boxes which provide

ready fuel for a fire. In the winter, this condition is made

more hazardous by beds pushed up against radiators and books,

papers and clothes piled on top. The anterooms in back of some

of the dorms provide no egress for residents housed there, and in

one dorm, the only exit into the main dorm is blocked by a large

floor fan. Until approximately July 28, some inmates in Dorm J-l

10

were housed~on a balcony above other beds with a pipe blocking the only exit from that area. Inmates housed beneath the balcony

have hung extremely flammable plastic garbage bags to keep dirt from falling on their beds, causing a potential "death trap" for those bunked above.

C- Personal Safety

46.

Overcrowding has led to scarcity of resources,

tension and stress which in turn encourage inmate confrontations

and violence. Other conditions also create an unsafe environment

for inmates. The defendants' indifference to and failure to provide reasonable personal safety to inmates is evident.

47.

On May 23, 1986, inmates rebelled and threw beds

out of dormitories and set mattresses afire when corrections

officials attempted to place additional beds in the already

overcrowded dormitories.

48.

The major disturbance at Occoquan I and II on July

10 was a reaction to severe overcrowding. Many inmates were shot and injured by correctional officers as inmates were escorted to buses out of Occoquan the next day.

49.

The atmosphere at Occoquan is tense and danger-

ous. Idleness is pervasive. There simply are not enough jobs,

vocational and educational programs and recreational

opportunities to engage the vast majority of residents. Population pressures have led at times to the opening of

makeshift dorms. For example, such a dorm was opened recently in the visiting hall that served Occoquan I and II. Visiting took place in the gym, further reducing the amount of exercise time

11

available -for inmates. Idleness has led to tension and

frustration and aggressive acts by prisoners. The lack of programming also adversely affects parole opportunities which in

turn further exacerbates the overcrowding and tension.

50.

The provision of one telephone per dorm for

prisoners' use is insufficient. A telephone is the main lifeline to families, friends and community. With so many men vying for

its use, violence among inmates often begins with conflicts over

telephone use.

51.

The failure to provide secure lockers for inmates'

personal property allows inmates to steal from others, leading to further tension and violence among inmates.

52.

The configuration and layout of some of the dorms,

including pillars and anterooms, and crowded conditions and

double-bunking prevent correctional officers from observing

activities in certain areas. This makes it impossible for defendants to reasonably ensure the physical integrity of the

prisoners. On hot days the lights are turned off in an attempt to reduce discomfort but this results in further reduction of officers' ability to supervise prisoners.

53.

Defendants fail to adequately classify inmates.

Because inmates' assignments to dormitories are based primarily

on the availability of bed space, aggressive and predatory

inmates are housed with vulnerable inmates whose personal safety is jeopardized.

54.

Defendants' housing of aggressive and predatory

inmates in dormitory style housing fails to comply with the ACA

12

standard tlxat no more than 50 minimum security inmates be housed

in dormitory style housing.

55.

Inmates who require protective custody because of

violent conditions at Occoquan are housed in a cellblock known as

Q Building which is temporarily closed. Protective custody

inmates were housed there with inmates confined for disciplinary

or administrative reasons. Other protective custody inmates are

housed in the J dorms. Defendants' failure to protect inmates is

shown by housing protective custody inmates in the cellblock and

in dorms together with more aggressive inmates.

D« Medical and Dental Services

56.

Medical care and treatment at Occoquan is grossly

inadequate and constitutes deliberate indifference to prisoners'

serious medical needs.

57.

The overcrowding has exacerbated deficiencies in

staff and services and increases the likelihood of the

transmission of communicable diseases and creates other health

risks.

58.

Delays in receiving medical care as a result of

overcrowding cause needless pain and suffering for inmates.

59.

The medical team is understaffed, particularly

after 4 p.m. when there is one physician's assistant for all of

Occoquan and after midnight there is no coverage at all.

60.

The medical services at Occoquan III are

particularly inadequate. There is no medical staffing after 4

p.m. or on weekends. Emergencies are handled through Occoquan I

and II. Clinical care is routinely delayed because appointments

13

must be made~~ through Occoquan I and II which are backed up with

their own prisoners' needs. With the addition of dorm 5 to an

already overcrowded situation, medical care at Occoquan III is

grossly inadequate.

61.

Frequently, inmates transferred from other

facilities to Occoquan are deprived of adequate or appropriate

medical treatment because of delays in getting their medical

records transferred. In one dorm, two inmates were not known to

have AIDS by the medical officer in charge until they reported to

sick call.

62.

Dental treatment falls far short of minimum

standards set forth by the American Dental Association and the

ACA. Dental care is routinely delayed because medical records

are unavailable to the dental staff.

63.

Inmates in urgent need of dental care are forced to

endure pain and suffering because of long delays in receiving

dental care.

64.

Those inmates identified as having mental health

problems are held inappropriately in the cellblock to await

available space at the Jail because Occoquan does not provide

mental health facilities or treatment.

VI-

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

65. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 32 through 64.

66. Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with the basic

necessities of life, including adequate shelter, sanitation,

personal safety, and medical and dental health care, especially

14

because the- ill effects of such deprivation are exacerbated or caused by related conditions including overcrowding. The resulting conditions at Occoquan, which are incompatible with contemporary standards of decency, cause unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain as well as genuine privation, and are not reasonably related to any legitimate governmental objectives. Inmates are thereby subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

VII.

NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW

67. As a proximate result of the defendants' policies,

practices, procedures, acts and omissions, plaintiffs have

suffered, do suffer, and will continue to suffer immediate and

irreparable injury, including physical, psychological and

emotional injury. Plaintiffs' physical and psychological health

and well-being will continue to deteriorate during the course of

their confinement under the conditions described in this

complaint. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy

at law to redress the wrongs described herein. Plaintiffs will

continue to be irreparably injured by the policies, practices,

procedures, acts and omissions of the defendants unless this

Court grant the injunctive relief that plaintiffs seek.

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and the class they represent pray
this Court:

1. Determine by order pursuant to Rule 23, Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, that this action may be maintained as a

15
class action; 2. Issue a declaratory judgment stating the
defendants1 policies, practices, acts and omissions described in this complaint violate plaintiffs' rights, guaranteed to them by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
3. Permanently enjoin defendants, their officers, agents, employees and successors in office, as well as those acting in concert and participating with them, from engaging in the unlawful practices described in this complaint;
4. Retain jurisdiction of this matter until this Court's order has been carried out;
5. Award plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988; and
6. Grant such other relief as may be just and equitable.
This 4th day of August, 1986.
•y£^_
Edward I. Koren (Bar # 926956)
Alexa P. Freeman (Bar #375590)
Steven Ney (Bar 1266163)

16
National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 1616 P Street N.W., Suite 340 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 331-0500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JS 44C (Rev. 11/82)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other patters as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974,is required for the use of the Clerk ofCourt for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instruction sheet.)

PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, WILLIAM ALSTONEL, MICHAEL CLAY, JAMES DAVIS, ALLEN

MARION BARRY, MAYOR, AND JAMES F. PALMER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT

GLAZER, RONNIE GOODMAN, JAMES

OF CORRECTIONS

HARRINGTON, JOHN HARRIS, CARL

HENDERSON, JEFFREY HOWARD, MICHAEL

IVEY, THOMAS OLIVER, FRED OWENS, AHMED

PASHA, WALTER ROBINSON, CALVIN ROOKARD

COUNTY OF RESIOENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF L O r t O n

District of
COUNTY OF RESIOENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT

(EXCEPT IN u.s. PLAINTIFF CASES)

Reservation

(IN U.S.PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

CARL WILLIAMS ANDROBERT LEON WILSON, i n d i v i -

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED

rm hrfiaif of a l l o t h e r s s i m i l a r l y

S (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

Edward I. Koren, Steven Ney, Alexa P.
Freeman National Prison Project of theACLU 1616 P St. NW, #340, Washington, DC 2003£

Corporation CounseJ. District of Columbia District Building 1350 Penn. Ave. NW, Washington, DC

(PLACE AN HIN ONE BOX ONLY)202/331-0500 BASIS OF JURISDICTION

D 1 U.S.PLAINTIFF

• 2 U.S. DEFENDANT

S 3 FEDERAL QUESTION C14 DIVERSITY (U.S. NOTA PARTY)

IF DIVERSITY. INDICA TE CITIZENSHIP ON REVERSE. (28 USC 1332, 1441)

CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVILSTATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ABE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSEI

This is an action brought under Title 42 ©SC §1983 alleging that

conditions at theOccoquan Facilities atLorton are violative of theEighth Amend

ment

rights

ot

piaintirrs-pr

isonerB

lined Lu
NATURE OFSUIT

those

fncilifcica

(PLACE AN 0 IN ONE BOX ONL Y)

CONTRACT

TORTS

CIVIL RIGHTS

ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER STATUTES Com.

110 INSURANCE 120 MARINE 130 MILLER ACT 140 NEGOTIABLE

PERSONAL INJURY
B 310 AIRPLANE 315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT LIABILITY

INSTRUMENT

• 320ASSAULT. LIBEL

• 150RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT & ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
B 151 MEDICARE ACT 152 RECOVERY OF DEFAULTED STUDENT LOANS n ' 5 3 RECOVERY OF

& SLANOER • 330 FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' _ , . . LIABILITY • 340 MARINE
M 345 MARINE PRODUCT
, - , «r» LABILITY
• 350 MOTOR VEHICLE

OVERPAYMENT • 355 MOTOR VEHICLE

OF VETERANS BENEFITS
• 160 STOCKHOLDERS
SUITS Q 190 OTHER
CONTRACT
• 195 CONTRACT PRODUCT LIABILITY
REAL PROPERTY

PRODUCT LIABILITY

• 360 OTHER

PERSONAL INJURY

• 362 PERSONAL

INJURY-MED.

,_,

MALPRACTICE

• 365 PERSONAL

INJURY

PRODUCT

PERSOLNIAABL ILPIRTYOPERTY

§ 210 CONDEMNATION 220 FORECLOSURE 230 RENT LEASE 4 EJECTMENT

n 240TORTS TO LAND

• 245 TORT PRODUCT

*-*

LIABILITY

n M 0 ALL OTHER REAL PROPERTY

B 370 OTHER FRAUO 371 TRUTH IN r-, . » - LENDING Q 380 OTHER
PERSONAL PROPERTY _ . „ DAMAGE • 385 PROPERTY DAMAGE PRODUCT LIABILITY

• 441 VOTING • 442 JOBS Q 443 ACCOMMODA-
TIONS • 444 WELFARE • 440 OTHER CIVIL
RIGHTS
PRISONER PETITIONS
• 510 VACATE SENTENCE (2255)
• 530 HABEAS CORPUS
• 540 MANDAMUS & OTHER
jVf55Q CIVIL RIGHTS

• 610 AGRICULTURE • 620 FOOD & DRUG

1420 TRUSTEE ]421 TRANSFER (915b) ]422APPEAL (801)

• 630 LIQUOR LAWS & TRUCK
• 650 AIRLINE REGS.

PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 COPYRIGHT 830 PATENT

• 660 OCCUPATIONAL

840 TRADEMARK

SAFETY/HEALTH

SOCIAL SECURITY

• 690 OTHER •

B 861 HIA (1395H) 862 BLACK LUNG

(923)

8S3 DIWC (405 (g))

LABOR

863 DIWW (405 (g)) 864 SSID Title XVI

• 710 FAIR LABOR STANOAROS
• 720 LABOR/MGMT. RELATIONS
• 730 LABOR/MGMT. REPORTING & DISCLOSURE ACT
• 740 RAILWAY LABOR

865 R S I (405 (g))
TAX SUITS
• 870 T A X E S • 871 IRS-THIRD
PARTY 26 USC 7609 • 875 CUSTOMER CHALLENGE 12 USC 3410
OTHER STATUTES

• 790OTHER LABOR LITIGATION

• 400 STATE REAPPORTIONMENT

•

791 EMPL. RET. INC. SECURITY ACT

•

410 ANTI-TRUST

M 430 BANKS AND

BANKING

(PLACE AN SIN ONE BOX ONL Y)

( 1 Original Proceeding

• 2Removed from Slate Court

• 3Remanded from Appellate Court

ORIGIN
• 4 Reinstated or Reopened

Transferred from • 5 another district
(specty)

• 6 MultkJistrict Litigation

UNITED STATES OISTRICT COURT

• 450 COMMERCE ICC RATES. ETC. \
• 460 DEPORTATION

• 810 SELECTIVE SERVICE
• 850 SECURITIES COMMODITIES EXCHANGE

• 891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS
• 892 ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT

n 893 ENVIRON-
MENTAL
MATTERS
n 894 ENERGY
ALLOCATION ACT ("I 895 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

t~l 900APPEAL OF FEE "—^ DETERMINATION
UNDER EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE

• 950CONSTITU-

L-J

TIONALITY OF

STATE STATUES

• 89QOTHEH

LJ

STATUTORY

ACTIONS

Appeal to District

• 7 Judge from

Magistrate . -

Judgmern

"'''•'3

.. .... . :..^LJ

JS44C (Rev. 11/82)

CIVIL COVER SHEET (Reverse Side)
The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing andservice of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference ofj h e United States ia September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet.)

INSTRUCTIONS: After completing the front side of form JS 44C, complete the information requested below.

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES

(IF DIVERSITY)

PTF DEF

CITIZEN OF THIS STATE

•1 Di

INCORPORATED THIS STATE

•2 D2

FOREIGN CORPORATION-PRINCIPAL

PLACE OF BUSINESS IN

•3 D3

(STATE)

Check/Fill in if demanded in complaint:

CHECK I F THIS is A CLASS ACTION

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND S

OTHER

RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY

#85-0211

June Green

#80-2136

JUDGE.

. DOCKET NUMBER .

CIVIL CASES ARE DEEMED RELA TED IF PENDING CASE INVOL VES: # 7 6 - 1 7 2 6

OTHER NON-CITIZEN OF THIS STATE

•4 D4

Check YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: DYES

NO

• 1. PROPERTY INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NUMBERED PENDING SUIT 5J2. SAME ISSUE OF FACT OR GROWS OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION D 3. VALIDITY OR INFRINGEMENT OF THE SAME PATENT COPYRIGHT OR TRADEMARK

DATE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

COMMENTS (Use if additional space is required):

 
 Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry

m

«•

••

• • HP

i| |

3C-DC-003-003

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION

THE NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT
December 14, 1989

Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia U.S. Courthouse 3rd & Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001
Re: Inmates of Occoquan v. Marion Barrv C.A. No. 86-2128
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed for filing in the above-captioned case, please find the original and one copy of plaintiffs1 Proposed Plan for Implementation of the Court's June 30, 1989 Order along with a certificate of service upon opposing counsel.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,

Enclosures

Adjoa H. Aiyetoro

1616 P Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)331 0500 Fax #(202)785-8167
Alvin J. Bronstein
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Claudia Wright
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
Adjoa A. Aiyetoro
DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Elizabeth R. Alexander
CHIEF STAFF COUNSEL
Stuart H. Adams, Jr. Alexa P. Freeman Edward I. Koren Mark J. Lopez
STAFF COUNSEL
Jan Elvin
EDITOR. NPP JOURNAL
Betsy Bernat Lynthia Gibson
ASSISTANTS TO THE OIRECTOfl
Judy Greenspan
AIDS INFORMATION DIRECTOR
Julia D. Cade Olinda Moyd
STAFF ASSOCIATES
National Headquarters 132 West 43 Street New York, NY 10036 (212)944 9800
Norman Dorsen
PRESIDENT
Ira Glasser
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Eleanor Holmes Norton
CHAIR NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., )

Plaintiffs, )

V.

)

MARION BARRY, MAYOR, AND.

)

WALTER RIDLEY, DIRECTOR

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

Defendants. )

C.A. No. 86-2128

PROPOSED PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT'S JUNE 30, 1989 ORDER
Plaintiffs submit this document to comply with the agreement reached with the Court and defendants at the December 4, 1989 status conference. This document was faxed in sections to defendants' attorney, Richard Love, December 13 and 14, 1989. Most of the provisions were recommended by plaintiffs in their findings of fact and conclusions of law filed in March 1989. Many of these recommendations were also incorporated in the responses filed by plaintiffs to defendants' submissions filed pursuant to the Court's June 30, 1989 Order.

s\

A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH1

1. Hygienic Facilities

*2

a. The following hygienic facilities shall be provided

in dormitory housing: one water closet per eight prisoners with

up to one-half substitution with urinals; one lavatory (sink) per

eight prisoners; and one shower per fifteen prisoners. (Defendants1 August 29, 1989 submission supplemented by September

18 and November 30, 1989 production of documents submitted to

plaintiffs). Each cell shall be equipped with a toilet and

lavatory.

*

b. No two dormitories shall share hygienic facilities,

even during renovations. (Braxton Deposition, December 4, 1989,

at page 24-25) (Only a one time occurrence for only one day).

*

c. The defendants shall repair or replace all

inoperative and leaking plumbing and maintain hygienic facilities

in operable condition. (September 18, 1989 document submissions

and documents submitted pursuant to the Court's October-4, 1989

Order).

*

d. Dormitories shall be inspected daily by officers,

a checklist completed and any inoperative or leaking hygienic

fixtures reported to maintenance immediately. (Defendants' August

1

Refer to Ward Duel's December 13, 1989 Declaration,

Attachment A.

2

* indicates that defendants have agreed to this

provision, at least in concept, in their submissions in response

to the Court's June 30, 1989 Order or in deposition testimony of

Mr. Braxton, December 4, 1989.

3 29, 1989 submission, supplemented by their September 18, October and November 30 submissions).
d. Maintenance staff shall respond immediately and repair inoperable or malfunctioning fixtures within twenty-four hours of notification. An inventory of parts shall be maintained to allow for the expeditious repair of fixtures. Reasons for being unable to repair fixtures within twenty-four hours of notification shall be documented. (Defendants recommend forty-eight hours to repair fixtures in their October 1989 submission. Due to the serious shortages of fixtures, plaintiffs recommend that the repair time be within twenty-four hours with documentation of reasons for delay).
e. Hygienic facilities shall be available for use in dormitories twenty-four hours per day where there are fewer fixtures than required by the standard adopted by the defendants. See l.a. above.
e. Defendants shall install devices or otherwise repair fixtures to control water temperatures in showers and lavatories to prevent the temperatures from rising to scalding levels.
f. Defendants shall submit detailed plans by April 1, 1990 for renovations of dormitories to provide for additional hygienic facilities based on the population of the dormitories. These plans shall include timetables for initiating and completing each project on an expedited basis. A request to expedite the process shall be made by defendants to the appropriate agency or

4

official, if such request is necessary to meet the April 1

deadline.

2. General Sanitation

*

a. Defendants shall implement their housekeeping

plan throughout the facility and maintain cleaning supplies

adequate in type and amount to maintain a clean and sanitary

environment. (Defendants' August 29, 1989 submission).

b. Defendants shall develop and implement an effective

pest control program.

*

c. Defendants shall repair all windows and repair and

install window screens. (Defendants' September 18, 1989 document

submission).

d. Defendants shall develop and implement a preventive

maintenance program.

e. Defendants shall remove all peeling paint and repair

all damage to the facility caused by inoperative and leaking

plumbing as well as roof leaks.

f. Defendants shall repair or replace all torn and

dirty dayroom furnishings.

*

g. Defendants shall replace all dirty and torn

mattresses and pillows with clean, plastic covered mattresses and

pillows that comply with fire safety requirements.

h. Defendants shall revise their housekeeping checklist

to specify in more detail items to be inspected, e.g.. existence

of mold, slime and soap scum on the shower walls.

5 i. Defendants shall provide prisoners with 20 foot candles of light in the living areas, including prisoners in the lower bunks of double bunks. j. Defendants shall repair or replace all broken or malfunctioning lights. 3. Ventilation Defendants shall submit plans by April 1, 1990 for the renovation of the ventilation system in all living areas to provide 60 cubic feet of air per prisoner. By February 1, 1990, the defendants shall provide at least three feet between bunks or present a plan for assuring that sleepers are protected from unnecessary risks of contracting an airborne disease. 4. Asbestos Defendants shall provide certification by January 15, 1990 that there is no asbestos in the facility or that any asbestos in the facility is contained or treated so as to not be harmful to occupants. Defendants shall provide certification by December 18, 1990 that the asbestos found by Ward Duel in 1988 in Dorm 16 (Dorm 5 during the December 1988 proceedings) has been removed or contained.

B. FIRE SAFETY3 1. Defendants shall submit a comprehensive Fire Evacuation
plan by January 15, 1990 that incorporates therecommendations made

3

Refer to Tom Jaeger's, December 11, 1989 Declaration,

Attachment B.

6
by Tom Jaeger. See Tom Jaeger Declaration, December 11, 1989, pages 2-3, fla-j.
2. Defendants shall provide certification to the Court that each living area has an operating fire alarm system. The system shall include the following:
a. Transmission of the signal to the control center as well as sounding in the unit;
b. Emergency power activated when any living area is without power and to which the smoke detectors and alarm systems are connected; and,
c. Operative smoke detectors that are connected to the fire alarm system and electrically supervised.
3. Smoke detectors shall be tested regularly to determine if they are operational. A log shall be maintained reflecting the testing.
4. The defendants shall maintain three foot aisles and corridors in each dormitory. * 5. All prisoners immediately shall be provided fire resistant lockers for their belongings. (Defendants' August 29, 1989 submission).
6. Defendants shall provide a schematic of each dormitory by January 15, 1990 depicting the placement of all furnishings so as to maintain required aisles and corridors. * 7. Defendants shall enforce the no smoking policy in the dormitories. (Defendants' submission in response to October 4, 1989 Court's order and Defendants' November 30, 1989 submission).

7 8. Defendants shall provide adequate dayroom space in each dormitory to accommodate smoking prisoners. * 9. Defendants shall immediately correct the swing of all exit doors such that they swing in the direction of exit travel. (Defendants' August 29, 1989 submission). * 10. Defendants shall immediately supply all prisoners with mattresses and pillows that meet current standards for fire resistance. 11. Defendants shall correct the problems outlined by Tom Jaeger in his December 11, 1989 Declaration, 58, a-i. * 12. Keys for unlocking exit doors must be color-coded and appropriately notched. * 13. Defendants shall submit plans by February 1, 1990 to renovate the Adjustment Unit locking system to enable easy and safe removal of prisoners in the case of an emergency. (Defendants' August 29, 1989 submission).
C. HEALTH CARE4 1. Medical Care a. Defendants shall develop a system for ensuring the
medical follow-up of chronic medical conditions. A manual process shall be immediately developed pending the development of a computerized system.

4

Refer to Braslow Declaration, December 4, 1989,

Attachment C.

8

*

b. Defendants shall no longer use Medical Technical

Assistants (MTAs) in the provision of primary care. (Defendants1

August 29, 1989 submission).

*

c. Defendants shall provide on-site medical coverage

during each of the three shifts, seven days a week. (Defendants1

September 18, 1989 submission).

d. The health care positions for all shifts and

weekends shall not be filled with people working overtime.

*

e. The medical and dental staff shall consist of the

26 full-time positions outlined in Dr. Braslow's December 4, 1989

Declaration, par. 9. Defendants shall use their best efforts to

fill all vacant positions.

f. Defendants shall develop a system to monitor

specialty clinic appointments to ensure that prisoners are seen in

a timely fashion.

*

g. Defendants shall develop a system to ensure that

each prisoner is tested for syphilis and tuberculosis and results

are placed in the prisoner's medical file in a timely fashion.

(Defendants' August 29, 1989 submission).

h. Defendants shall ensure the confidentiality of HIV

test results.

*

i. Defendants shall develop a system to ensure that

medical records accompany the prisoner to the facility.
f
(Defendants' August 29, 1989 submission).

9 2. Mental Health Care5

* a. Defendants shall not assign prisoners to the

Adjustment Unit for mental observation except for a brief period

of time, no more than 24 hours, to facilitate placement of the

prisoner in an appropriate facility. (Braxton Deposition, December

4, 1989, at page 14).

b. Defendants shall provide adequate and sufficient

mental health trained staff to interview each prisoner at intake

to determine appropriateness of the facility assignment.

*

c. Defendants shall maintain a staff of six

psychologists (one chief and five psychologists) to provide mental

health services at the Occoquan facility. (November 30, 1989

submission; Braxton Deposition, December 4, 1989, page 21).

d. The defendants shall increase the number of hours

a psychiatrist and mental health coordinator provide services at

the facility such that each prisoner receives an acceptable level

of care, medical record entries can be thorough and adequate, and

no prisoner is subjected to unacceptably long follow-up intervals.

e. The Forensic Services Screening/Consultation Form

shall be eliminated and psychiatrists required to write notes in

keeping with professional standards.

*

f. Defendants shall develop a systematic tracking and

recall system for prisoners seen in the psychiatric clinic.

(Braxton Deposition, pages 16-17).

Refer to Dr. Rundle's December 13, 1989 Declaration, Attachment D.

10 g^_ Defendants shall conduct a needs assessment survey of their current population to determine the adequacy of the Correctional Treatment Facility planned for completion in November 1991. The defendants shall also develop interim plans for the housing and treatment of prisoners with mental health problems pending the completion of the Correctional Treatment Facility. h. The defendants1 medical screening form shall be revised to list other items such as depression, anorexia, impaired concentration, past psychiatric hospitalizations and/or out-patient treatment and current and past psychotropic medications. See Rundle Declaration, page 7. i. Defendants shall develop a plan to coordinate the delivery of mental health services to prisoners and specifically address the recommendation for a full-time Director of Mental Health Services. j. Defendants shall revise their medical records to assure that information is readily accessible.
D. PERSONAL SAFETY6 1. Defendants shall discontinue housing protective custody
prisoners in the Adjustment Unit in such a manner that other segregation prisoners are allowed access to them. Specifically, defendants shall develop a plan to provide exercise and showers to all prisoners in a manner that prevents administrative and disciplinary segregation prisoners from walking in front of the protective custody prisoner's cell.
Refer to Eugene Miller's Declaration, Attachment E.

11 2. Defendants plans for a 52 cell unit shall include a plan to separate protective custody prisoners from other prisoners and provide program opportunities for protective custody prisoners. Defendants shall submit these plans to the Court and plaintiffs by April 1, 1990. * 3. Defendants shall hire the 100 additional correctional officers to complete their staff complement of 500. (Braxton Deposition, page 23). 4. Defendants shall provide at least two officers in each dormitory when occupied with up to 100 prisoners, and three officers when occupied by more than 100 prisoners.
E. STAFFING Defendants shall develop and implement a staff recruitment and
retention plan to employ needed health care staff, including medical and mental health, as well as case managers and custodial staff.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward I. Koren, #92-6956 Stuart H. Adams, Jr. National Prison Project
of the ACLU Foundation 1616 P Street NW, Suite 340 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-0500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: December 14, 1989

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

—

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

'J '

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., )

) Plaintiffs, )

)

V.

)

)

MARION BARRY, MAYOR, AND

)

WALTER RIDLEY, DIRECTOR

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

)

Defendants. )

C.A. NO. 86-2128

PARTIES' AGREED PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT'S JUNE 30, 1989 ORDER
The parties submit this document to comply in part with the June 30, 1989 Court's Order requiring defendants to submit a plan to correct the constitutional violations found by the Court. This Agreed Plan excludes several of plaintiffs' proposals submitted on December 14, 1989. Defendants will submit their objections or proposed substitutes to these proposals on January 24, 1990. Plaintiffs will respond to defendants' objections within ten days.

A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1. Hygienic Facilities a. The following hygienic facilities shall be provided
in dormitory housing: one water closet per ten prisoners with up to one-half substitution with urinals; one lavatory (sink) per ten prisoners; and one shower per eight prisoners. Defendants shall submit a plan by April 1, 1990 to renovate the dormitories to comply with this standard. Each cell shall be equipped with a

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry

PC-DC-003-004

2 toilet and lavatory.
b. No two dormitories shall share hygienic facilities, even during renovations, except on a one time basis for no longer than one day.
c. The defendants shall repair or replace all inoperative and leaking plumbing and maintain hygienic facilities in operable condition.
d. Dormitories shall be inspected daily by officers, a checklist completed and any inoperative or leaking hygienic fixtures reported to maintenance immediately.
e. Maintenance (either civilian or prisoner) staff shall respond immediately and attempt to repair inoperable or malfunctioning fixtures within twenty-four hours, but no later than forty-eight hours, of notification. Reasons for being unable to repair fixtures within twenty-four hours of notification shall be documented.
f. Hygienic facilities shall be available for use in dormitories twenty-four hours per day where there are fewer fixtures than required by the standard adopted by the parties. See l.a. above. Once defendants are in compliance with this standard, toilets and sinks will continue to be available twenty-four hours per day.
g. Defendants shall install devices or otherwise repair fixtures to control water temperatures in showers and lavatories to prevent the temperatures from rising to scalding levels. This shall be done in conjunction with bathroom renovations, the plans

_

3

for which shall be provided to plaintiffs by April 1, 1990.

Pending completion of the renovations, defendants shall develop

methods to decrease the likelihood that a prisoner will be scalded,

h. Defendants shall submit detailed plans by April 1,

1990 for renovations of dormitories to provide for additional

hygienic facilities based on the population of the dormitories.

These plans shall include timetables for initiating and completing

each project.

2. General Sanitation

a. Defendants shall implement their housekeeping

plan throughout the facility and maintain cleaning supplies

adequate in type and amount to maintain a clean and sanitary

environment.

b. Defendants shall develop and implement an effective

pest control program.

c. Defendants shall repair all windows and repair and

install window screens.

d. Defendants shall develop and implement a preventive

maintenance program.

e. Defendants shall remove all peeling paint and repair

all damage to the facility caused by inoperative and leaking

plumbing as well as roof leaks.

f. Defendants shall repair or replace all torn and

dirty dayroom furnishings.

g. Defendants shall replace all dirty and torn

mattresses and pillows with clean, plastic covered mattresses and

4 pillows that comply with fire safety requirements.
h. Defendants shall revise their housekeeping checklist to specify in more detail items to be inspected, e.g.. existence of mold, slime and soap scum on the shower walls.
i. Defendants shall repair or replace all broken or malfunctioning lights.
3. Ventilation Defendants shall submit plans by April 1, 1990 for the
renovation of the ventilation system in all living areas. 4. Asbestos Defendants shall provide certification by January 2, 1990
that the asbestos found by Ward Duel in 1988 in Dorm 16 (Dorm 5 during the December 1988 proceedings) has been removed or contained.
B. FIRE SAFETY 1. Defendants shall submit a comprehensive Fire Evacuation
plan by January 15, 1990 that incorporates the recommendations made by Tom Jaeger. See Tom Jaeger Declaration, December 11, 1989, pages 2-3, fa-j, Attachment A.
2. Defendants shall provide certification to the Court that each living area has an operating fire alarm system. The system shall include operative smoke detectors that are connected to the fire alarm system and electrically supervised.
3. Smoke detectors shall be tested regularly to determine if they are operational. A log shall be maintained of the testing.

5 4. The defendants shall maintain three foot aisles and corridors leading to an exit or entrance in each dormitory. Dormitories 12, 13, 14 and 15 with bunks with lockers attached to the foot of the beds that prevent the maintenance of three foot aisles, will be brought into full compliance with this provision by May 1990. 5. All prisoners shall be provided fire resistant lockers for their belongings by March 15, 1990. 6. Defendants shall enforce the no smoking policy in the dormitories. 7. Defendants shall provide dayroom space in each dormitory to accommodate smoking prisoners. 8. Defendants shall immediately correct the swing of all exit doors such that they swing in the direction of exit travel. 9. Defendants shall immediately supply all prisoners with mattresses and pillows that meet current standards for fire resistance. 10. Defendants shall provide plans to the plaintiffs by April 1, 1990 to correct the problems outlined by Tom Jaeger in his December 11, 1989 Declaration, ^ 8 , c-1, e, f, and i1. The parties agree that the problems identified in ^[8e will be corrected by the renovations that are scheduled to begin in February 1990. No prisoners will be housed in Dormitory 18 from March 1, 1990 until the completion of the renovations.

1

The parties were unable to agree on fl8b, c-2, d, g and

h of Mr. Jaeger's declaration.

_

6

11. Keys for unlocking exit doors must be color-coded and

appropriately notched.

12. Defendants shall submit plans by April 1, 1990 to

renovate the Adjustment Unit locking system to enable easy and safe

removal of prisoners in the case of an emergency.

C. HEALTH CARE 1. Medical Care a. Defendants shall develop a system for ensuring the
medical follow-up of chronic medical conditions. A manual process shall be immediately developed pending the development of a computerized system.
b. Defendants shall no longer use Medical Technical Assistants (MTAs) in the provision of primary care.
c. Defendants shall provide on-site medical coverage during each of the three shifts, seven days a week.
d. The health care positions for all shifts and weekends shall be filled by overtime staff only while recruiting staff or in case of short-term absences or other emergencies.
e. The medical and dental staff shall consist of the 26 full-time positions outlined in Dr. Braslow's December 4, 1989 Declaration, 59, Attachment B. Defendants shall use their best efforts to fill all vacant positions.
f. Defendants shall develop a system to monitor
r
specialty clinic appointments to ensure that prisoners are seen in a timely fashion.

7 g. Defendants shall develop a system to ensure that each prisoner is tested for syphilis and tuberculosis and results are placed in the prisoner's medical file in a timely fashion. h. Defendants shall ensure the confidentiality of HIV test results. i. Defendants shall develop a system to ensure that medical records accompany the prisoner to the facility. 2. Mental Health Care a. Defendants shall not assign prisoners to the Adjustment Unit for mental observation except for a brief period of time, no more than 24 hours, to facilitate placement of the prisoner in an appropriate facility. A prisoner may remain in mental observation in the Adjustment Unit for up to 72 hours if a psychologist certifies within twenty-four hours of placement that the behavior necessitating separation has ceased but further observation is necessary to assure the psychologist or psychiatrist that there is no need for reassignment to a treatment facility. A prisoner held in mental observation shall be seen by a psychologist on the second shift Monday through Friday. Logs shall be maintained of all prisoners placed in the Adjustment Unit for mental observation. b. Defendants shall maintain a staff of six psychologists (one chief and five psychologists) to provide mental health services at the Occoquan facility. They shall use their best efforts to recruit and retain this staff. c. Defendants shall develop a systematic tracking and

8 recall system for prisoners seen in the psychiatric clinic.
d. The defendants1 medical screening form shall be revised to list other items such as depression, anorexia, impaired concentration, past psychiatric hospitalizations and/or out-patient treatment and current and past psychotropic medications.
e. Defendants shall revise their medical records to assure that information is readily accessible.
D. PERSONAL SAFETY 1. Defendants shall discontinue housing protective custody
prisoners in the Adjustment Unit in such a manner that other segregation prisoners are allowed access to them. Specifically, defendants shall develop a plan to provide exercise and showers to all prisoners in a manner that prevents administrative and disciplinary segregation prisoners from walking in front of the protective custody prisoner's cell.
2. Defendants' plans for a 52 cell unit shall include a plan to separate protective custody prisoners from other prisoners and provide program opportunities for protective custody prisoners. Defendants shall submit these plans to the Court and plaintiffs by April 1, 1990.
3. Defendants shall hire the additional correctional officers to complete their staff complement of 500. Defendants will use best efforts to recruit and retain correctional staff.

Respectfully submitted,

Herbert 0. Reid, Sr. Acting Corporation Counsel, D.C. Michael Zielinski Assistant Deputy Corporation
Counsel, D.C. Civi> Division
Ak/c / Richard S. Love
#340455 Acting Chief,. Correctional
Litigation Section 1923 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite N-LL-3 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 673-7006
Attorneys for Defendants

Q.GL
Edward I. Koren, #92-6956 Stuart H. Adams, Jr. National Prison Project
of the ACLU Foundation 1616 P Street NW, Suite 340 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-0500
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: December 18, 1989

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARION BARRY, MAYOR, AND WALTER RIDLEY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.

C.A. No. 86-2128

ORDER This Court, having reviewed the parties' Agreed Plan for Implementation of the Court's June 30, 1989 Order, and understanding that there remain some plans for implementation of the June 30, 1989 Order that need to be agreed upon by the parties and any disagreements resolved by the Court
HEREBY ORDERS the entry of this Agreed Plan as partial satisfaction of the Court's requirement that defendants submit a plan to remedy the unconstitutional conditions found by the Court.

Dated:
Richard S. Love Acting Chief, Correctional
Litigation Section 1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite N-LL-3 Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 673- 7006
Attorney for Defendants

United States District Court Judge
Adjoa A. Aiyetoro National Prison Project
of the ACLU Foundation 1616 P Street NW, Suite 340 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-0500
Attorney for Plaintiffs

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
MARION BARRY, MAYOR, AND WALTER RIDLEY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.

"t»'2l 1989
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT Of: COLUMBIA
C.A. No. 86-2128

ORDER This Court, having reviewed the parties* Agreed Plan for Implementation of the Court's June 30, 1989 Order, and understanding that there remain some plans for implementation of the June 30, 1989 Order that need to be agreed upon by the parties and any disagreements resolved by the Court
HEREBY ORDERS the entry of this Agreed Plan as partial satisfaction of the Court's requirement that defendants submit a plan to remedy the unconstitutional conditions found by the Court.

Dated:
Richard S. Love Acting Chief, Correctional
Litigation Section 1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite N-LL-3 Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 673- 7006
Attorney for Defendants

-tfrrftad" States Distridt Court Judge
Adjoa A. Aiyetoro National Prison Project
of the ACLU Foundation 1616 P Street NW, Suite 340 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-0500
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry PC-DC-003-005

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

—

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBJ& £S i\ Q6 PJj '30

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., )

Plaintiffs, )

)

V.

)

)

MARION BARRY, MAYOR, AND

)

WALTER RIDLEY, DIRECTOR

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) )
Defendants. )

- • \ M ; - ; G r DA'-,' r -i •<-.
^-s '' - : "
C.A. No. 86-2128

PARTIES' SUPPLEMENTAL AGREED PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT'S JUNE 30, 1989 ORDER
The parties submit this document as a supplement to their agreed plan filed December 19, 1990. There remain several proposals about which the parties could not agree. Defendants are submitting their objections to these proposals on this date. The plaintiffs will respond to these objections within ten days. A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
1. Defendants shall provide prisoners with 20 foot candles of light in the living areas, including prisoners in the lower bunks of double bunks.
2. Defendants shall develop a plan by April 1, 1990 for assuring that sleepers are protected from unnecessary risks of contracting airborne disease. B. FIRE SAFETY
1. Defendants shall develop a plan by April 1, 1990, to implement paragraphs 8 b. 2; c. 2; d; g; and h of plaintiffs' fire
Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry
PC-DC-003-006

safety expert's December 11, 1989 declaration, attached to plaintiffs' PROPOSED PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT'S JUNE 30, 1989 ORDER, filed December 14, 1989.
2. Defendants shall develop a plan by April 1, 1990 for the creation of an emergency power source activated when any living area is without power and to which the smoke detectors and alarm systems are connected. C. HEALTH CARE
Defendants shall provide adequate and sufficient staff, trained in identification of mental health problems, to interview each prisoner at intake to determine appropriateness of the facility assignment.

Respectfully submitted,

Herbert 0. Reid, Sr. Acting Corporation Counsel, D.C. Michael Zielinski Assistant Deputy Corporation
Counsel, D.C. Civ^i^Division
Richard S. Love #340455 Acting Chief, Correctional
Litigation Section 1923 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite N-LL-3 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 673-7006
Attorneys for Defendants
Dated: January 26, 1990

Adjoal A. Aiyetor
Edward I. Koren, #92-6956 Stuart H. Adams, Jr. National Prison Project
of the ACLU Foundation 1616 P Street NW, Suite 340 Washington, DC 2003 6 (202) 331-0500
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 
 Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry
iiini

PC-DC-003-007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

F II F
p£Q

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

Clerk, U.S. District Court District of Columbia

V.

) Civil Action No. 86-2128

MARION S. BARRY, MAYOR, et al.

)

Defendants.

)

0 RDER
Upon consideration of plaintiffs1 Proposed Plan for Implementation of the Court's June 30, 1989 Order; defendants' Reports to the Court on compliance with the Court's previous Orders; the parties' Agreed Plan for Implementation of the Court's June 30, 1989 Order and the parties' Supplemental Agreed Plan; representations of counsel and testimony at the hearing held on December 15, 1989; and the entire record herein; and in order to expedite correction of unconstitutional conditions found at the Occoquan facility, it is by the Court this (/> day of February 1990,
ORDERED that the Court's December 21, 1989 Order directing entry of the parties' Agreed Plan as partial satisfaction of the Court's June 30, 1989 Order is supplemented as follows:
A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1. Defendants shall provide prisoners with 20 foot
candles of light in living areas, including prisoners in the lower bunks of double bunks.
2. By April 1, 1990, defendants shall begin

implementing a plan to assure that sleeping prisoners are protected from unnecessary risks of contracting airborne disease.
B. FIRE SAFETY 1. Defendants shall take immediate steps to implement
a plan to connect smoke detectors and alarm systems to an emergency power source activated whenever any living area is without power.
2. Defendants shall take immediate steps to implement the changes specified by plaintiffs1 fire safety expert in paragraph 8, sections b.2, c.2, d, g, and h of his December 1, 1989 declaration, attached hereto.
C. HEALTH CARE 1. Defendants shall provide adequate staff, trained in
identification of mental health problems, to interview each prisoner at intake to determine appropriateness of the facility assignment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if, within 90 days of entry of this Order, defendants fail to comply with the terms of the Court's December 21, 1989 Order as supplemented by this Order, sanctions shall automatically be assessed against the defendants in the following amounts: $1,000.00 per violation per day for any unexcused violation of the provisions concerning fire safety or personal safety, and $500 per violation per day for any unexcused violation of the provisions concerning environmental health or health care.
JUNE L. GREEl UJS. DISTRICT JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Inmates of Occoquan, et al., Plaintiffs
vs.
Marion Barry, Mayor, et a l .
Defendants

Civ. NO. 86-2128

FILED

FE3

1990

District of Columbia

Thomas W. Jaeger makes the following declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C., Sec. 1746.
I am the fire safety expert for the plaintiffs in Inmates of Occoquan vs. Barry.
Below is a report summarizing the fire safety conditions at the Occoquan Facility found during my November 30, 1989 site visit. I also made a site visit on September 14, 1989. As part of both site visits I interviewed both staff and inmates. During my November 30, 1989 site visit I obtained a copy of the latest Occoquan Facility Institutional Fire Marshall/Fire Evacuation Plan dated 10/16/89. I also obtained the latest information available on mattresses used at the facility and inspected 15 new mattresses during the site visit.
I have also reviewed D.C.'s "Response to the October 4, 1989 Order" and Supplemental Report. This included numerous memoranda, particularly to and from Mr. Bernard C. Braxton, Administrator.
In general the overall level of fire safety at the time of my November 30, 1989 site visit was inadequate and the proposed plan of correction is insufficient to correct the fire safety deficiencies. Although there have been improvements made, there still remain numerous serious deficiencies both from a facilities and operational standpoint. It is also very difficult to determine what are the planned corrections based on the information provided by the District. I also question whether the level of safety being proposed will in fact be provided.
For example, the October 18, 1989 Public Works Memorandum from Mr. Cyril F. Crandon, PE to Mr. John W. Lawlah, PE states on page 2 that "all dormitories will be brought into strict compliance with all applicable D.C. Codes". In order to do this for an 1-3 occupancy in accordance with the applicable D.C. Codes, the District would be required to:

1. Sprinkler all dormitories 2. Change the construction types, which would require tearing
down an<L rebuilding each dormitory building. 3. Provide solid cell fronts to the cells in the Adjustment
Unit (old Q dorm).
To the best of my knowledge, the District's plan of correction does not include these improvements, therefore strict compliance with all applicable D.C. Codes will not be accomplished. The above are just a few examples of what would be required for compliance with D.C. Codes.
The remedy for fire safety did not address strict compliance with D.C. Codes, but the provision of an acceptable level of fire safety. The remainder of this declaration will address an acceptable level of fire safety and is not intended to adhere to strict compliance to D.C. Codes.
For the purposes of this declaration, the new dormitory numbers and names will be used. For example, the Adjustment Unit is the old Q dorm and the new dorms 16, 17 and 18 are the old dorms 5, Jl, and J2
General Comments
1. The new Fire Evacuation Plan (dated 10/16/89) is an improvement over previous plans but it is still inadequate and in some areas incorrect and confusing. For example:
a. The latest "Dormitory Fire Evacuation Plan" dated April 2, 1989, included in the new Fire Evacuation Plan, states that officers are to notify the Control Center in case of fire. At no time does the Plan tell the officer to operate the building fire alarm system to notify building occupants of a fire condition.
b. The separate "Adjustment Unit" evacuation plan states that available relief officers will respond to the Unit. It also states, depending on what shift , that the North Walk Gate Officer, the Zone Lieutenant , Zone Sergeant and School Gate Officer will assist in the release and control of residents from the Adjustment Unit. The Site Evacuation Plan has these officers performing other duties. These Officers can not be in two places at the same time. The two plans need to be coordinated to insure the Adjustment Unit receives the necessary assistance in case of an emergency.
c. The Plan states that the smoke detectors are to be checked by each dormitory OIC on each shift. The Plan does not tell the OIC how to check a smoke detector. Is the OIC to check if the detector is physically there; if it has electrical power; or to test the detector? There needs to be more direction given to the OIC's as to how to check a detector. For example, the detectors in Dorm 9 were inopera-

tive at the time of my site visit and no one, including the OIC, was aware that the detectors were inoperative.
d. Dorins 12, 13, 14 and 15 had the old evacuation plan drawings posted. The old evacuation plans designated the Dorms as 1, 2, 3 and 4.
e. Dorm 14 has the old Fire Evacuation instructions dated January 7, 1987 posted rather than the new instructions dated April 2, 1989.
f. The fire evacuation plan drawing for Dorm 16 is incorrect and confusing. The Plan shows the old storage room which is currently an exit passage way.
g. The Dorm 5 fire evacuation plan is incorrect and poorly done. The additional sleeping area is shown beyond the rear exit; the Chapel is not shown; the rear exit through the Chapel is shown incorrectly; and the door into the T.V. Room is incorrectly designated as an exit.
h. The fire evacuation plan drawing for the Adjustment Unit is incorrect and confusing. The Plan shows evacuation routes at the rear of the cells which is a utility chase and not a corridor to be used for evacuation.
i. The fire evacuation plan drawing for Dorm 9 is poorly done and doesn't indicate the rear exit as an exit. The Plan directs all occupants to use the front and side exits.
j. The fire evacuation plan drawing for Dorm 8 is incorrect. The rear and side exits are shown on the wrong side of the building.
2. Overcrowding continues to result in narrower than 3 foot aisles. This is the case in dorm 14 and 15 with aisles down to 2 feet 8 inches due to lockers. Dorm 17 has aisles at 2 feet 3 1/2 inches due to overcrowding and the side area of Dorm 5 has aisles down to 2 feet 6 inches due to overcrowding. Again the District should provide scaled drawings of furniture, etc. layouts to determine the number of occupants that dorms can handle and still maintain 3 foot aisles . It should be noted that none of the large pedestal fans were present as they have always been in the summer months. If the fans were present during this tour the fans would have been in the aisles as they have been in the past. The 1988 NFPA Life Safety Code requires a minimum of 3 foot aisles per Section 15 -2.3.2. The D.C. Building Code and the BOCA Code require a minimum of 3 foot 8 inch aisles per Sections 810.1 and 810.3 when the dorm is occupied by more than 50 people and 3 foot aisles when the dorm is occupied by 50 or less people.
3. None of the new or existing smoke detectors are acceptable or arranged in accordance with D.C. codes and standards. The smoke detectors are not connected to the building fire alarm

system therefore tney are not electrically supervised nor will the smoke detectors sound the building fire alarm system if a detector is activated.
The smoke detectors are also not adequately connected to an emergency power supply although Occoquan has an emergency generator. The generator is arranged and wired to operate only when power to the entire site goes out. If power to an individual dormitory or row of dormitories goes out, the generator will not come on and the smoke detectors will be impaired. All known national standards for the installation of smoke detectors would require the arrangement of emergency power be such that if an individual building lost power, emergency power would be supplied to the smoke detectors in that building. The emergency power requirements are contained in Sections 15 - 3.4.1.1, 15 - 3.4.1.3 and 15 - 3.4.4 of the 1988 NFPA Life Safety Code and Sections 1714.3.1, 1716.3.4.2, 1716.8 and 2006 of the D.C. Building Code and the BOCA Code.
The smoke detectors are required to be connected to the building fire alarm, have adequate emergency power and be electrically supervised. A good example of the need for electrical supervision was found in Dorm 9. If the smoke detectors had been supervised the fact that they were inoperative would have been known to the staff.
It was brought to our attention during the site survey that smoke detectors are not tested to see if they will operate. Detectors are visually inspected to insure the detector "light" is on, indicating there is electrical power to the detector. This is not adequate to insure the detector will operate during a fire. All recognized smoke detector standards require detectors to be tested on a regular basis.
Because there is so much reliance on smoke detectors in the housing units to provide an acceptable level of safety, the above deficiencies are considered serious and should be corrected immediately.
4. Several Dorms are still without or have inoperative fire alarm systems. These include dorms 3, 5, 16, 17 and the Adjustment Unit. None of the fire alarm systems transmit a signal or alarm outside the building to a central station or the control center. All dormitories require a fire alarm system and each system should automatically transmit the signal to the control center.
5. There still is evidence of a lack of enforcement of the of the "no smoking" rule in the sleeping areas of the dorms. In spite of what the Occoquan staff has stated there still were cigarette butts and make-shift ash trays throughout the sleeping areas of the dorms. There is a large 3 foot by 4 foot "No Smoking" sign on the rear wall of dorm 9, yet cigarette butts and ash trays were found in the sleeping area. I personally observed smoking in the sleeping areas of the dormitories during the site

visit. Smoking in the sleeping areas is a serious fire safety problem due to the amount of readily ignitable combustibles in the sleeping areas. Day rooms are the appropriate and safe area for smoking.—
6. Exit doors not swinging in the direction of exit travel still exists in some of the dormitories. These would include:
a. Screen doors in dorm 17. b. The security and screen doors in dorm 16. c. Several screen and security doors in the Adjustment Unit.
7. Information on the combustibility of mattresses was provided. Currently D.C. is purchasing mattress covers and mattress stuffing separately and assembling the mattresses at the Lorton Central Facility. Although these new mattresses appear acceptable, they have not yet been widely used in Occoquan. There were numerous old style mattresses and foam with no mattress covers found throughout the dormitories. All mattresses should be replaced with the acceptable new style mattresses.
8. The following pertain to individual living areas:
a. Dorm 5 1. Still no adequate exit from the rear (north side) of
the dorm. The existing rear exit discharges into the Chapel and not directly to the outside.
2. Combustible fiberboard ceilings and exposed wood roofs still exist in the dorm. Either provide sprinklers or provide a noncombustible thermal barrier for the ceilings and wood roof.
b. Adjustment Unit 1. No smoke detectors in the individual cells, no smoke
partition or sprinklers in the building. 2. The Waiting area (chairs) in the front corridor still
blocks access to exits.
c. Dorms 6 and 7 1. Doors to stairways still do not have proper fire
rated doors. 2. Laundry and storage rooms continue to be open to the
front stairway. The doors to these rooms are not fire rated, the rooms contain combustible materials and are open to the exit stairs.
d. Dorm 16 1. Basically there have been no changes to Dorm 16
except clearing access to the side exit. 2. Access to the side exit, from the rear of the dorm
through a protected passageway, has not been completed.

e. Dorm 17 1. Nat a single correction has yet been made to Dorm 17.
The dorm is very crowded with aisles significantly less than 3 feet vide.
2. The new exit from the NE was under construction. 3. The 80' dead end in the front "caged area" still exists. 4. The combustible fiberboard ceiling is still in place.
f. Dorm 18 1. Dorm 18 was under renovation but the renovation plans
do not call for a new exit from the NW, nor do the plans call for the fire rated separation of the utility tunnel from the sleeping area.
g. Dorms 12, 13, 14 & 15 1. Laundry and storage rooms are still open to the
stairways. These rooms contain large amounts of combustibles to include cleaning supplies, paper towels, facial tissues, etc. These supplies are all stored in large combustible wooden lockers.
2. The doors to the stairways are not fire rated.
h. Dorm 4 The wooden roof is exposed to the interior of the building. This should be corrected by the installation of a thermal barrier (sheetrock) between the roof and the interior of the building.
i. Dorm 9 There are combustible celotex ceilings in this dorm similar to dorms 5 and 17. The ceilings should be replaced with noncombustible ceilings or the dorm should be sprinklered.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and accurate.

Thomas W.

T

This 11th day of December 1989,

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

V.

) C.A.No.86-2128 JLG

!

SHARON PRATT KELLY, MAYOR et al., ) )

C(1 r '4-

Defendants.

)

)

APR g

STIPULATION ON MENTAL HEALTH COMPLIANCE D'ST/?/CT OF td^

Parties have met with the Special Officer, Grace Lopes, pursuant to the order by this Court dated July l, 1993. The parties have discussed the delivery of mental health services to seriously mentally illresidents at theOccoquan Facility andhave stipulated to thefollowing with respect to thedelivery of mental health services to this population.

1. Once a month, beginning in March, 1994and continuing for a total of twelve months, defendants agree to submit to the plaintiffs and the Special Officer a report (hereinafter "Monthly Compliance Report on the Delivery of Mental Health Services to Seriously Mentally 111 Occoquan Prisoners") which summarizes particular features of their delivery of mental health services to seriously mentally ill Occoquan prisoners. This report will be submitted on or after the fifth dayof the month following the month being reported on.

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry

«••

• • » HHIM « • ! • • l i l t I

PC-DC-003-009

2. Defendants agree to include the following information in the monthly"report: a. The name and DOC number of each Occoquan prisoner who is currently on psychotropic medications.
b. The log (or summary) of prisoners by name and DOC number, placed in the Adjustment Unit (formerly called Q Block) for mental observation during the prior thirty-day period. It will contain the dates and times of entry and release from the Adjustment Unit.
c. The date of actual transfer of an Occoquan prisoner to another facility for mental health observation or treatment during the prior thirty- day period. The prisoner will be identified by name and DOC number and the facility to which he is transferred will be identified; the dates should correspond to each separate transfer which has occurred during the prior thirty day period.
3. The defendants agree to produce this report monthly beginning thirty days after this Stipulation is signed and to transmit the report to Special Officer, Grace Lopes and to plaintiffs' counsel Stuart H. Adams, Jr., beginning thirty days after this Stipulation is signed.

4. Plaintiffs agree to maintain the confidentially of the prisoner medical information contained within the report.
5. Defendants agree to certify, to the best of their knowledge and belief upon reasonable inquiry, all statements in the Monthly Compliance Report on the Delivery of Mental Health Services to Seriously Mentally 111 Occoquan Prisoners are true and accurate.
Respectfully submitted,

"'Richard Love Lawrence G. McPherson, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Civil Division 444 Fourth Street, NW Sixth Floor, South Washington, DC 20001
Attorneys for Defendants
Dated : /\ O ^ \ 7

Stuart H. Adams, Jr. National Prison Project
of the ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Stipulation on Mental Health Compliance was mailed, postage prepaid to Stuart H. Adams, Jr., Esquire, National Prison Project, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2 0009, and Grace Lopes, Special Officer, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 1130 17th Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 2 003 6 on this vlT~l~v day of
y * V . 1994.
Lawrence G. McPherson Assistant Corporation Counsel

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,;

~ ) -- •

V.

) C.A. No. 86-2128 (JLG)

MARION BARRY, MAYOR, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Clerk, U.S. District Court

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREED PLAN AND CONSENT ORDBJTiCt of OolUITlDia

Upon cons-deration of plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show

Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt, and Automatic

Sanctions Imposed with Respect to the Health Care and Personal

Safety Portion of this Case, dated April 27, 1995, "The Special

Officer's Report on Defendants' Compliance with the Orders Related

to Personal Safety and Mental Health Care" (hereinafter "Report"),

dated December 4, 1995, the agreement of the parties and the entire

record herein, it is

ORDERED as follows:

The Courr. adopts the findings in the Special Officer's Report

as its own fiiv?;.ngs. The Orders of this Court in this case are

modified to elf. rify and amend the provisions as follows:

I. PERSONAL SAFETY

A. Correctional Officer Staffing

1. The -defendants shall assign four hundred and fifty (450)

correctional officers to the Occoquan Facility by December 10,

1995, four hundred and seventy-nine (479) by January 31, 1996, and

five hundred a id six (506) by May 31, 1996.

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry

PC-DC-003-011

2 2. As~ of May 31, 1996, defendants shall maintain a complement of 506 correctional officers at the Occoquan Facility. 3. By March 31, ;:l996, in consultation with, the Special Officer and her expert,1 the defendants shall develop a plan, to be approved by th- Special Officer, for deployment of the officer staffing complement. The plan shall be filed with the Court and become the Court's Order. Defendants shall implement the plan in accordance with the timetables set forth therein. 4. Defendants shall not count as part of the required staffing complement of 506 officers for the Facility:
a. any correctional officer who has been detailed to a non-correctional position within the Facility or to a position outside of the Facility, or
b. any correctional officer who has been detailed into the Facility from another institution where such detail results in violation of a court-ordered staffing complement. 5. Until May 31, 1996, defendants shall replace officers who resign or are terminated from employment within forty-five (45) days from separation. 6. Until implementation of the staffing plan referenced in Section I.A.3 above, or May 31, 1996, whichever comes first, defendants shall use best efforts to avoid pulling correctional

1

For this and all other provisions in this Order that

obligate defendants to develop plans, plaintiffs' counsel shall be

given an opportunity to review all draft and final plans and to

provide comments thereon to the Special Officer.

3 officers from rssential posts, including housing unit posts, to maintain the operations of the Occoquan Facility.
7. By Mirch 31, 1996, in consultation with the Special Officer, defendants shall develop a plan, to be approved by the Special Officer, that will enable them to recruit and retain a staffing complement of 506 correctional officers at the Occoquan Facility.
8. By July 30, 1996, defendants shall reduce the prison populations in dormitories six, seven and ten such that the population is no greater than 100 inmates. Thereafter, defendants shall house no iuore than 100 inmates in dorms one, two, three, four, six, sevan, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen; no more than fifty-eight (58) inmates in dorm five; no more than fifty (50) inmates in dorms sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen; and no more than sixty-five (65) inmates in the current Adjustment Unit.
9. Defendants shall cooperate with the Special Officer in conducting a t.--apurity audit of Occoquan.
10. Effective immediately, if the number of officers available for duty2 at Occoquan falls below 95% of the complement numbers specified in Section I.A.I, above, defendants shall be

2

An officer is not available for duty if he or she is (1)

absent without leave (AWOL); (2) on leave without pay; or (3) on

extended sick leave or compensation time resulting from an on-the-

job injury.

4 fined $500 per day for each officer below the 95% requirement.3 The fines shall be calculated from the first day of noncompliance. The parties agree that the fines are civil in nature.
B. Protective Custody 1. Defendants shall use best efforts to open the new Adjustment Unit as soon as possible. 2. By March 31, 1996, in consultation with the Special Officer and her expert, the defendants shall develop and implement a plan, to be approved by the Special Officer, to ensure compliance with Section D.I. of the Agreed Plan (regarding contact between protective custody and segregation prisoners). II. MENTAL HEALTH CARE A. Transfers of Seriously Mentally 111 Prisoners 1. Within one hundred and eighty (180) days, in consultation with the Special Officer, defendants shall develop and implement a plan, to be approved by the Special Officer, to address the needs of seriously mentally ill inmates at Occoquan. 2. To the fullest extent possible, the plan shall be coordinated with the initiatives that are being undertaken by the Receiver in Campbell v. McGruder.

3

This fine is equal to that applicable in Twelve John Does

v. District of Columbia, which is the maximum fine to which

defendants are subject in other cases including court-ordered

correctional officer staffing complements. Selection of this

amount is designed to eliminate any incentive for defendants to

transfer officers out of the Occoquan Facility and violate the

court-ordered staffing complement in this case in order to avoid

the imposition of greater fines for violation of court-ordered

complements in other cases. In the event that the fine amount in

Twelve John Does is reduced, the fine amount in this case shall be

reduced accordingly.

5 B. Psychology Staff 1. By March 31, 1996, defendants shall have a full complement of aix psychologists.4 2. By March 31, 1996, in consultation with the Special Officer, defendants shall develop and implement a plan, to be approved by the Special Officer, to recruit and retain the requisite complement of six psychologists.
3. A va.cancy resulting from the detailing or transfer of a psychologist to another position or facility within the Department of Corrections shall be filled within sixty (60) days from the date the vacancy occurs. A vacancy resulting from resignation or termination shcill be filled within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date the vacancy occurs.
4. As of March 31, 1996, defendants shall be fined $250 per day for each vacancy below the requisite complement of six psychologists. The fines shall be calculated from the first day after passage of the pertinent number of days set forth in Section II.B.3. above. The parties agree that the fines are civil in nature.
5. Defendants shall not detail any psychologist out of the Occoquan Facility where such detailing brings the staffing level below five psychologists, without the consent of the Special
4 With the exception of the Chief Psychologist position, defendants may substitute an appropriately trained licensed MSW social worker to fill any of four (4) of the five (5) lower level staff psychologist positions. Appropriate training includes the completion of a clinically oriented Master's degree program that included clinical placements where the person saw patients under supervision, e.g.. mental health clinic, psychiatric hospital.

6 Officer. Violation of this provision shall subject defendants to imposition of the fines set forth in Section II.B.4 above, such fine to be calculated from the first day of noncompliance with this provision, at $250 per day per psychologist less than the requisite six.
6. Defendants shall not perpetuate a vacancy or vacancies in psychologist positions through details or any other temporary assignments.
C. Tracking and Recall System for Prisoners Receiving Psychiatric Care
1. Within sixty (60) days, defendants shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Special Officer, a systematic manual tracking and recall system to be approved by the Special Officer.
2. Within ninety (90) days of the implementation of the revised tracking and recall system, the Special Officer, in consultation with her expert, shall evaluate the revised system to ensure continuity and adequacy of psychiatric care.
D. Medical Record Access Within om hundred and twenty (120) days, defendants shall integrate the medical, psychiatric, and psychological records at Occoquan into a single medical record. E. Mental Health Screening 1. Within sixty (60) days, defendants shall ensure th'at each Occoquan prisorer receives a mental health screening, utilizing a revised version of the form attached as Appendix A, during the medical intake process.

7 2. Tfie revised mental health screening form shall list additional items, beyond those contained in the form attached as Appendix A, to include depression, anorexia, impaired concentration, past psychiatric hospitalization and/or out-patient treatment and current and past psychotropic medications. 3. Any person who conducts such mental health screenings shall be appropriately trained in how to conduct such screenings and in how to use the revised mental health screening form. 4. The mental health screening shall be conducted by a physician, physician's assistant, licensed mental health care provider, or a health care provider who has received the training required under Section II.E.3. above and has been approved by the Chief Medical Officer as competent to conduct mental health screenings. F. Compliance Reports Once every two months, defendants shall provide plaintiffs and the Special Officer with a report, in a format to be agreed to by the parties, regarding defendants' compliance with the Court's Orders in this case. III. General Provisions 1. Violations of this and all previous Court orders in this case shall result in the imposition of the following fines on defendants: five hundred dollars ($500.00) per day, per provision violated, with the exception of Section I.A.I, (which is subject to the fine specified in Section I.A.10. above); Section II.B.I. above (which is subject to the fine specified in Section II.B.4.); and

8 Section II.B.5. above (which is subject to the fine specified therein) . The parties agree aae&- that the fines are civil in nature.
2. Within ninety (90) days the defendants shall deposit two hundred thousand ($200,000) in a bank account under the supervision of the Court.
3. This deposit shall be returned to the defendants once they have complied with the terms of this Order for a period of six months (to begin running 180 days after the date of this Order or from the date that defendants achieve compliance with the terms of this Order, whichever comes first). If defendants fail to fulfill the requirements of this Order, moneys shall be debited from the deposit and forfeited. The debit shall be calculated from the first day of noncompliance under this Order, according to the fine schedule established in this Order.
4. If defendants fail to comply with this Order, plaintiffs retain the right to seek imposition of fines accrued to date in accordance with the fine schedule in effect prior to entry of this Order. Defendants reserve any applicable defenses.
5. Defendants shall pay plaintiffs' counsel their reasonable attorneys' feers and expenses, including expert expenses, for the filing and prosecution of their contempt motion, dated April 25, 1995, and for the monitoring of compliance with the Orders of this Court, as amended by this Second Supplemental Agreed Plan.

Uni

Date

'

Consented to by:

Attorneys for Defendants:

Richard S. Love Maria Amato Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel Correctional Litigation Section 1923 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Stuart H. Adams, Jr. Ayesha N. Khan ACLU National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009

ict Judge

APPENDIX A

INTAKE? MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING

NAME;

DCDC #:

DATE OF BIR2*:.

LAST GRADE COMPLETED: MKNT*T. HEALTH HTfiTOttV? (CHECK POSITIVE RESPONSE)

( ) PREVIOUS MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT:

( ) PREVIOUS PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS:.

( } HISTORY OF SUICIDAL/SELF INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR:,

( ) SUBSTANCE ABUSE HISTORY:.

( ) PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATION/DOSAGE: p_Ajsi

CURRENT.

. STATUS ASSESSMENT; (CHECK ALL THAT ARE APPROPRIATE)

ORTfNTATTON TIME PLACE PERSON
MOOD/AFFECT: APPROPRIATE .COOPERATIVE TALKATIVE

ACTIVITY

CALM

ALERT

RESTLESS

..COHERENT

HYPERACTIVE ___.RELEVANT

THOUGHT fSOCESS. „ INCOHERENT
J3ISORISNTED PARANOII/DELUSIONAL
NO ABNORMALITY

ANXIOUS FLAT TEARFUL

WITHDRAWN DEPRESSED ___LABILK

X3GSY ___SUSPICIOUS ___J15GRESSIVE

GOOD
PAIR _ POOR

FENEr

POSTTTRE: GOOD
..FAIR POOR

MOTCS ACTTVTTY: IGITATED
__JtSSTLESS
SLOWED

THOOGHT PROCESS:
Circumstantiality ^ Tangent i a l i t y

CoherEnt Confusion

AFFECT AND MOOD;
Homicidal Ideation
IMPRESSION/EVALUATION:

Suicidal

Irritability

Irappropriate Affect

PLAN:.

RECOMMENDED HOUSING: INFIRHARY [ ] MENTAL HEALTH U N I T f ] OPEN POPULATION C] OTHER [ ]

INTERVIEWER/TITLE

D1TE

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

»-fcU
JM 2 3

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, e t a l . , Plaintiffs,

)

D^rmr^

U

)

m ' C T O F COLUMBIA

)

)

V.

)

C.A. No. 86-2128(JLG)

)
MARION S. BARRY, JR., MAYOR, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND FIRE SAFETY CONSENT ORDER Upon consideration of plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt, and Automatic Sanctions Imposed with Respect to the Environmental Health and Fire Safety Portion of this Case, dated March 28, 1996, the agreement of the parties and the entire record here, the Court adopts the findings of the plaintiffs' fire safety and environmental health experts memorialized in affidavits attached to the March 28, 1996 Motion for an Order to Show Cause. The Court further finds that the defendants have failed to comply with the fire safety and environmental health orders of this Court. The Court further finds that the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Public Law No. 104-134 (Apri'l 26, 1996), do not apply to the provisions of this Consent Order because it does not provide relief beyond the relief provided in the Court's prior orders. I. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH A. Repairs and Renovations
1. Defendants shall immediately begin to repair or restore all inoperable water closets, sinks, and showers in the
•unniiiiD Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry PC-DC-003-012

housing units. 2. By September 1, 1996 defendants shall have completed
the repair and restoration of all inoperable water closets, sinks, and showers and thereafter shall maintain them in working condition.
3. Within 14 days of entry of this Consent Order, defendants shall identify, for each dormitory, its current population, the numbers of functioning toilets, urinals, lavatories and showers and specify the ratio of inmates to each hygienic fixture. Within 14 days thereafter, defendants shall submit to the Special Officer and plaintiffs' counsel a plan with an implementation schedule to reduce temporarily (pending comprehensive housing unit renovations, or the closure of Lorton, or a period not to exceed seven years from the signing of this order) the extreme population pressure on the hygienic facilities in selected housing units. Any disagreement over the advisability or necessity of remedial measures shall be submitted to the Court.
4. Defendants shall install secure tempering valves in the showers to protect prisoners from scalding water. The work shall be accomplished within 90 days of receipt of necessary materials. Upon proper application to the Special Officer by the defendants, the funds for purchasing the necessary supplies for this project shall be obtained from the escrow account established by the December 15, 1995 Order. Defendants shall reimburse the escrow fund for the full amount of this procurement within 120 days of receipt of these funds from the escrow account.

5. Defendants shall cover the exposed heating line pipes and radiators in the one-half of the housing units posing the highest burn risk within 90 days of receipt of necessary materials. Within the following 90 days, defendants shall cover the exposed heating line pipes and radiators in the remaining housing units. Upon proper application to the Special Officer by the defendants, the funds for purchasing the necessary supplies for this project shall be obtained from the escrow account established by the December 15, 1995 Order. Defendants shall reimburse the escrow fund for the full amount of this procurement within 120 days of receipt of these funds from the escrow account.
6. Defendants shall immediately implement their service and repair plan, referred to as a preventive maintenance plan in the Action Plan, and the plan shall be fully operational by August 1, 1996.
7. By October 1, 1996, defendants shall fully implement a preventive maintenance plan, to be approved by the Special Officer, to conduct preventive maintenance needed to assure the health and safety of inmates and ensure that essential parts and supplies are readily available. By September 16, 1996, defendants shall report to the Special Officer and plaintiffs' counsel on how they will accomplish full implementation.
8. Defendants shall immediately begin to repair all broken components of the ventilation systems in the housing units, (e.g.f clogged registers; broken A.H.U.; broken exhaust fans). All repairs not dependent on extensive renovations or major expense

shall be completed by August 15, 1996. Upon proper application to the Special Officer by the defendants, the funds for purchasing the necessary supplies for this project shall be obtained from the escrow account established by the December 15, 1995 Order. Defendants shall reimburse the escrow fund for the full amount of this procurement within 120 days of receipt of these funds from the escrow account.
9. By August 15, 1996, defendants shall ensure that the present ventilation system in the housing units is operational at full capacity and that it remains fully operable and that necessary repairs are promptly made.
10. Within 180 days, defendants shall assess the levels of CO2 within the housing units when prisoners are asleep and the windows are closed. A consultant shall be engaged to make recommendations on how to remedy any unsafe levels of CO2. Any disagreement over the advisability or necessity of remedial measures shall be submitted to the Court. Upon proper application to the Special Officer by the defendants, the funds for compensation of the consultant shall be obtained from the escrow account established by the December 15, 1995 Order. Defendants shall reimburse the escrow fund for the full amount of this procurement within 120 days of receipt of these funds from the escrow account.
11. Defendants shall measure quarterly the CO2 levels in each dormitory under conditions specified in paragraph 10 and maintain a log of date, time, location, and notation of whether or

not the ventilation system is functioning and whether the windows are open or closed; the defendants shall include the log as part of the bi-monthly report.
12. Defendants shall immediately begin to repair all broken windows and torn window screens; defendants shall record the date the damaged window or window screen is reported and the date the repair is completed. By August 15, 1996, defendants shall have repaired all broken windows and window screens and shall thereafter maintain them in good repair.
13. Defendants shall immediately repair and replace broken kitchen equipment that poses a threat to the health or safety of inmates. Repairs shall be complete by August 15, 1996 and thereafter the defendants shall maintain the equipment in operable condition.
14. Defendants shall test operational temperatures of the dishwasher water twice a day; maintain a log of time, date, and results of test; and submit a copy of the log as part of the bimonthly compliance report.
B. Housekeeping 1. Defendants shall immediately implement the new
vermin control plan referred to in the Action Plan. 2. Defendants shall, by September 1, 199 6, implement
the new Housekeeping Plan referred to in the Action Plan. 3. The defendants shall add the following items to the
Housekeeping checklist: ventilation system; vermin infestation and mattress inspection on laundry day.

4. Defendants shall ensure that the Housekeeping Plan is placed in each housing unit; that the Correctional Officers are trained on the plan; and that the Correctional Officers supervise the prisoner housekeeping detail.
5. Defendants shall assure that all inmates who are newly assigned to the Occoquan Facility shall be supplied with a fire retardant mattress and/or mattress cover that can be effectively sanitized, are provided with supplies necessary to sanitize the mattress and are instructed on how to do so.
6. Defendants shall immediately implement a perpetual inventory system to ensure an adequate supply of cleaning supplies.
7. Defendants shall immediately clean kitchen walls to eliminate mold and slime and shall thereafter maintain the cleanliness of the walls.
C. Food Borne Disease Defendants shall serve food to prisoners in the
Adjustment Unit in hot and cold carts to ensure that food is served at the appropriate temperature.
D. Airborne Disease Defendants shall immediately mark the dormitory floors to
ensure that beds are properly spaced such that there is at least five feet between the heads of sleepers. In dormitory numbered 17, this provision, I-D, shall be effective 60 days after entry of this order.

E. Other Provisions 1. Defendants shall permit plaintiffs to make
unannounced inspections (no less than 24 hour notice) to tour and evaluate defendants' compliance with the environmental health and safety orders in this case.
2. Defendants shall be fined $500.00 per violation for each unexcused violation of the environmental health and safety provisions of this order. II. FIRE SAFETY
A. Repairs 1. Defendants shall repair all malfunctioning housing
unit fire alarm system pull stations within 10 days of delivery of necessary materials. Within 30 days after delivery of necessary materials, defendants shall repair all other malfunctions in housing unit fire alarm systems and shall thereafter maintain them in operative condition. Upon proper application to the Special Officer by the defendants, the funds for purchasing the necessary supplies for this project shall be obtained from the escrow account established by the December 15, 1995 Order. Defendants shall reimburse the escrow fund for the full amount of this procurement within 120 days of receipt of these funds from the escrow account.
2. Defendants shall repair all malfunctioning housing unit emergency lighting units within 30 days of delivery of the necessary materials and shall thereafter maintain them in operative condition. Upon proper application to the Special Officer by the defendants, the funds for purchasing the necessary supplies for

this project shall be obtained from the escrow account established by the December 15, 1995 Order. Defendants shall reimburse the escrow fund for the full amount of this procurement within 120 days of receipt of these funds from the escrow account.
3. Defendants shall immediately begin to repair/replace all malfunctioning housing area smoke detectors; by August 15, 1996 all housing area malfunctioning smoke detectors shall be repaired and thereafter defendants shall maintain them in operative condition.
4. Defendants shall install appropriate vents for all housing unit clothes dryers within 90 days of delivery of the necessary materials. The dryers will be properly vented to the outside. Upon proper application to the Special Officer by the defendants, the funds for purchasing the necessary supplies for this project shall be obtained from the escrow account established by the December 15, 1995 Order. Defendants shall reimburse the escrow fund for the full amount of this procurement within 120 days of receipt of these funds from the escrow account.
5. By September 30, 1996, defendants shall develop and implement a plan to be approved by the Special Officer to ensure that essential parts and supplies are readily available for the repair/replacement of fire prevention equipment, and to monitor and remedy fire hazard conditions.
6. Defendants shall immediately begin to correct all exposed wooden roofs in the housing units with the installation of a thermal barrier between the roof and the interior of the
8

building; by February 15, 1997, defendants shall have repaired all ceilings in the housing areas and shall thereafter maintain the repairs. Upon proper application to the Special Officer by the defendants, the funds for purchasing the necessary supplies for this project shall be obtained from the escrow account established by the December 15, 1995 Order. Defendants shall reimburse the escrow fund for the full amount of this procurement within 120 days of receipt of these funds from the escrow account.
7. Defendants shall maintain all electrical wiring, appliances and equipment in a safe manner. Defendants shall repair or remove all hot wiring, improperly repaired line cords, covers of electrical boxes and broken receptacles and appliances.
B. Renovations 1. Defendants shall install fire rated doors to the stairways in the housing units within 60 days after delivery of the fire rated doors. Upon proper application to the Special Officer by the defendants, the funds for purchasing the necessary supplies for this project shall be obtained from the escrow account established by the December 15, 1995 Order. Defendants shall reimburse the escrow fund for the full amount of this procurement within 120 days of receipt of these funds from the escrow account. 2. By August 15, 1996, defendants shall assure that there is a 2-hour fire rated separation between the R & D storage room and the dormitory 17 area. 3. Defendants shall immediately render fully operational the fire alarm system in the new Adjustment Unit so that it transmits

to the Control Center. 4. By September 30, 1996, defendants shall house prisoners
in the new Adjustment Unit. Nothing in this Consent Order shall prohibit use of the present Adjustment Unit, provided that all aspects of such use, e.g. staffing, environmental and fire safety, are in compliance with the orders entered in this case. Upon proper application to the Special Officer by the defendants, the funds for purchasing any materials or supplies necessary to open the new Adjustment Unit shall be obtained from the escrow account established by the December 15, 1995 Order. Defendants shall reimburse the escrow fund for the full amount of this procurement within 120 days of receipt of these funds from the escrow account.
C. Fire Evacuation Plans 1. Defendants shall immediately establish an appropriate schedule for the testing of housing unit smoke detectors and maintain a log (date, time, identification of individual detectors, and results of the tests) . Each detector must be tested and calibrated at least annually. 2. Defendants shall ensure that fire drills are conducted in each housing unit on each shift at least four times a year; that the times and methods for fire drills vary; that the drills are unannounced; that the fire drills do not occur during shift changes; that prisoners shall participate in at least 50% of the fire drills; and that the defendants maintain an accurate log (date, time, comments) of the fire drills.
10

3. Defendants shall ensure that every Correctional Officer receives at least 1-2 hours of appropriate fire safety training per year; the defendants shall provide training in the use of selfcontained breathing apparatus to Correctional Officers who are expected to use this equipment; the defendants shall include discussion of a fire safety issue during roll call on each shift on a weekly basis.
4. The defendants shall, by August 15, 1996, revise the individual housing unit fire evacuation plans to ensure that they are complete and accurate.
D." Fire Retardant Mattress 1. Defendants shall immediately begin to ensure that
all prisoners have a fire retardant mattress or mattress cover; by October 31, 1986, all prisoners shall have a fire retardant mattress or mattress cover.
2. On laundry day, defendants shall inspect the mattresses to ensure that non-fire-retardant mattresses and mattresses that are damaged so that they cannot be effectively sanitized are identified and replaced in a timely manner. A notation indicating this mattress inspection will be included in the daily housekeeping checklist and this item will be completed each laundry day.
E. Fire Aisles Defendants shall immediately paint the floors of all
housing units, except dormitory numbered 17, to clearly mark required three foot wide ingress/egress aisles. Required exit

11

_

access aisles shall remain unobstructed and a minimum of three feet in width. Electrical power and extension cords shall not be permitted in access aisles. In dormitory numbered 17, this provision, II-E, shall be effective 60 days after entry of this order.
F. Exit Keys By September 1, 1996, defendants shall submit to the
Special Officer and plaintiffs' counsel, a system, consistent with sound key control practices, that makes exit keys readily identifiable.
G. Other provisions 1. Defendants shall monitor their compliance with these
provisions in the bi-monthly compliance report submitted to plaintiffs.
2. Defendants shall be fined $1,000.00 per day for each unexcused violation of the fire safety provisions in this Order.
III. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. By December 1, 1996, defendants shall deposit one
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) into the Registry of the Court. 2. This deposit shall be returned to the defendants
once they have complied with the terms of this Order for a period of six months (to begin running 180 days after the date of this Order or from the date that defendants achieve compliance with the terms of this Order, whichever comes first). If defendants fail to fulfill the requirements of this Order, monies shall be debited from the deposit and forfeited. The debit shall be calculated from the first day of noncompliance under this Order, according to the fine schedule established in this Order. Defendants__may move, on
12

or after October 1, 1996, to be relieved (deferral or elimination) of the obligation to make the deposit on the basis of substantial compliance with the provisions of this Consent Order.
3. All prior court orders remain in effect except as specifically modified in this order and plaintiffs retain the right to seek the imposition of fines accrued to date pursuant to previous orders. However, with regard to the provisions of any previous order that are specifically addressed in this order, defendants shall be subject to fines for previous non-compliance only if defendants fail to comply with the relevant provisions of this order.
4. Defendants shall pay plaintiffs' counsel their reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, including expert expenses, related to the motions set for hearing on July 18, 1996, and for the monitoring of the compliance with the fire safety and environmental Orders of this Court.

SO ORDERED:

/\

L . GREETr" UNITED ST. >TES DISTRICT C&URT JUDGE

Date

13

Consented to: Copies to:
Attorneys for Defendants: CHARLES F.C. RUFF Corporation Counsel MICHAEL E. ZIELINSKI Deputy Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division WILLIAM EARL Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division
Maria Amato, Bar No. 414935 Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 Fourth St., N.W., 6th Fl., So. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Stuart H. Adams, Jr. Elizabeth Alexander, Bar No. 412904 National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, #410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830
14

 
 __ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al..

:

Plaintiffs.

:'

v.
MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al.. Defendants.

: Civil Action No. 86-2128

(JLG) :

PILED

:

NOY 2 0 1997

Upon

consideration

„_„„_

„.„

CONSENT ORDER

of the Plaintiffs'

NANttMAYER-WHrrriNGTON,CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Motion for the

Appointment of a Receiver and Imposition of Fines Regarding

Personal Safety, Defendants' Opposition thereto, the findings of

the Special Officer in her September 29, 1997 Report on Defendants'

Compliance with the Orders Related to Personal Safety ("Report"),

which have been adopted by this Court, the exhibits appended

thereto, which are hereby admitted into evidence, the agreement of

the parties, and the record in this case, the Court finds that the

relief set forth herein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than

necessary and is the least intrusive means to correct the

violations of federal rights established in the Special Officer's

Report. The relief will not adversely impact public safety or the

operation of the criminal justice system.

The Orders of this Court in this case are, therefore, modified

and/or amended as follows:

I. Interim Management Assistance

The Special Officer in consultation with her security expert,

shall assemble a team of experts to assist defendants in
Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry
iipmnniiin

PC-DC-003-017

implementing the following Court Orders: Section D.I of the Agreed Plan for Implementation (approved December 21, 1989); Section I of the Second Supplemental Agreed Plan and Consent Order (December 15, 1995); and Section II.B.4 of the Environmental Health and Fire Safety Consent Order (July 22, 1996). This team of experts will work for and report, through the Special Officer, to the Court.
This team of Court experts will be responsible for providing guidance, oversight, training and assistance to defendants and their staff, including but not limited to the interim management team at Occoquan (Warden, Deputy Wardens and the Major), and will help the defendants develop and implement reform initiatives in the areas of security, workforce utilization, classification and safety, maintenance and sanitation. Defendants, including the interim management team, shall cooperate fully with the Court's experts. At any time, the expert team may report, through the Special Officer, problems with the interim management team to the Director of the D.C. Department of Corrections who will in good faith work with the Special Officer to address any problems. Problems which can not be addressed will be brought to the Court's attention by the Special Officer.
Defendants shall bear the costs for these experts and for the services and goods purchased by the experts. The Court's experts shall be provided unrestricted access to all records of the Department of Corrections as necessary to perform their duties, as well as access to all areas of the Occoquan Facility. They shall also be provided with appropriate office space, equipment and

support services. Within thirty (30) days, the experts shall provide the special
Officer and the parties with an outline of their plans, goals, timetables for achieving these goals and their anticipated on-site work schedules. They shall report to the Special Officer and the parties on a monthly basis concerning their progress and will, no later than March 16, 1998, submit to the Special Officer and the parties a report summarizing the status of their efforts to assist defendants in implementing the above-referenced orders, including their evaluation of the performance of defendants' interim management team. After consideration of this report and any other relevant factors, the parties shall, no later than April 3, 199?, submit to the Court a proposed order which addresses the following 1) whether this expert assistance should continue and 2) other issues raised in the Special Officer's Report which are not addressed herein. Any disagreements concerning this proposed order shall be resolved by the Court. II. New Adjustment Unit
Defendants shall open the new adjustment unit on or before December 1, 1997. Before opening this unit, the Special Officer and her security expert must review and approve the proposed staffing and post orders for this unit. This unit will be used to house inmates on administrative or disciplinary segregation. In an emergency circumstance in which a protective custody inmate(s) is housed in this unit, he will be separated from segregation inmates and shall remain in the unit no more than 72 hours.

If defendants intend to utilize the old adjustment unit after the new adjustment unit is opened, they will notify plaintiffs and the Special Officer of the intended use. III. Population
A principal aspect of the interim relief agreed to by the parties is a new population ceiling for the Occoquan Facility that is set forth in the "Population Consent Order", simultaneously filed herewith. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3), this ceiling must be approved by a three judge court. In the event the population ceiling is not approved by the three judge court, the parties shall evaluate and advise the Court whether the relief set forth herein should be modified and/or supplemented.
Upon entry of an order establishing a population ceiling of 1,400 inmates, defendants shall, until March 31, 1998, maintain no more than 85 beds in each of the following dorms - 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Dorm 11 shall maintain no more than 100 beds; dorm 5 shall maintain no more than 58 beds; dorms 16, 17 and 18 shall maintain no more than 50 beds per dorm.
Two hundred (200) additional beds shall be removed from the facility on or before March 31, 1998, when the population ceiling is reduced to 1,200 inmates. On or before that date, defendants shall, in consultation with the expert team, reduce the maximum number of beds in the above-referenced dormitories to comply with the population ceiling of 1,200 inmates. IV. Classification
By March 16, 1998, defendants shall classify all inmates at

the Occoquan Facility, following appropriate classification standards and, to the maximum extent possible, only house at Occoquan inmates who are appropriately classified for that facility. Defendants shall immediately implement a stratification program so as to ensure that all inmates at Occoquan are housed, to the maximum extent possible, according to their custody status. V. Miscellaneous Provisions
a. The above-referenced provisions are intended to amend and/or modify the Orders referenced in the first paragraph of section I of this Consent Order. To the extent this Consent Order is inconsistent with those orders, this Consent Order shall govern. In all other respects, except as specifically provided otherwise herein, the orders referenced in the first paragraph herein shall remain in effect.
b. The $300,000 previously deposited by defendants into the Court registry (as required by §111.2 of the Court's order of December 15, 1995 and § III.l of the Court's order of July 22, 1996) is hereby forfeited due to the defendants' failure to achieve compliance. These funds shall be utilized to improve the conditions for the inmates of Occoquan, as ordered by the Court upon recommendation of the Special Officer.
c. This interim relief is entered without prejudice to Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Receiver and Imposition of Fines Regarding Personal Safety and plaintiffs' accompanying motion for an order to show cause. The Court hereby defers ruling on these motions until the expert team has had an opportunity to assist the

defendants in remedying the violations documented in the Special Officer's Report or the population ceiling described in §111 above has been denied by a three judge court. In the event that the defendants achieve compliance with the Court's orders and the population ceiling is approved and complied with for a reasonable period of time, the plaintiffs will formally withdraw these motions.
d. If any one or more of the provisions of this Consent Order shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid or unenforceable, then such provision or provisions shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions of this Consent Order and shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Consent Order.
e. Defendants shall pay plaintiffs' counsel their reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses for the filing and prosecution of their motion for appointment of a receiver and imposition of fines and for the monitoring of compliance with the orders of this Court.

Date Consented to by:

UflTTED STATES DISTRn\CTJUDGE

JOHN M. FERRENCorporation Counsel, D.C. WILLIAM J. EARLE Acting Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C. Special Litigation Division

RICHARD S. LOVE (#340455) Acting Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

41.
Ayeslia N. Khan, Esquir/i ACLu National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009

 
 Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry
PC-DC-003-018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

^

'

•

'

-

'

•

'

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al..
Plaintiffs, v. MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al..
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) Civil Action No.

) 86-2128 (JLG)

)

)

)

FILED

)

POPULATION CONSENT ORDER

'JAN 20 W 6
,.Atmi
i:ANCYMAYER-WHnriNGTON CLERK

u.s.D;?Tr;:rcoi'RT

As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3), this three-judge

Court was convened, upon the request of the parties, by the

District Judge in this case pursuant to the procedures set

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2284.

Based upon the Plaintiffs' Motion for the Appointment of a

Receiver and Imposition of Fines Regarding Personal Safety,

Defendants' Opposition thereto, the findings of the Special

Officer contained in her September 29, 1997 Report on

Defendants' Compliance with the Orders Related to Personal

Safety, which were adopted by the District Judge, the exhibits

appended thereto, which were admitted into evidence by the

District Judge, and the record'herein, the parties stipulate

and the Court finds as follows:

The District Court has previously entered orders in this

case that have failed to remedy the deprivation of plaintiffs'

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barrv Population Consent Order Page 2
constitutional rights that are remedied with this Order. Defendants have had a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders entered in this case. Thus, the prerequisites for convening a three-judge court/ as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(A), have been satisfied.
It has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that crowding is a primary cause of the high level of violence described in the Special Officer's Report and that the violence constitutes a violation of the plaintiffs' federal constitutional rights. It has also been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that no relief other than that set forth herein will remedy this violation. Thus, the factual predicate for imposition of a prisoner release order, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3626ia) (3) (E), has been established.
Furthermore, the relief set forth herein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the constitutional violation, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation. Thus, the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) for imposition of relief in a civil action regarding prison conditions are satisfied.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Defendants shall maintain the population at the Occoquan Facility at _or below

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry Population Consent Order Page 3
1400 inmates and shall further reduce the population to 1200 inmates or below by March 31, 1998. This population ceiling can be exceeded only if the Director of the D.C. Department of Corrections files with the Court a written declaration that (1) there has been an unusual and significant increase in the number of inmates committed to the D.C. Department of Corrections; (2) the Department is unable to safely house these additional inmates in other institutions; and (3) these inmates can be safely housed at Occoguan during the proposed time period. If defendants seek to exceed the ceiling for a period of greater than 14 days, they shall file a motion with the Court within the 14-day-period seeking the Court's approval to temporarily exceed the limit for a specified additional period. Such approval shall be granted by the Court only if the defendants demonstrate that the above three factors are satisfied. In no event shall the facility house more than 1673 inmates.
This Order shall remain in force until such time as the Occoquan Facility ceases to be used by defendants to house inmates.

Unitted States District Judge

1

X

United Stjat^s District Judge /

Inmates of Occoq\ian v. Barry Population Consent Order Page 4
/I
United St ^Ci'rc'uitf Judtfe
Dated: January 20, 1998
Consented to by:
JOHN M. FERREN• Corporation Counsel, D.C. WILLIAM J. EARLE Acting Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C. Special Litigation Division

RICHARD S. LOVE (#340455) Acting Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division 441 Fourth Street, NW 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 727-6295
Attorney for Defendants
Dated: November 20, 1997

AY2T6HA N. KHAN (#426 ACifo National Prison/ Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830
Attorney for Plaintiffs

 
 T •' ~ *

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry

PC-DC-003-019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al. , Plaintiffs.
v. MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al. .
Defendants.

:

:

: Civil Action No. 86-2128 (JLG)
:

:

ppa _ r |00Q

ORDER ON

i -;NCY MAYER-Vw-iTTiK-TCW, CLERK U 5 . DISTRICT COURT

Upon consideration of the Consent Motion to Substitute the Attached Correctional Officer Deployment Plan and Ceiling for the Maximum Number of Beds Allowed in the Larger Occoquan Dorms, the memorandum of points and authorities filed in support thereof and the record herein, the Court finds that these substitutions are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary and are the least intrusive means to correct the violations of federal rights established in the Special Officer's Report of September 29, 1997. The substituted deployment plan and increase in the maximum number of beds allowed in the larger Occoquan dorms will not adversely impact public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system.
The Orders of this Court in this case are, therefore, amended to substitute the attached deployment plan for that filed with the Court on April 19, 1996, and the maximum number of beds allowed in

c
dorms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 is increased to 92.
Date ' cc: Richard S. Love Assistant Corporation Counsel 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Sixth Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001 Ayesha Khan, Esquire National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009 Grace Lopes Special Officer of the Court 101 West Lombard Street Chambers 7C Baltimore, Maryland 21201

c
POST
Master CunUuf Movement Control Zone #"1 Walk Gate Zone #2 Walk Gate Zorte#3 Walk Gale Tower #1 Tower #2 Tower m Tower #5 Tower #0 Tower #7 Tower #6 Tower #9 Tower #10 Tower #11 Two Dorm OIC Two Dorm #2 Thra« Dorm OIC Three Dorm #2 Four Dorm OIC Four Dorm #2 Five Dorm OIC Six Dorm OIC Six Dorm M2 Seven Dorm OIC Seven Dorm #2 Eight Dorm OIC Eight Dorm #2 Nine Dorm OIC Nine Dorm #2 Ten Dorm OIC Ten Dorm #2 EJeven Dorm OIC Eleven Dorm #2 SMU Control SMU Ml -» SMU #2 SMU #3 SMU #4 SMU Recreation R&DA/H Adjustment Bd. Recorder/VH SP3/VH

Appendix A - 1 (1/M)

Post Analysis - Non-Supsrvlsory

Occoquan Facility

Seven Day Posts First second Third

Early

*1

2

2

0

1

1

1

0

•1

•1

*1

0

41

•1

•1

0

41

•1

•1

0

•1

•1

•1

0

•1

•1

*1

0

•1

*1

.. '1

0

*f

•1

"1

0

*1

•1

1

0

•1

0

1

0

*1

•1

•1

0

*1

0

•1

0

•1

*1

•1

0

•1

•1

*1

0

•1

•1

"1

0

•1

•1

•1

0

M

•1

•1

0

•1

•1

•1

0

•1

•1

*1

0

*1

•1

*1

0

•1

•1

•1

0

*1

*1

•1

0

•1

*1

•1

0

*1

•1

•1

0

*1

*1

*1

0

•1

"1

•1

0

•1

•1

•1

0

*1

•1

•1

0

•1

*1

*1

0

•1

•1

*-1

0

«1

•1

*1

0

•1

•1

•1

0

"1

*1

•1

0

•1

"2

•2

0

•1

*1

1

0

•1

•1

•1

0

0

*1

*1

0

0

•1

•1

0

0

1

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

Late
0 0 0
Q
0
Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
u
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ft
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RLED
FFB - S 1998
f.'ANCY MAI'LR-V.. ••"TT^GTCN. CLERK U.S. D.STuiCTCOUXT

C.fi.

P03T

Appendix A-l

)^

Occoquan Facility - Non-Supervisory"

Seven Oay Posts

First Second Third

Twelve Dorm QIC Twelve Dorm * 2 Thirteen Dorm OIC Thirteen Dorm #2 ^f-ourteen Dunn OIC "Foortocn D01213 #2 Fifteen Dorm OIC Fifteen Dorm #2 Sixteen Dorm OIC Seventeen Dorm OIC Eighteen Dorm OtC Infirmary Zone #3 Checkpoint fichodl/VisHing H«ll m Culinary Officer Administration 0ldg./VH #1 Barber Shop/VH Four A Checkpoint ++ Zone I Gym/VH 2one III Gym/VH SanRatjoiWH Zone #1 Sergeant Zone #2 Sergeant Zone #3 Sargeanl Chapel/Temple Activity Officers •* Four A Tower Major's Aide

M

•1

M

0

•1

•1

•1

0

•1

*1

•1

0

*1

•1

*1

0

*^

•1

*1

0

•1

•1

•1

0

•1

*t

•1

0

"I •1

*1

0

•1

•1

*1

0

•1

•1

•1

0

•1

•1

• 1*1

0

•1

1

•1

0

*1

•1

•1

0

0

1

0

0

b

1

0

-1

1 1

0 0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

Q

9

9

•1

•1

~1

0 0 0 0 0

0

1

0

0

Total

62

81

* Indicates lunch relief required
** Duties include lunch reliefs ++ To be reassioned to other duties when post Is not active

2 1 6 - 7 Day Posts * 1 RR Relief Factor = 406.08 poeitionc

Late
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix A ~

c

Poet Analyst* - Non-Supervisory

Oeeoquan Facility

Fjv« Day Posts

POST

Pint Second Third

Security Officer

0

1

0

0

0

infirmary

0

1

0

0

0

Mail Room #1

0

1

0

0

0

Mall Room #2

0

1

0

0

0

Time and Attendance

0

3

0

0

0

Landscape

0

1

0

0

0

NIPS

0

?

0

0

0

Supply

0 .

2

0

0

0

RAD OIC/VH

0 "

0

1

0

0

R&O #1/VH

0

0

1

0

0

R&D#2/VH

0

0

1

0

0

Training Officer

0

1

0

0

0

Locksmith

0

1

0

0

0

Tower #8 Sallyport/Metal Detector ++ 0

1

1

0

0

Canteen

0

1

0

0

0

Fire & Safety

0

1

0

0

0

B Building

0

1

0

0

0

Computer operator

0

0

1

0

0

Procurement Officer

0

1

0

0

0

School

0

1

1

0

0

Administration Building

0

1

0

0

0

8ecurity Specialist f * •

0

4

0

0

0

Paint Crew Supervision

0

1

0

0

0

Inside Maintenance Supervision

0

1

0

0

0

Drug Abuse Counselor

0

2

0

0

0

Total

0

29

$

0

0

++ To be reassigned to other duties when post is not active To be uded for shakedown, urine surveillance, pnone monitoring, interviews, and other activities in support of the investigative lieutenant

35 - S Day Posts x 1.34 Rolfof Factor - 46.9 positions

'

Appendix B • 1 (1/66)

Post Analysis - Supervisory

Occoquan Facility

PO3T

Seven Day Potts

First Second Third f-arlv

Late

Shift Captain Z&n* Lieutenant

t

1

1

0

0

3

3

3

0

0

Total

12 - 7 Day Posts x 1.88 Relief Factor = 22.56 positions

s~S

Appendix A-4(1/9$)

Recapitulation of Workforce N««ds - Non-Supervisory

Occoquan Facility

216-7 Day Posts x 1,88 Relief Fador = 406.08 r«witions

3 5 - 5 Day Posts x 1.34 Relief Fador - 46.6 positions

1 6 - 2 Oay Posts x .54 Relief Factor = 8.64 positions

Total Positions Recommended s 4S1.62

POST
Visiting Checkpoint
Visiting Hall
Total

C

Appendix A - 3 (1/93)

C

Post Analysis - Non-Supervisory

Occoquan Facility

Two Day Posts

First Second Third Earfv

Late

0

0

3

0

0

0

3

10

0

0

0

3

13

16-2 Day Posts x .54 Relief Factor = 8.©4 positions

G

Appendix 8 - 2 (1/98)

Post Analysis - Supervisory

Occoquart Facility

Five Day Posts

POST

First Second Third

Eariv

Late

Major Adjustment Board Investigative Lieutenant Support Services Lieutenant Administrative Captain
SMU Supervisor

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

Total

8 - 5 Day Posts x 1.34 Relief Factor = 8.04 positions

Appendix B - 3 (1/68) Recapitulation of Workforce Needs -Supervisory
Occoqutn Facility 1 2 - 7 Day Posts x i.BB Relief Factor = 22.56 positions 6 - S Day Posts x 1.34 Relief Factor = 6.04 positions Total Supervisory Positions R«cornmen<ted • 30.6

O

XJ
Appdenidix C(1/S8)

Recapitulation of Total Security Workforce N««ds

Occoquan Facility Total Non-Sup«fvisory Position* Rooommended - 401.02
Total Supervisory Positions Recommended - 30.6 Grand Total Security Positions Recommended - 492.22 oi 492

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al.. Plaintiffs,
v. MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 86-2128 (JLG)

CONSENT MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE ATTACHED CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DEPLOYMENT PLAN AND CEILING FOR THE NUMBER OF BEDS ALLOWED IN THE LARGER DORMS On November 20, 1997, this Court entered a Consent Order which required the Special Officer of the Court and her security expert to assemble a team of experts to assist defendants in implementing the Court's orders regarding security and personal safety. Defendants in conjunction with the team of Court experts are implementing a number of projects designed to improve security and personal safety. These projects have resulted in the need to make adjustments in the institution's deployment plan and increase the maximum number of beds in the larger dorms from 85 to 92. 1. Increase the Maximum Number of Beds in the Larger Dorms. One of the projects which defendants have been working with the Court experts on is improving controls on visiting and decreasing inmate idleness. In order to facilitate these goals, defendants will shift the location for visiting from the gym to Dorm One. This will allow inmates to utilize the gym on Tuesday and Thursday evenings as well as on Saturdays and Sundays. Furthermore, visiting can be better controlled and observed from dorm one than the gym. To compensate for the 85 beds previously located in dorm
Inmates Occoquan v. Barry

PC-DC-003-022

one, defendants would place seven additional beds in each of the 12 remaining larger dorms (dorms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15) . This increase would be temporary since defendants are required, on or before March 31, 1998, to reduce the maximum number of beds allowed in Occoquan dormitories to comply with the population ceiling of 1,200, which takes effect on that date.
2. New Deployment Plan Defendants, in compliance with the Court's November 20, 1997, Order, have opened the new adjustment unit. To compensate for the opening of this new unit and to address other operational changes, such as utilizing dorm one for visiting, adjustments to the deployment plan were required.' These adjustments were made in consultation with the Court experts and the Special Officer. The parties agree that these substitutions are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary and are the least intrusive means to correct the violations of federal rights established in the Special Officer's Report of September 29, 1997. Moreover, the substituted deployment plan and increase in the maximum number of beds allowed in the larger Occoquan dorms will not adversely impact public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system. Wherefore, the parties seek to substitute the attached deployment plan for that filed on April 19, 1996 and to increase the maximum number beds allowed in the larger Occoquan dorms.
JOHN M. FERREN Corporation Counsel, D.C.
1 Additional adjustments to the deployment plan will be necessary after the population is reclassified and reduced to 1,200 inmates.

GEORGE VALENTINE Deputy Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division WILLIAM J. EARL Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division
r rI
RICHARD S. LOVE (#340455) Assistant Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division . ; 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Consent Motion was mailed postage prepaid to Ayesha Khan, Esquire, National Prison Project, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 410, Washington, D.C. 20009 and Grace Lopes, Special Officer of the Court, 101 West • Lombard Street, Chamber 7C, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 on this day of February, 1998.
V
'RICHARD S. LOVE Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., Plaintiffs.
v. MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al..
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 86-2128 (JLG)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF CONSENT MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE ATTACHED
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DEPLOYMENT PLAN AND CEILING FOR THE NUMBER OF BEDS ALLOWED IN THE LARGER DORMS
1. The inherent power of the Court'.
2. The Consent of the Parties and the Special Officer.
JOHN M. FERREN Corporation Counsel, D.C. GEORGE VALENTINE Deputy Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division WILLIAM J. EARL Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division

RICHARD S. LOVE (#340455) Assistant Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al.. Plaintiffs,
v. MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 86-2128 (JLG)

ORDER Upon consideration of the Consent Motion to Substitute the Attached Correctional Officer Deployment Plan and Ceiling for the Maximum Number of Beds Allowed in the Larger Occoquan Dorms, the memorandum of points and authorities filed in support thereof and the record herein, the Court finds that these substitutions are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary and are the least intrusive means to correct the violations of federal rights established in the Special Officer's Report of September 29, 1997. The substituted deployment plan and increase in the maximum number of beds allowed in the larger Occoquan dorms will not adversely impact public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system. The Orders of this Court in this case are, therefore, amended to substitute the attached deployment plan for that filed with the Court on April 19, 1996, and the maximum number of beds allowed in

dorms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 is increased to 92.

Date
cc:
Richard S. Love Assistant Corporation Counsel 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Sixth Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001
Ayesha Khan, Esquire National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009
Grace Lopes Special Officer of the Court 101 West Lombard Street Chambers 7C Baltimore, Maryland 21201

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Appendix A - 1 (1/tt) Post Analysis - Non-Supervisory

.—
POST .
Master Coniiul Movement Goritoul Zone #1 Walk Gate Zones #2 Walk Gate Zone, #3 Walk Gate TowttrM Tower #2 Towar #4 Towftr #5 Tow»r#G Tower #7 Tower m Tower #9 Tower #10 Tower #11 Two Dorm OIC Two Dorm #2 Three Dorm OIC Three Dorm #2 Four Dorm OIC Four Dorm #2 Five Dorm OIC Six Dorm OIC Six Dorm #2 Seven Dorm Olc Seven Dorm #2 Eight Dorm OIC Eight Dorm #2 Nine Dorm OIC Nine Dorm #2 Ten Dorm OIC Ten Dorm #2 Eleven Dorm OIC Eleven Dorm #2 SMU Control SMU#1 SMU #2 SMU #3 SMU #4 SMU Recreation R&D/VH Adjustment Bd. Recorder/VH SP3/VH

Occoquan Facility

Seven Day Posts

First _ second Third Early

L-

2

2

U

0

1

1

1

0

0

*•(

1

*1

0

u

*1

•1

*1

0

0

*1

•1

•1

0

0

•1

•1

M

0

Q

1

*1

0

0

•1

*1

0

0

"1

*\

*1

0

0

*1

•1

•1

0

0

•1

C

1

0

0

*i

*1

"1

0

0

•1

0

"1

0

0

•1

*1

•1

0

r\

*1

•1

"1

0

»-)

•1

•1

0

•1

•1

•1

0

0

•1

•1

•1

0

0

•1

*1

•1

0

0

•1

•1

•1

0

0

*1

*1

•1

0

0

•1

•1

•1

0

0

*1

•1

•1

0

0

»•)

•1

0

0

*1

•1

•1

0

0

•1

•1

*1

0

0

•1

•1

•1

0

0

•1

•1

"1

0

0

*1

•1

•1

0

0

•1

•1

"1

0

r

•1

•1

*1

P)

•1

•1

*1

0

0

•1

•1

*1

0

0

•1

•1

•1

0

0

*1

•2

#2

0

0

•1

*1

0

0

•1

*1

*1

0

0

0

1

*1

0

0

0

•1

•1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

PO3T

Appendix A-1 (1/98) (contlnuad)

Occoquan Facl/fty - Non-$up«rvisory

Sevan Day Posts

First Second Third

Late

TweivB Dorm OiC Twdve Dom *2 Thirteen Dorm OIC Thirteen Dorm #2 Fourteen Dunn OIC Fourteen Dor;n #2 Fifteen Darm OIC Fifteen Dorm #2 Sixteen Dorm OIC Seventeen Dorm OIC Eighteen Dorm OIC Infirmary
Zone #3 Checkpoint eehool/Visrting Hall #1 Culinary Officer Administration Bldg./VH #1 Barber Shop/VH Four A Chockpoint ++ Zone I GynWH Zono III Gym/VH Santtation/VH Zone #1 Sergeant Zone #2 Sergeant Zone #3 Sergeant Chapel/Temple Activity Officers •* Four A Tower Major's Aide

M

•1

M

0

0

*1

•1

•1

0

0

•1

*1

*1

0

0

•1

•1

•1

0

0

•t

•1

*1

0

0

"1

•1

*1

0

0

"1

*1

•1

0

0

-7

•1

*1

0

0

•1

•1

*1

0

0

•1

M

*1

0

0

•1 . *1. - *1

-1

1

"1

c

0 0

*1

"1

•1

c

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

-1

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

9

9

0

0

*1

•1

*1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

Total

01

73

* Indicates lunch relief required ** Duties include lunch reliefs ++ To be reassigned to other duties when post Is not active

216 - 7 Day Posts y 1 flfi R*ltef Factor = 405.08 poeitione

Appendix A - 2 <1/9S}

Poet Analysis - Non-Supervisory

Occoquan Facility

Fiv« Day Posts

POST

Firft^ Second Third

Eartv

Us

Security Officer

0

1

Infirmary

0

1

Mail Room #1

0

1

Mall Room #2

0

1

Time and Attendance

0

3

Landscape

0

1

NIPS

0

Supply

9,

R&D OIC/VH

0

0

R&D#1/VH

0

0

R«D#2/VH Training Officer

0

0

0

1

Locksmith

0

1

Tower #6 Sallyport/Metal Detector ++ 0

1

Canteen

0

1

Fire & 8atety

0

1

B Building

0

1

Computer operator

0

0

Procurement Officer

0

1

School

0

1

Administration Building

0

1

Security Specialist t r t

0

4

Paint Crew Supervision

0

1

Inside Maintenance Supervision

0

1

Drug Abuse Counselor

0

2

0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
1 1 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 . 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 •0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

29

++ To bereassigned to other duties when post is not active To be used for shakedown, urine surveillance, phone monitoring, interviews, and other activities in support ofthe investigative lieutenant

35 - S Day Posts x 1.34 Rollof Factor - 4S.9 positions

P03T
Shift Captain Zone Lieutenant

Appendix B • 1 (1/96)

Post Analysis - Supervisory

Occoquan Facility

Sevan Day Posts

First Second Third Parly

Late

1

1

1

o

0

3

3

3

0

0

Total

12-7 DPy Posts x 1.88 Relief Factor * 22.66 positions

Appendix A • 4 (1/8$) Recapitulation of Workforce N««ds - Non-Supervisory
Occoquan Facility 216 - 7 Day Posts x 1.88 Relief Factor = 406.06 position*
35-5 Day Posts x 1,34 Relief Factor = 46.9 position* 18-2 Day Posts x .54 Relief Factor = 8.84 positions
Total Positions Recommended = 461 62

POST
Visiting Checkpoint Visiting Hall Total

Appendix A - 3 (1/98)

Post Analysis - Non-Supervisory

Occoquan Facility Two Day Posts

First Sacond Third Eartv

Late

0

0

3

0

0

0

3

10

0

0

0

3

13

0

0

16 • 2 Day Posts x .54 Relief Factor = 8.6* positions

—
POST
Major Adjustment Board Investigative Lieutenant Support Services Lieutenant Administrative Captain SMU Supervisor
Total

Appendix B - 2 (1/96) Post Analysis - Supervisory

Occoquan Facility Five Day Posts

First Second Third

Early

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

Late
0 0 0 0 0 0

8 - 5 Day Posts x 1.34 Relief Factor • 8.04 positions

Appendix B - 3 (1/06) Recapitulation of Workforcm Needs -Supervisory
Occoquan Facility 1 2 - 7 Day Posts x I f l s Relief Factor = 22,S6 positions 6 - £ Day Posts x 1.34 Relief Factor = 8.04 positions Total Supervisory Positions Recommended • 30,6

Appendix C (i/fl8) Recapitulation of Tntal Security Workforce Naeds
Occoquan Facility Total Non-Stipftrvisory Positione Rooommended •= 401.02
Total Supen/lsniy Positions Rscommonded - 50.C Grand Total Security Positions Raeommended - 492.22 vi 492

 
 Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry
HHIHIIiniH PC-DC-003-008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

V.

)

) SHARON PRATT KELLY, MAYOR, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

C.A. NO. 86-2128

STIPULATION ON MENTAL HEALTH COMPLIANCE
Parties have met with the Special Master, Grace Lopes, pursuant to the order by this Court dated July 1, 1993. The parties have discussed the delivery of mental health services to seriously mentally 111 residents at the Occoquan Facility and have stipulated to the following with respect to the delivery of mental health services to this population.

1. Once a month, beginning from the date of this Stipulation and continuing for twelve months, defendants agree to submit to the plaintiffs and the Special Master a report (hereinafter "Monthly Compliance Report on the Delivery of Mental Health Services to Seriously Mentally ill Occoquan Prisoners") which summarizes particular features of their delivery of mental health services to seriously mentally 111 Occoquan prisoners.

2. Defendants agree to include the following information in the monthly report:

a._ The name and DOC number of each Occoquan prisoner who is currently on psychotropic medications.
b. The log (or summary) of prisoners by name and DOC number, placed in the Adjustment Unit (formerly called Q Block) for mental observation during the prior thirty day period. It will contain the dates and times of entry and release from the Adjustment Unit.
c. The dates of actual transfer of an Occoquan prisoner to another facility for mental health observation or treatment during the prior thirty day period. The prisoner will be identified by name and DOC number and the facility to which he is transferred will be identified; the dates should correspond to each separate transfer which has occurred during the prior thirty day period.
d. The dates of actual transfer of a prisoner from the DC Jail mental health unit to St. Elizabeth's Hospital for mental health observation or treatment during the prior thirty day period. The prisoner shall be identified by name and DOC number.
3. The defendants agree to transfer Occoquan prisoners to either

St. Elizabeths Hospital or the DC jail exclusively for mental health observation or treatment.

4. The defendants agree to produce this report monthly beginning thirty days after this Stipulation is signed and to transmit the report to Special Master, Grace Lopes and to plaintiffs' counsel Stuart H. Adams, Jr., beginning thirty says after this Stipulation is signed.

5. Plaintiffs agree to maintain the confidentially of the prisoner medical information contained within the report.

7. Defendants agree to certify, under penalty of perjury, to the best of their knowledge and belief upon reasonable inquiry, all statements in the Monthly Compliance Report on the Delivery of Mental Health Services to Seriously Mentally 111 Occoquan Prisoners are true and accurate. Respectfully submitted,

Richard Love Lawrence G. McPherson, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsels Civil Division 444 Fourth Street, N.W. Sixth Floor, South Washington, D.C. 20001
Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: August_

1993

Stuart H. Adams, Jr. National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Ave. N.W., #410 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4830
Attorney for Plaintiffs

 
 Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry

PC DC-003-010
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

)

) SHARON PRATT KELLY, MAYOR et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

C.A. No. 86-2128 JLG

SECOND STIPULATION ON MENTAL HEALTH COMPLIANCE
The parties have met and reached an agreement concerning an extension for an additional six (6) months of the Stipulation on Mental Health Compliance, approved by the Court on April 7, 1994, and filed on April 8, 1994. •
Parties agree that the Stipulation on Mental Health Compliance, dated April 8, 1994, shall be extended through S eptember, 1995.

Respectfully submitted,

"Richard S. Love Assistant Corp. Counsel, D.C. Chief, Corr, Lit. Section Civil Division 441 Fourth Street, NW Sixth Floor, South Washington, DC 20001
Attorneys for Defendants
Dated: December /^/t 1994

Sxuart H. Adams, Jr. National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

1 The April 8, 1994 Stipulation provided for a one (1) year reporting period "beginning in March, 1994, and continuing for a total of twelve months..." See Stipulation on Mental Health Compliance, filed April 8, 1994, at para. 1.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Second Stipulation on Mental Health Compliance was mailed, postage prepaid, to Stuart H. Adams, Jr., Esq., National Prison Project, Inc., ACLU Foundation, Suite 410, 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 and Ms. Grace Lopes, Esq., Special Officer for the United • States District Court, 1130 17th Street N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036 on this/ y day ol
4iichard S. Love, Esq

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TWELVE JCKN DCES, §_t =_i. ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DISTRICT CF COLUMBIA, §£. al. ,

Defendants.

)

)

JOHN DOE, .et. al. ,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

1

Defendants.

Civil Action Mo. 8C-213 Judge June 1. Green
Civil Action No. 79-172S Judge June L. Green

INMATES OF THE MODULAR

)

FACILITY,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, e_t al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

INMATES CF CCCOQUAN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, !

)

v.

)

)

MARION S. BARRY, JR., e_t al- / )

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 90-727 Judge June L. Green
Civil Action No. 86-2128 Judge June L. Green

Inmates Occoquan v. Barry

i i l l in • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • •»•• ^

*

PC-DC-003-di3

INMATES £F THREE LORTCN

FACILITIES,

:

Plaintiffs,

:

v.

'.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, e_t a_l . , ;

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 92-12C3 Judge June L. C-reen

CONSENT MOTION FOR THE ADOPTION OF A CONSENT ORDER CONCERNING SYSTEMWIDE MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE
Plaintiffs hereby move, with Defendants' consent, for the adoption of the proposed Consent Order attached hereto concerning systemwide medical and mental health care. This motion is filed by undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs in Civil Action Nos. 80-2136, 79-1726, and 90-727, on their own behalf and on behalf of Plaintiffs in Civil Action Nos. 32-1208 and 86-2128, who have given undersigned counsel their authorization.
The issue of Defendants' compliance with the Court's Orders concerning medical and mental health care most recently came before the Court on July 9, 1996. The parties believe that the attached proposed Consent Order appropriately resolves the issues presented at that hearing.

- 2-

It is therefore respectfully requested that the Court enter the attached Consent Crder.

Respectfully/Submitted,

July 26, 1996

N/Lckles # 53447

Alan A..Pfemberton # 367103

Eric G. Lasker

# 430190

Michael S. Labson # 447867

Ccvington & Burling

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

P.O. Box 7566

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 662-6000

Counsel for Plaintiffs in C.A. Nos. 80-2136, 79-1726, and 90727

- 3-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA

TWELVE JOHN DOES, et. al. , Plaintiffs,
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et. a_l . ,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 30-2136 Judge June L. Green

JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 79-1726 Judge June L. Green

INMATES OF THE MODULAR

)

FACILITY,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et. al. , )

Defendants.

)

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., )

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

MARION S. BARRY, JR., et. al. , )

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 90-727 Judge June L. Green
Civil Action No. 86-2128 Judge June L. Green

Inmates Occoquan v. Barry

HHH

HH

••

••*•••

PC-DC-003-014

INMATES _0F THREE LORTCN

;

FACILITIES,

)

Plaintiffs, !

:

v.

)

\

;

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et, a_l . , )

) Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 92-12C8 Judge June L. Green.

CONSENT ORDER This matter concerning Defendants' compliance with the Court's Orders on mental health care and medical care at the Lorton facilities having been brought before the Court on July 9, 1996, and the parties having consented hereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall report to the Court by September 9, 1996, as to whether they have hired an appropriately qualified systemwide medical coordinator. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a hearing on October 9, 1996 at 1:30 p.m., at which time, if Defendants have hired a systemwide medical coordinator, (1) the Special Officer shall report to the Court as to whether in her view the person whom Defendants have hired is qualified to undertake the tasks necessary to improve systemwide compliance with the Court's Orders concerning medical and mental health care, and (2) the new systemwide medical coordinator will report to the Court regarding his or her plans to increase Defendants' compliance with the Court's Orders concerning medical and mental health care. It is

- 2-

FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants have hired a systemwide medical coordinator by September 9, 1996, the Special Officer shall report to the Court at such time as she deems appropriate, after consulting with the new coordinator and the parties, as to whether the Court should enter additional orders regarding the powers and responsibilities of the systemwide medical coordinator so as to better enable him or her to improve compliance with the Court's existing Orders. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants have not hired a systemwide medical coordinator by September 9, 1996, the parties shall present proposals at the October 9, 1996 hearing as to how to improve Defendants' compliance with the Court's existing Orders regarding medical and mental health care, including but not limited to how to improve the medical leadership within the Department of Corrections.
SO ORDERED.
June L. Green United States District Judge Dated:
- 3-

Copies to: Alan A. Pemberton Covington & Burling P.O. Box 7566 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044 Richard S. Love Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Jonathan M. Smith D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc. 1400 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Stuart Adams ACLU National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009 Martin Hacala Ross, Dixon & Masback 601 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. North Building Washington, D.C. 20004 Grace M. Lopes, Esq.
Special Officer for the Court 1130 17th Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036
- 4 -

—

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I caused a copy of the

foregoing Motion for Adoption of Consent Order to be served by

first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 26th day of July,

1996 upon:

Richard S. Love Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
Jonathan M. Smith D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc 1400 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
Stuart Adams • ACLU National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009
Martin Hacala Ross, Dixon & Masback 601 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. North Building Washington, D.C. 20004
Grace M. Lopes, Esq. Special Officer for the Court 1130 17th Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036

.an A. Pemberton

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., Plaintiffs.
V. MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
: Civil Action No. 86-2128 (JLG)
:
:

CONSENT MOTION TO ENTER PROPOSED ORDER
The Court's Order of November 20, 1997, required that the Special Officer assemble a team of experts to assist defendants in implementation of the Court's orders. This expert team was required to issue a report, by March 16, 1998, summarizing the status of their efforts. Thereafter, the parties were required to submit to the Court, no later than April 3, 1998, a proposed order addressing 1) whether the expert assistance should continue and 2) other issues raised in the Special Officer's September 29, 1997, Report on Defendants' Compliance with the Orders Related to Personal Safety ("Report") which were not addressed by the Court's November 20, 1997, Order. The attached Consent Order proposed by the parties and the Special Officer addresses the above-referenced issues and is submitted for the Court's consideration and approval.

JOHN M. FERREN Corporation Counsel, D.C.

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry

• ••

«• ••••• • • •« • I

PC-DC-003-020

RICHARD S. LOVE (#340455)

Special Counsel

441 Fourth Street, N.W.

6th Floor South

Washington, D.C. 20001

.

(202) 727-6295

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing
was mailed postage prepaid to Ayesha Khan, Esquire, National Prison
Project, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., #410, Washington, D.C.
20009 and Grace Lopes, Special Officer of the Court, 101 West
Lombard Street, Chambers 7C, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, on this
day of April, 1998.
in
RICHARETS. LOVE Special Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

—

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., Plaintiffs.
v. MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al.r
Defendants.

:
:
: Civil Action No. 86-2128 (JUG)
:
:

CONSENT ORDER The Court's Order of November 20, 1997, required that the Special Officer assemble a team of experts to assist defendants in implementation of the Court's orders. This expert team was required to issue a report, by March 16, 1998, summarizing the status of their efforts. Thereafter, the parties were required to submit to the Court, no later than April 3, 1998, a proposed order addressing 1) whether the expert assistance should continue and 2) other issues raised in the Special Officer's September 29, 1997, Report on Defendants' Compliance with the Orders Related to Personal Safety ("Report") which were not addressed by the Court's November 20, 1997, Order. Upon consideration of the order proposed by the parties and the Special Officer, and the record herein, the Court finds that the below-referenced relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary and is the least intrusive means to correct the violations documented in the Special Officer's report. The Orders of this Court in this case are, therefore, modified and/or amended as follows:

I. Interim Management Assistance The Special officer shall continue to utilize a security
expert1 and a sanitation/environmental expert to provide guidance, oversight, training and assistance to defendants and their staff and to help defendants continue to implement the reform initiatives already in progress. The Special Officer shall confer with the parties concerning an appropriate schedule for the use of these experts. The experts shall update the project compliance checklist monthly and shall issue within one hundred and twenty (120) days a report summarizing the status of the reform initiatives. Within thirty days following the issuance of this report, the parties, in consultation with the Special Officer, shall submit to the Court a proposed order which addresses whether any expert assistance should continue and any other issues raised in the Special Officer's report which have not been addressed.
Defendants shall cooperate with and bear the costs for these experts. The Court's experts shall be provided unrestricted access to all records of the Department of Corrections, office space, equipment and support as necessary to perform their duties as well as access to all areas of the Occoquan Facility. II. Population
Defendants shall maintain no more than 75 beds in dorms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Dorm 11 shall maintain no more than 92 beds; dorm 5 shall maintain no more than 58 beds;
1 Jim Henderson and Jerry O'Brien will share responsibility for this position and will alternate visits to the facility.
-2-

dorms 16, 17 and 18 shall maintain no more than 50 beds per dorm. It is acknowledged that defendants intend to move to modify the required correctional officer staffing and deployment plan as the population at Occoquan is further reduced. III. Classification
Defendants shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that inmates classified higher than medium security are not transferred to the Occoquan Facility.2 Defendants shall continue to classify newly admitted Occoquan inmates using appropriate classification standards, consistent with the standards currently in use at Occoquan. In the event that a newly admitted inmate is classified higher than medium security, he shall be removed from the facility within 72 hours. The Special Officer and plaintiffs must be advised within one business day of any such inmate who can not be removed within 72 hours.
Defendants shall make on-going, reasonable and demonstrable efforts to remove all previously admitted Occoquan inmates who have been classified higher than medium security. IV. Maintenance Provisions
a. Defendants shall within seven (7) days maintain a blanket purchase order in the total amount of $10,000, for use by the maintenance foreman at the Occoquan Facility, or his designee, for electrical, plumbing and other supplies needed to maintain Occoquan
2 The classification designation "higher than medium security" utilized in this section refers to the Bureau of Prisons classification standards (minimum, low, medium and high) currently utilized at Occoquan. This section may be revisited if different classification standards are utilized.
-3-

in a safe, sanitary and habitable condition. b. Absent further substantial reductions in the population,
defendants shall not detail or reassign the facilities maintenance staff currently assigned to the Occoguan Facility.3
V. Programs Defendants shall continue to take reasonable steps to develop
and maintain initiatives designed to reduce inmate idleness.
VI. Reporting
Defendants shall include in their monthly report the number and location of inmate on inmate, inmate on staff and staff on inmate assaults.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date
cc:
Richard S. Love Special Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 Fourth Street, N.W. 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001 Ayesha Khan, Esquire National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009
3 The facility maintenance staff assigned to Occoguan are 1 building maintenance foreman, 2 steam pipe fitter foreman, l electrician foreman, 1 welder/metal worker foreman, 1 painter glazer, 1 laborer foreman, 1 refrigeration foreman, 1 plasterer foreman and 1 masonry foreman.
-4-

Grace M. Lopes Special Officer of the Court 101 West Lombard Street Chambers 7C Baltimore, Maryland 21201
-5-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al..

Plaintiffs, v.
MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al..
Defendants.

)
) Civil Action No, ) 86-2128 (JLG) )
) )

CONSENT MOTION TO CONVENE THREE-JUDGE COURT
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(C), the parties hereby request that the Court convene a three-judge court, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2284, to obtain approval of the "Population Consent Order", attached hereto.
The Special Officer's Report on Defendants' Compliance with the Orders Related to Personal Safety, dated September 29, 1997, the exhibits thereto, and the stipulations set forth in the Population Consent Order provide the factual predicate for the imposition of the Population Consent Order. Consented to by: JOHN M. FERREN Corporation Counsel, D.C. WILLIAM J. EARLE Acting Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C. Special Litigation Division
Inmates Occoquan v. Barry
•IllllIIIIIII PC-DC-003-021

frynates of Occoquan v. Baryy Consent Motion Pag«
RICHARD S. LOVE (#340455) Acting Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division 441 Fourth Street, NW 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 727-6295
Attorney for Defendants
Dated: November 20,1997

AYB3HA N. KHAN (#4268B6) ACEU National Prison ^Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830
Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.
MARION S. BARRY, JR., et al..
Defendants.

)
) Civil Action No, ) 86-2128 (JLG) ) ) )

POPULATION CONSENT ORDER
As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3), this three-judge Court was convened, upon the request of the parties, by the District Judge in this case pursuant to the procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2284.
Based upon the Plaintiffs' Motion for the Appointment of a Receiver and Imposition of Fines Regarding Personal Safety, Defendants' Opposition thereto, the findings of the Special Officer contained in her September 29, 1997 Report on Defendants' Compliance with the Orders Related to Personal Safety, which were adopted by the District Judge, the exhibits appended thereto, which were admitted into evidence by the District Judge, and the record herein, the parties stipulate and the Court finds as follows:
The District Court has previously entered orders in this case that have failed to remedy the deprivation of plaintiffs'

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry

Population Consent Order

Page 2

—

constitutional rights that are remedied with this Order.

Defendants have had a reasonable amount of time to comply with

the previous court orders entered in this case. Thus, the

prerequisites for convening a three-judge court, as set forth

in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) (3) (A) , have been satisfied.

It has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence

that crowding is a primary cause of the high level of violence

described in the Special Officer's Report and that the

violence constitutes a violation of the plaintiffs' federal

constitutional rights. It has also been demonstrated by clear

and convincing evidence that no relief other than that set

forth herein will remedy this violation. Thus, the factual

predicate for imposition of a prisoner release order, as set

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(E), has been established.

Furthermore, the relief set forth herein is narrowly

drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

constitutional violation, and is the least intrusive means

necessary to correct the violation. Thus, the requirements

of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) for imposition of relief in a civil

action regarding prison conditions are satisfied.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Defendants shall

maintain the population at the Occoquan Facility at or below

Inmates of Occoauan v. Barry

Population Consent Order

Page 3

—

1400 inmates and shall further reduce the population to 1200

inmates or below by March 31, 1998. This population ceiling

can be exceeded only if the Director of the D.C. Department of

Corrections files with the Court a written declaration that

(1) there has been an unusual and significant increase in the

number of inmates committed to the D.C. Department of

Corrections; (2) the Department is unable to safely house

these additional inmates in other institutions; and (3) these

inmates can be safely housed at Occoquan during the proposed

time period. If defendants seek to exceed the ceiling for a

period of greater than 14 days, they shall file a motion with

the Court within the 14-day-period seeking the Court's

approval to temporarily exceed the limit for a specified

additional period. Such approval shall be granted by the

Court only if the defendants demonstrate that the above three

factors are satisfied. In no event shall the facility house

more than 1673 inmates.

This Order shall remain in force until such time as the

Occoquan Facility ceases to be used by defendants to house

inmates.

United States District Judge

United States District Judge

Inmates of Occoquan v. Baripy

Population Consent Order

Page 4

—

United States Circuit Judge Dated:

Consented to by:
JOHN M. FERREN Corporation Counsel, D.C. WILLIAM J. EARLE Acting Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C. Special Litigation Division

RICHARD S. LOVE (#34 0455) Acting Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel Special Litigation Division 441 Fourth Street, NW 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 727-6295
Attorney for Defendants
Dated: November 20, 1997

N. KHAN (#426836) ACLU National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830
Attorney for Plaintiffs

 
 District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 1 of 119

CLOSED, CONSOL, SuppressAnsRpt
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:86-cv-02128-JLG-SS

INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al v. WILLIAMS, et al Assigned to: Judge June L. Green Referred to: Three Judge Panel Demand: $0 Lead case: 1:79-cv-01726-WBB (View Member Cases) Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 08/04/1986 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Special Master
GRACE M. LOPES Special Officer of the Court

Special Master
KAREN M. SCHNEIDER Special Officer of the Court

represented by Karen M Schneider 1130 17th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
INMATES OF OCCOQUAN Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated.

represented by Ayesha Khan AMERICANS UNITED 518 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 466-3234 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward I. Koren NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU FOUNDATION 733 15th Street, NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 234-4830 TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Alexander NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU FOUNDATION

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 2 of 119

Plaintiff

733 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-2112 (202) 393-4930 Fax: 202-393-4931 Email: ealexander@npp-aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY
Peter J. Nickles COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2494 (202) 662-5394 Fax: 202-778-5394 Email: pnickles@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION National Prison Project 1616 P Street, N.W. Suite 340 Washington, DC 20036
Alan Arnold Pemberton COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2401 (202) 662-5642 Fax: 202-778-5642 Email: apemberton@cov.com
Alexa Perry Freeman 9632 Kensington Parkway Kensington, MD 20895 (301) 962-4960 TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Ney MARYLAND DISABILITY LAW CENTER 1400 Mercantile Lane Suite 242 Largo, MD 20774 (301) 925-9871 TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 3 of 119

WILLIAM ALSTON-EL
Plaintiff MICHAEL CLAY

represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 4 of 119

Plaintiff JAMES DAVIS

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 5 of 119

Plaintiff ALLEN GLAZER
Plaintiff RONNIE GOODMAN

Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 6 of 119

Plaintiff JAMES HARRINGTON

Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 7 of 119

Plaintiff JOHN HARRIS

Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 8 of 119

Plaintiff CARL HENDERSON
Plaintiff JEFFREY HOWARD

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 9 of 119

Plaintiff MICHAEL IVEY

Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 10 of 119

Plaintiff THOMAS OLIVER
Plaintiff FRED OWENS

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 11 of 119

Plaintiff AHMED PASHA

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 12 of 119

Plaintiff WALTER ROBINSON

(See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 13 of 119

Plaintiff CALVIN ROOKARD
Plaintiff CARL WILLIAMS

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 14 of 119

Plaintiff
ROBERT LEON WILSON individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated.

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ayesha Khan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adjoa Ayitoro (See above for address)
Alan Arnold Pemberton (See above for address)
Alexa Perry Freeman

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 15 of 119

V.
Defendant
MARION S. BARRY, JR. TERMINATED: 06/02/1999

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Alexander (See above for address)
Steven Ney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/18/1989 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence G. McPherson OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL, D.C. 441 Fourth Street, NW Sixth Floor South Washington, DC 20001-4600 (202) 673-7009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maria-Claudia T. Amato CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 441 Fourth Street, NW Sixth Floor Washington, DC 20011 (202) 724-6642 Fax: (202) 727-3625 Email: maria.amato@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Stuart Love OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL, D.C. 441 Fourth Street, NW 6th Floor Washington, DC 20001-4600 (202) 727-6295 Email: richard.love@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Edward Zielinski SOCIAL SECURITY

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 16 of 119

Defendant JAMES F. PALMER Director, Department of Corrections
Defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS

ADMINISTRATION Office of Hearings and Appeals 501 West Ocean Boulevard Suite 6420 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 980-4190 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul A. Quander, Jr. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, NW Suite 4211 Washington, DC 20530 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lawrence G. McPherson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maria-Claudia T. Amato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul A. Quander, Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Stuart Love (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Edward Zielinski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/1997
represented by Richard Stuart Love (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 17 of 119

Date Filed 08/04/1986 08/04/1986 08/04/1986 09/06/1988 11/18/1989
11/21/1989 11/22/1989
11/24/1989 11/28/1989
11/28/1989 11/29/1989 11/29/1989 11/29/1989
11/30/1989

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; summons (2) issued. (srl) (Entered: 08/05/1986)

2 MOTION by Plaintiffs for preliminary injunction ; Memorandum in support of motion; Declaration under Penalty of Perjury of E. Eugene Miller. (srl) (Entered: 08/05/1986)

MOTION by plaintiffs for Class Certification; Memorandum in support of motion. (srl) (Entered: 08/05/1986)

Case reopened (bjl) (Entered: 09/28/1988)

ALL PLEADINGS IN THIS CASE ARE BEING FILED AND DOCKETED IN CA 79-1726. ALL DOCKET ENTRIES PRIOR TO 11/18/89 WILL BE FOUND ON THE PAPER DOCKET. (ajr) (Entered: 11/18/1989)

218 REPLY by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 to response to schedule a hearing (jda) (Entered: 11/21/1989)

MOTION by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 12/5/89 to file a response to plaintiffs' motions for findings of contempt and to adopt the Special Officer's findings of fact and to modify the Consent Decree (jda) (Entered: 11/24/1989)

219 MOTION by defendants JAMES F. PALMER, MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for protective order (jda) (Entered: 11/28/1989)

220 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 12/5/89 to file a response to plaintiffs' motions for findings of contempt and to adopt the Special Officer's findings of fact and to modify the Consent Decree [372-1] by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (jda) (Entered: 11/30/1989)

222 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : defendants' response to motion to shorten time to respond to plaintiffs' discovery requests due 11/27/89 in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (jda) (Entered: 11/30/1989)

MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer for compensation ; Affidavit (jda) (Entered: 11/30/1989)

221 RESPONSE by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion for protective order [3-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv02128 (jda) (Entered: 11/30/1989)

223 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : dismissing, as moot, plaintiffs' motion to document production request; directing parties to appear in Courtroom 7 on 12/15/89 at 10:00 for hearing on plaintiffs' motion to review defendants' plan to address the Court's previous orders in this matter (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/01/1989)

224 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for protective order [219-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv02128, 1:79-cv-01726; staying the depositions of William M. Plaut and

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 18 of 119

11/30/1989 12/01/1989 12/05/1989 12/08/1989
12/11/1989 12/12/1989 12/12/1989 12/12/1989 12/12/1989 12/13/1989 12/14/1989

Walter Ridley noticed for 11/30/89 and 12/1/89, until further order of this court; status hearing set for 3:00 12/4/89 in chambers (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/01/1989)
225 RESPONSE by defendants JAMES F. PALMER, MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to request for production of documents; Attachments (2) (jda) (Entered: 12/01/1989)
DEPOSIT by Corporation Counsel for defendant into the Registry of the Court $3609.75 pursuant to Court's Order of 11/7/89 in CA 80-2136 (jda) Modified on 12/04/1989 (Entered: 12/04/1989)
RESPONSE by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 to plaintiffs' motions for finding of contempt and imposition of sanctions on environmental, medical and mental health issues, and to modify the consent decree's Officer Staffing Requirement (jda) (Entered: 12/06/1989)
226 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay to Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $2,921.97 for services and expenses; payment to be made from $20,000.00 fund established by DC; directing DC to pay $2,921.97 to Clerk of Court by 12/21/89 to return balance to $20,000.00 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (cjp) (Entered: 12/15/1989)
REPLY by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES and TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136to response to motion for finding of contempt and imposition of sanctions response [377-1] by defendant (mf) (Entered: 12/14/1989)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green : reporter: Gloria Williams (cjp) (Entered: 12/15/1989)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green : reporter: G Williams (jda) (Entered: 12/18/1989)
227 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion of plaintiff for Court's adoption of Special Officer's Reports as the Court's Findings of Fact on Environmental Health, Sanitation, Medical Services and Mental Health Programs at Lorton (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/18/1989)
228 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting plaintiffs' motion to Modify Consent Decree's Officer Staffing Requirement; allowing 45 days from date of this Order for defendants and Special Officer to submit a new officer staffing plan to the Court (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/18/1989)
229 RESPONSE by defendants JAMES F. PALMER, MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to deposition questions posed to Director Ridley; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 12/18/1989)
230 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : adopting the Special Officer's Reports as to the Court's Findings of Fact on Environmental Health and Sanitation, Medical Services and Mental Health Programs at Lorton; setting forth time tables, directing defendants to take certain actions regarding Environmental Health and Sanitation, Medical Services and

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 19 of 119

12/15/1989
12/18/1989 12/18/1989 12/18/1989 12/19/1989 12/21/1989
12/21/1989 12/21/1989
12/21/1989 12/29/1989 01/02/1990 01/10/1990 01/16/1990

Mental Health Programs at Lorton Central; directing that full expenses of all foregoing measures shall be borne by the District of Columbia; defendants shall pay plaintiffs' counsel reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with this motion (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/18/1989)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Motion by plaintiff for hearing on "A Plan" for implementation of the Court's Order of 6/30/89 Order heard; Plaintiff shall submit agreed upon Plan by 12/19/89; defendant shal submit supplemental submission by 1/24/89 in CA 862128 reporter: G Williams (jda) (Entered: 12/19/1989)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer for compensation (jda) (Entered: 12/19/1989)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer for an increase in fees (jda) (Entered: 12/19/1989)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco; Special Officer to expend funds ; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 12/19/1989)
231 PROPOSED PLAN by plaintiffs in CA 86-2128 for implementation of the Court's 6/30/89 Order filed nunc pro tunc to 12/14/89; Declarations (5) (fiat) GREEN, J. (jda) (Entered: 12/21/1989)
232 ORDER by Judge June L. Green in CA 86-2128: directing the entry of Agreed Plan as partial satisfaction of the Court's requirement that defendants submit a plan to remedy the unconstitutional conditions found by the Court (N) (jda) Modified on 12/22/1989 (Entered: 12/22/1989)
233 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [171] by Special Officer (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/27/1989)
234 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk to pay Kathryn R. Monaco the total sum of $2,622.50 for services and $1,097.50 for services of the investigative assistant [15-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/27/1989)
235 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for an increase in fees [16-1] of the Special Officer (N) (jda) (Entered: 12/27/1989)
DEPOSIT in CA 79-1726 by defendant DC into the Registry of the Court $2,921.97 pursuant to Court's Order of 12/8/89 (jda) (Entered: 01/03/1990)
236 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants JAMES F. PALMER, MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 of declaration of Renfield Carter (jda) (Entered: 01/03/1990)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 of certification and Department of Corrections, Service Order; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 01/11/1990)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 in response to Court's Order of 12/14/89; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 01/17/1990)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 20 of 119

01/18/1990 01/18/1990 01/18/1990
01/18/1990
01/23/1990 01/24/1990 01/25/1990
01/25/1990 01/26/1990 01/26/1990
01/26/1990 02/05/1990 02/05/1990 02/06/1990

MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer to purchase office equipment (jda) (Entered: 01/19/1990)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer to expend funds (jda) (Entered: 01/19/1990)
237 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Special Officer to purchase certain equipment and present receipts to Clerk of Court for reimbursement or in the alternative, present this order to appropriate DC officials to purchase said equipment and present receipts to Special Officer who will submit said receipts to Clerk of Court [26-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 01/26/1990)
238 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion of Special Officer to make one disbursement of $31,480.00 as soon as possible after date of this Order and equal disbursement of $29,500.00 on 4/1/90, 7/1/90 and 10/1/90 [27-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 01/26/1990)
MOTION by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for attorney fee against defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 ; Affidavit (1); Exhibits (11) (ks) (Entered: 01/25/1990)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer for compensation ; Affidavit (jda) (Entered: 01/26/1990)
239 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn R. Monaco the total sum of $4,333.20 for expenses of Special Officer; said payment shall be made from the $20,000.00 fund established by DC (N) (jda) (Entered: 01/29/1990)
240 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to pay plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $34,810.77 in 1:80-cv-02136 [388-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 01/29/1990)
241 NOTICE OF FILING by parties in 1:86-cv-02128 of supplemental agreed plan for implementation of the Court's 6/30/89 Order (jda) (Entered: 01/29/1990)
242 RESPONSE by defendant JAMES F. PALMER, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to specific provisions of plaintiffs' proposed plan for implementation of the Court's 6/30/89 Order; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 01/29/1990)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 pursuant to Court's Order of 12/12/89; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 01/29/1990)
MOTION by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 2/23/90 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for award of attorney's fees and costs (jda) (Entered: 02/06/1990)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer for compensation ; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 02/07/1990)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 of memoranda

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 21 of 119

02/07/1990
02/07/1990 02/07/1990
02/13/1990 02/15/1990 02/15/1990 02/16/1990 02/16/1990 02/20/1990

pursuant to Court's Order dated 12/14/89 (jda) (Entered: 02/07/1990)
243 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : that the Clerk of the Court pay Kathryn R. Monaco the total sum of $5,429.10, said total includes $4,274.60 for services and expenses of the Special Officer and $1,154.50 for the Services and expenses of the investigative assistant as stated in said motion; Said payment is to be made from the $20,000.00 fund established by the District of Columbia on or about 1/1/89 pursuant to an order by this Court (N) (jda) (Entered: 02/09/1990)
244 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 2/23/90 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for award of attorney's fees and costs [36-1] by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 response to motion due 2/23/90 (N) (jda) (Entered: 02/09/1990)
245 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : in 1:86-cv-02128, supplementing Court's Order of 6/30/89 as follows: (1) defendants shall provide prisoners with 20 ft. candles of light in living areas, including prisoners in lower bunks of double bunks (2) By 4/1/90, defendants shall begin implementing a plan to assure that sleeping prisoners are protected from unnecessary risks of contracting airborne disease, etc., further ordered that if, within 90 days of entry of this Order, defendants fail to comply with the terms of the Court's Order of 12/21/89 as supplemented by this Order sanctions shall automatically be assessed against the defendants in the following amounts: $1,000 per violation per day for any unexcused violation of the provision concerning fire safety or personal safety, and $500.00 per violation per day for any unexcused violation of the provisions concerning environmental health of health care ; Attachment (N) (jda) (Entered: 02/10/1990)
246 REPLY by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 to response by defendants [34-1] to specific provisions of plaintiffs' proposed plan for implementation of the Court's 6/30/89 Order; Attachments (4) (jda) (Entered: 02/14/1990)
MOTION by defendant USA in 1:79-cv-01726 to modify Court Ordered population limit and for expedited response and hearing ; Attachment (jda) (Entered: 02/15/1990)
247 MOTION by defendant JAMES F. PALMER, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to amend Court Ordered population limit and for expedited response and hearing (jda) (Entered: 02/16/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer, Kathryn R. Monaco to transfer funds (jda) (Entered: 02/20/1990)
249 ORDER by Judge George H. Revercomb: directing plaintiffs to respond to defendant's motion for modification of Court Ordered Population Limit and to expedite response and hearing by 2/20/90; setting a hearing on this motion for 2/21/90 at 10:30 (N) (jda) Modified on 02/22/1990 (Entered: 02/22/1990)
248 RESPONSE by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion to modify Court Ordered population limit and for expedited response and hearing [43-1]

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 22 of 119

02/20/1990 02/21/1990 02/21/1990 02/21/1990 02/21/1990
02/22/1990 02/22/1990 02/22/1990 02/23/1990 02/26/1990 03/02/1990 03/06/1990

by USA in 1:79-cv-01726; Attachments (5) (jda) (Entered: 02/20/1990)
MEMORANDUM by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 in opposition to motion to amend Court Ordered population limit and for expedited response and hearing [44-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; Attachments (2) (jda) (Entered: 02/20/1990)
250 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 by Elizabeth Alexander (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Motions by defendants to modify court order population limits at DC Department of Corrections' Occoquan and Maximum Security Facilities heard and denied [43-1] [44-1] reporter: C Gansle (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
251 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying defendants' motions to modify court ordered population limits at the Department of Corrections' Occoquan and Maximum Security Facilities [43-1] [44-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
252 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : that the Clerk transfer one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) from the funds available when a treasury bill matures on 2/22/90 to the checking account of the Special Officer as trustee of the Lorton fund, it is further ordered that any remaining sum after the transfer be re-invested by the Clerk of the Court [46-1] (N) (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
253 TRANSCRIPT (Excerpt) filed for dates of 2/21/90 reporter: C Gansle (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
MOTION by parties in 1:80-cv-02136 for order (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
254 REPLY by defendant JAMES F. PALMER, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to response to defendants' opposition to specific provisions of plaintiffs' proposed plan for implementation of the Court's 6/30/89 Order (jda) (Entered: 02/23/1990)
255 RESPONSE by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion to modify CourtOrdered population limit and for expedited response and hearing; Attachments (5) (fiat) GREEN, J. (jda) (Entered: 02/27/1990)
256 ORDER by Judge June L. Green in CA 80-2136: vacating the Court's Order of 1/25/90, directing defendants to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the sum of $30,000.00 (N) (jda) (Entered: 03/01/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer, Kathryn R. Monaco to transfer funds (jda) (Entered: 03/05/1990)
257 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to transfer funds [561] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk to transfer Two Hundred Thousand dollars ($200,000.00) from funds when a C.D. matures on 4/16/90, to the checking account of Special Officer as trustee of Lorton fund; directing Clerk of Court to re-invest any remaining sum after the transfer (N) (ks)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 23 of 119

03/08/1990
03/12/1990 03/14/1990 03/22/1990
03/29/1990 04/02/1990
04/03/1990 04/04/1990 04/04/1990

(Entered: 03/07/1990)
258 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to modify fire alarm and smoke detection system and to provide a schematic of each dormitory; directing defendants to increased the number of hours a psychiatrist provides service at the facility and to provide certain numbers of officers at Occuquan; denying remainder of specific provisions requested in plaintiffs' proposed plan filed 12/14/89 and 12/19/89; seting sanctions of $1,000.00 per violation per day for each unexcused violation of provisions re: fire safety or personal safety and $500.00 per violation per day for each unexcused violation of any other provision of these orders if defants fail to comply, within 60 days of this Order, with the terms of the 6/30/89 Order as supplemented (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/12/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 03/13/1990)
259 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [591] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing the Clerk of Court to pay Special Officer the sum of $7,360.65 for services and expenses of Special Officer and services and expenses of investigative assistant; payment to be made from $20,000.00 fund established by D.C. (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/19/1990)
260 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : vacating Court's Order of 3/14/90 directing payment of certain expenses; directing the Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn Monaco the sum of $7,360.65 for services and expenses , and directing the District of Columbia to pay the Clerk of Court $13,482.30 by 4/5/90 to reimburse the $20,000.00 fund (Perpetual Savings Acc't #50071687); directing the District of Columbia to pay $7,360.65 to the Clerk of Court by 4/5/90 to reimburse fund (Perpetual Savings Acc't #50072702) (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/27/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $20,000.00 of the Lorton Fund (ajr) (Entered: 03/30/1990)
261 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $20,000.00 of the Lorton Fund [62-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 to the Lorton Art Program, Inc.; directing Clerk of Court to transfer $20,000.00 from Lorton Fund, Perpetual Savings Bank account #50072602 to the checking account of Special Officer and the Special Officer shall make one disbursement of $20,000.00 as soon as possible after this order (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/03/1990)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 of documents pursuant to implementation of Order of 6/30/89. Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 04/04/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to vacate Order of 3/6/90 , and for order directing transfer of funds (ajr) (Entered: 04/04/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 24 of 119

04/04/1990 04/05/1990
04/05/1990
04/05/1990 04/20/1990 04/20/1990 04/20/1990 04/24/1990 04/24/1990

Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 04/04/1990)
MOTION by Special Master Kathryn Monaco to amend order [29-1] (ajr) (Entered: 04/04/1990)
262 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : modifying Court's Order of 3/6/90, to require Clerk of Court to transfer $200,000.00 from maturing certificates of deposit to checking account of Special Officer on or about 6/15/90 instead of 4/16/90; directing Clerk of Court to re-invest remaining sums from maurint certificates of deposit; directing Clerk of Court to transfer $30,000.00 from Perpetual Savings Bank account #50072602 to the checking account of Special Officer (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/06/1990)
263 AMENDED ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Special Officer to purchase office equipment and present receipts to Clerk of Court for reimbursement from $20,000.00 fund established to pay Special Officer's fees and expenses or the Special Officer should present this Order to the appropriate D.C. officials to purchase said equipment and present receipts to the Special Officer, who, after review, will submit them to the Clerk of Court for payment; directing D.C. to pay Clerk an amount equal to expenditures for said equipment in order to return balance in this fund to $20,000.00; this payment be D.C. shall be amde within 14 days of payment by the Clerk (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/06/1990)
264 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay to Kathryn Monaco the sum of $9,733.10 for services and expenses as Special Officer; payment shall be made from $20,000.00 fund pursuant to Order of 9/1/89; directing D.C. to pay $9,733.10 to Clerk of Court to return balance of fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/06/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 04/20/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $1500.00 of the Lorton Fund for supplies for the inmate council (ajr) (Entered: 04/20/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $125,000.00 of the Lorton Fund as follows: $100,000.00 for a Bonding Initiative Program, $10,000.00 for inmate tutoring, $15,000.00 for an intake program Exhibits (3) (ajr) (Entered: 04/20/1990)
265 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $125,000.00 of the Lorton Fund as follows: $100,000.00 for a Bonding Initiative Program, $10,000.00 for inmate tutoring, $15,000.00 for an intake program [73-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Special Officer to make the disbursements as soon as possible after the date of this order (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/25/1990)
266 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : dircting the Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn Monaco the sum of $2,935.34 for services and expenses of Special Officer; payment to be made from $20,000.00 fund; directing D.C. to pay $2,935.34 to the Clerk of Court by 4/30/90 to return balance

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 25 of 119

04/24/1990 05/09/1990 05/11/1990
05/14/1990 05/16/1990
05/24/1990 05/25/1990 05/29/1990 05/31/1990

on deposit in fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/25/1990)
267 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $1500.00 of the Lorton Fund for supplies for the inmate council [72-1] in 1:79-cv01726 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/25/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC of $2,935.34 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 4/24/90 (ajr) (Entered: 05/10/1990)
MOTION by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 to amend order directing defendants to modify fire alarm and smoke detection system and to provide a schematic of each dormitory; directing defendants to increased the number of hours a psychiatrist provides service at the facility and to provide certain numbers of officers at Occuquan; denying remainder of specific provisions requested in plaintiffs' proposed plan filed 12/14/89 and 12/19/89; seting sanctions of $1,000.00 per violation per day for each unexcused violation of provisions re: fire safety or personal safety and $500.00 per violation per day for each unexcused violation of any other provision of these orders if defants fail to comply, within 60 days of this Order, with the terms of the 6/30/89 Order as supplemented [58-1], order [58-2] (ajr) (Entered: 05/14/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for transfer of $175,000.00 from the fund maintained by the Clerk of Court to the Speical Officer's checking account for the Lorton Fund (ajr) (Entered: 05/15/1990)
268 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for transfer of $175,000.00 from the fund maintained by the Clerk of Court to the Speical Officer's checking account for the Lorton Fund [78-1] in 1:79-cv01726 directing that the transfer of funds be made on or about 6/15/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/17/1990)
269 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing parties to confer to attempt to reach an agreement on attorneys' fees and costs issues , and status hearing set for 1:30 6/25/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/30/1990)
MOTION by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to modify the plan for implementation of 6/30/89 Order (ajr) (Entered: 05/30/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 05/30/1990)
270 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of Court to pay to Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $10,604.37 for services and expenses of Special Officer , payment to be made from the $20,000.00 funds extablished pursuant to Court's order of 9/1/89 , and directing DC to pay to the Clerk of Court by 6/14/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 the sum of $10,604.37 to return the balance on deposit to this fund to $20,000.00; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 06/03/1990)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 26 of 119

05/31/1990 06/01/1990
06/12/1990 06/13/1990
06/19/1990 06/19/1990 06/20/1990
06/21/1990 06/21/1990 07/09/1990 07/13/1990 07/18/1990

RESPONSE by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 motion to modify the plan for implementation of 6/30/89 Order [80-1] by DC (ajr) (Entered: 06/05/1990)
271 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to modify the plan for implementation of 6/30/89 Order [80-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 directing the Agreed Plan, Part A, Environmental Health, Section 1: Hygienic Facilities be modified to include the following ratio: one water closet per 8 prisoners with up to one half substitution with urinals; one lavatory (sink) per 8 prisoners and one showerr per 15 prisoners (N) (ajr) (Entered: 06/05/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $35,000.00 of the Lorton Fund for a staff person to operate the Bonding Initiative Program, and to order the transfer of funds to the Special Officer's checking account Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 06/14/1990)
272 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $35,000.00 of the Lorton Fund for a staff person to operate the Bonding Initiative Program, and to order the transfer of funds to the Special Officer's checking account [86-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of Court to transfer $35,000.00 from the Registry of the Court to the Special Officer's checking account as soon as convenient. The special Officedr shall pay to the United Black Fund for the Bonding Initiative Program and shall pay all previously ordered amounts as soon as possible (N) (ajr) (Entered: 06/19/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC into the Registry of the Court of $10,604.37 pursuant to order of 5/31/90 (ajr) (Entered: 06/20/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 06/21/1990)
273 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk to pay Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $3,686.27 for services and expenses of the Special Officer , directing the District of Columbia to pay $3,686.27 to the Clerk of Court by 7/5/90 in order to return the balance on deposit to fund to $20,000.00 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 06/25/1990)
SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing set for 2:00 7/30/90 ; (ks) (Entered: 06/21/1990)
274 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : continuing status hearing, re-set for 2:00 7/30/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 06/25/1990)
DEPOSIT by the defendants into the Registry of the Court of $3,686.27 pursuant to Order of 6/20/90 (ajr) (Entered: 07/10/1990)
STATUS REPORT filed by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco. Exhibits (5) (ajr) (Entered: 07/13/1990)
MOTION Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Affidavit

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 27 of 119

07/20/1990 07/24/1990
07/24/1990
07/30/1990 08/02/1990 08/16/1990 08/27/1990 09/07/1990 09/10/1990 09/10/1990
09/11/1990

(ajr) (Entered: 07/19/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for leave to pay experts Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 07/23/1990)
275 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk to pay to Kathryn Monaoc the sum of $17,852.94 for services and expenses of experts hired by the Special Master from the Fund; directing District of Columbia to reimburse Fund $17,852.94 to reimburse Fund (Perpetual Savings Bank Acct. No. 50072602) by 8/4/90 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 07/25/1990)
276 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk to pay Kathryn Monaco the sum of $15,666.57 for services and expenses of Special Officer and investigative assistants and experts from the Fund; directing District of Columbia to reimburse Fund $15,666.57 in order to return its balance to $20,000.00 by 8/4/90 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 07/25/1990)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 1:00 10/10/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; reporter: G. Slodysko (ajr) (Entered: 08/01/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC into the Registry of the Court of $195.00 pursuant to order of 4/5/90 (ajr) (Entered: 08/03/1990)
RECORD ON APPEAL returned from U.S. Court of Appeals (3) volumes, (12) transcripts and (14) depositions; USCA# 87-5055 & 875295 (ela) (Entered: 08/16/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation--for $12,105.15, including $4,972.65 for Special Officer's services and expenses, $632.50 for investigative assistant, and $6,500.00 for expert consultant Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 08/28/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendant D.C. of $15,666.57 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 7/24/90 (ajr) (Entered: 09/10/1990)
277 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 of change of address for counsel Adjoa Aiyetoro to National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 410, Washington, D.C., 20009, (202) 234-4830 (ker) (Entered: 09/11/1990)
278 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation--for $12,105.15, including $4,972.65 for Special Officer's services and expenses, $632.50 for investigative assistant, and $6,500.00 for expert consultant [96-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn Monaco the sum of $12,105.15 for services and expenses of special Officer, the investigative assistant and the expert consultant, payment is to be made from fund established by D.C.; D.C. shall pay $12,105.15 to Clerk of Court by 9/24/90 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 in order to return fund to balance of $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 09/12/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to transfer $64,000.00 from the Lorton Fund to the Special Master's checking account (ajr)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 28 of 119

09/12/1990 09/24/1990
09/27/1990 10/02/1990
10/09/1990
10/10/1990 10/12/1990

(Entered: 09/12/1990)
279 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to transfer $64,000.00 from the Lorton Fund to the Special Master's checking account [97-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerki of Court to transfer $64,000.00 from the Registry of the Court to special Officer's checking account as soon as convenient; directing Special Officer to pay $34,125.00 to Unfoldment, Inc. and 425,000.00 to D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services as soon as possible. (N) (ajr) (Entered: 09/17/1990)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to order adopting the Special Officer's Reports as to the Court's Findings of Fact on Environmental Health and Sanitation, Medical Services and Mental Health Programs at Lorton; setting forth time tables, directing defendants to take certain actions regarding Environmental Health and Sanitation, Medical Services and Mental Health Programs at Lorton Central; directing that full expenses of all foregoing measures shall be borne by the District of Columbia; defendants shall pay plaintiffs' counsel reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with this motion [14-1], order [14-2] (ajr) (Entered: 09/24/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation of $5,439.58 ($4,904.58 for services and expenses and $535.00 for services of the investigative assistant) (ajr) (Entered: 09/28/1990)
280 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation of $5,439.58 ($4,904.58 for services and expenses and $535.00 for services of the investigative assistant) [101-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk to pay Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $5,439.58 for services and expenses of Special Officer and the investigative assistant; payment to be made out of the $20,000.00 fund established pursuant to Court's order of 9/1/89; directing D.C. to pay $5,439.58 to the Clerk of Court by 10/15/90 to return the balance in the fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 10/04/1990)
281 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : awarding attorney's fees, expenses & costs incurred in litigation of plaintiffs' claims prior to and including 5/11/90 against defendants; DIRECTING District of Columbia to pay National Prison Project of ACLU the sum of $750,000.00; ENTERING JUDGMENT pursuant to Rule 54 of FRCvP and directing that beginning 55 days after entry of this Order, simple interest, pursuant to 28 USC 1961, shall accrue on said sum or any part thereof that remain unpaid; DIRECTING said payment shall constitute full satisfaction of any claims against D.C. defendants that plaintiffs have or may have for attorneys' fees, expenses and costs in this action which claims accrued prior to and including 5/11/90 (N) (ker) (Entered: 10/10/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC in CA 80-2136 of $12,105.15 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 9/10/90 (ajr) (Entered: 10/11/1990)
MOTION by special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $153,498.00 of

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 29 of 119

10/15/1990 10/15/1990
10/18/1990
10/30/1990 11/05/1990 11/05/1990 11/05/1990 11/07/1990
11/07/1990

the Lorton fund as follows: $100,000.00 for the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., and $53,498.00 for the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 10/14/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco pay office expenses from the $20,000.00 fund Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 10/17/1990)
282 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $153,498.00 of the Lorton fund as follows: $100,000.00 for the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., and $53,498.00 for the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives [104-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing that these disbursements shall be made as soon as possible after the date of this order; directing that the Special Officer receive progress reports and report to the Court regarding both of these disbursements (N) (ajr) (Entered: 10/18/1990)
283 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion pay office expenses from the $20,000.00 fund [105-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing the Clerk of Court to pay expenses upon submission by Special Officer of appropriate documentation; directing payment be made from the $20,000.00 fund; directing the District of Columbia to pay into the $20,000.00 fund an amount equal to said expenditures upon notice from the Clerk that payment has been made. Said payment by the District of Columbia to be made within 10 days of the Clerk's notice (N) (ajr) (Entered: 10/22/1990)
DEPOSIT by defendants of $5,439.58 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to Order of 10/2/90 (ajr) (Entered: 11/01/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $75,750.00 of the Lorton Fund for the Black Man's Development Center, Inc. Exhibits (2) (ajr) (Entered: 11/07/1990)
MOTION by special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation of $7,860.40--$5,735.63 for services and expenses, $1,187.00 for services of investigative assistant, and $937.77 for services of expert consultant Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 11/07/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to transfer $80,000.00 from the Lorton Fund to the Special Officer's checking account (ajr) (Entered: 11/07/1990)
284 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to transfer $80,000.00 from the Lorton Fund to the Special Officer's checking account [110-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk of Court to transfer $80,000.00 from the registry of the Court to the Special Master's checking account as soon as convenient; directing Special Master to pay $53,498.00 to NCIA and pay $25,000.00 to D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services, as previously ordered (N) (ajr) (Entered: 11/12/1990)
285 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation of $7,860.40--$5,735.63 for services and expenses, $1,187.00 for services of investigative assistant, and $937.77 for services of expert consultant [109-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk of Court to pay to Kathryn R.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 30 of 119

11/07/1990
12/10/1990 12/13/1990 12/14/1990 12/14/1990 12/17/1990 12/17/1990
12/17/1990 12/17/1990

Monaco the total sum of $7,860.40 for services and expenses as set forth in Special Officer's motion; payment shall be made from the $20,000.00 Fund extablished by D.C. pursuant to Court's order of 9/1/89; directing D.C. to pay $7,860.40 to Clerk of Court by 11/21/90 in order to return balance on deposit in this Fund to $20,000.00 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 11/12/1990)
286 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $75,750.00 of the Lorton Fund for the Black Man's Development Center, Inc. [108-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Special Officer to make one disbursement of $75,750.00 to Black Man's Development Center as soon as possible after the date of this order; Directing Sspecial Officer to receive progress reports and report to the Court re: this program; directing Clerk of Court to transfer $75,750.00 as soon as possible to the Special Officer's checking account (N) (ajr) Modified on 11/12/1990 (Entered: 11/12/1990)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court of $7,860.40 by DC pursuant to order of 11/7/90 (ajr) (Entered: 12/11/1990)
DEPOSIT by D.C. into the Registry of the Court of $675.50 pursuant to order of 10/18/90 (ajr) (Entered: 12/14/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend $5,200.00 of the Lorton Fund (ajr) (Entered: 12/17/1990)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 12/17/1990)
287 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : for expenditure of funds so that the Special Officer may pay for the cost of tests as stated in her motion (N) (ajr) (Entered: 12/18/1990)
288 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing that the clerk of Court pay Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $9,478.32 for services and expenses of the Special Officer, the investigative assistant, and the expert consultant as set forth in the Special Officer's motion. Payment is to be made from the $20,000.00 fund established by the District of Columbia pursuant to the Court's Order of 9/1/89; and it is further ordered that the District of Columbia shall pay $9,478.32 to the Clerk of Court by 1/2/91 in order to return the balance on deposit in this fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 12/18/1990)
MOTION by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for adoption of consent decree amendment on new modular 200 unit (ajr) (Entered: 12/18/1990)
289 CONSENT DECREE amending Final Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree of 4/28/82, the Amended Decree of 8/18/83, and the Amended Decree of 3/4/85. (J.L. GREEN, J.) (N) (ajr) (Entered: 12/18/1990)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 31 of 119

01/04/1991
01/23/1991 01/24/1991 01/29/1991
02/05/1991 02/15/1991
02/22/1991
02/26/1991 03/01/1991
03/05/1991 03/08/1991 03/21/1991

RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to order setting forth instructions and a time schedule for defendants; directing that this Order is without prejudice to plaintiff's right to seek further relief to seek to enforce this Order by future petitions to the Court [424-1] in 1:80-cv02136. Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 01/07/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC of $61.66 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 10/18/90 (ajr) (Entered: 01/24/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco to transfer $10,000.00 into the Special Officer's checking account (ajr) (Entered: 01/25/1991)
290 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to transfer $10,000.00 into the Special Officer's checking account [121-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing the Clerk of Court to transfer ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) as soon as possible to the checking account of the Special Officer as trustee for the Lorton Fund (N) (ajr) (Entered: 01/30/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 02/07/1991)
291 ORDER by Judge June L. Green :directing the Clerk of Court to pay the Special Officer the sum of $19,880.31 for services and expenses from the $20,000.00 fund established by D.C.; directing D.C. to pay $19,880.31 to the Clerk of Court by 2/28/91 in order to return balance on deposit to fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 02/19/1991)
292 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : vacating order [121-1 in CA 79-1726] of 2/15/91 , directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn R. Monaco $19,880.31; directing D.C. pay $19,880.31 to the Clerk of Court by 3/8/91 , and directing DC to pay $9,478.32 to the Clerk of Court by 3/8/91 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 02/25/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer for compensation Affidavit (ajr) (Entered: 02/27/1991)
293 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn Monaco the sum of $19,695.65 for services and expenses; directing that payment be made from Lorton Fund account #50072602; directing the District to pay to the Clerk of the Court $19,695.65 plus interest at the rate of 6.35% from date of this order until the date the amount is deposited with the Clerk; the reimbursement plus appropriate interest shall be paid to the Clerk by 3/15/91 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/01/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC of $29,358.63 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 2/22/91 (ajr) (Entered: 03/06/1991)
DEPOSIT by D.C. into the Registry of the Court of $19,719.96 pursuant to order of 3/5/91 (ajr) (Entered: 03/11/1991)
NOTICE OF FILING by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco of report concerning compliance with the consent decree as it applies to

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 32 of 119

03/21/1991
03/25/1991
03/27/1991 03/28/1991
04/10/1991 04/10/1991 04/11/1991 04/11/1991 04/16/1991

apprenticeship programs at Central Facility. Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for leave to expend $15,000.00 of the Lorton fund on an incentive program at Central Facility, and $15,000.00 of the fund for the Visitors' Services Center, and to order the Clerk to transfer $50,000.00 to the Special Officer's checking account to pay for the incentive program, the award to the Visitors' Center, and other previously ordered expenditures (ajr) (Entered: 03/22/1991)
294 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to expend $15,000.00 of the Lorton fund on an incentive program at Central Facility, and $15,000.00 of the fund for the Visitors' Services Center, and to order the Clerk to transfer $50,000.00 to the Special Officer's checking account to pay for the incentive program, the award to the Visitors' Center, and other previously ordered expenditures [129-1] in 1:79-cv01726 directing the Clerk to transfer fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) as soon as convenient to the checking account of the Special Officer as trustee for the Lorton Fund, and that the Special Officer report to the Court as appropriate (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/26/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation in the amount of $16,194.20 for services and expenses Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 03/29/1991)
295 ORDER by Judge June L. Green :directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn Monaco, Special Officer, the sum of $16,194.20 for services and expenses; payment to be made from $20,000.00 fund established pursuant to order of 9/1/89; directing the District of Columbia to pay $16,194.20 to the Clerk of Court by 4/12/91 in order to return the balance of the fund to $20,000.00 brief due 4/12/91 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 03/29/1991)
STATUS REPORT of Special Officer Kathryn Moncao regarding compliance with the order of 12/14/89. Attachments (12) (ajr) (Entered: 04/11/1991)
296 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 on compliance with the Court's orders of 6/30/89, 2/6/90 and 3/8/90 (ajr) Modified on 04/11/1991 (Entered: 04/11/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC in CA 80-2136 of $16,194.20 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 3/28/91 (ajr) (Entered: 04/11/1991)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, the Special Officer of the Court to expend and traansfer funds (ks) (Entered: 04/12/1991)
297 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend and transfer funds [135-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing Clerk of Court to transfer $20,000.00 to checking account of Special Officer; directing Special

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 33 of 119

04/25/1991 04/26/1991 04/26/1991
04/29/1991 04/29/1991 05/02/1991
05/06/1991 05/10/1991 05/14/1991 05/15/1991

Officer to make one disbursement of $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/18/1991)
MOTION by Special Master Kthryn Monaco for compensation Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 04/26/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer to transfer and expend $27,269.00 of the Lorton Fund for Black Man's Development Center, Inc. Exhibit (ajr) (Entered: 04/29/1991)
298 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : ordered that the Clerk of Court pay Special Officer Kathryn Monaco the sum of $17,640.19 for services and expenses of the Special Officer, the Investigative Assistant and the expert consultants as set forth in the Special Officer's motion. Payment is to be made from the $20,000.00 fund established by the District of Columbia pursuant to the Court's order of 9/1/89; and it is further ordered that the District of Columbia shall pay $17,640.19 to the Clerk of Court by 5/13/91 in order to return the balance on deposit in this fund to $20,000.00 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 04/30/1991)
MOTION by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for the Court's adoption of the Special Officer's report of 4/10/91 as the Court's finding of fact (ajr) (Entered: 05/01/1991)
MOTION by plaintiffs TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for finding of contempt , for sanctions , and for attorney fees Exhibits (7) (ajr) (Entered: 05/01/1991)
299 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to transfer and expend $27,269.00 of the Lorton Fund for Black Man's Development Center, Inc. [138-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 directing Special Officer to report to the Court regarding this program; directing Clerk of Court to transfer $30,000.00 as soon as possible to Special Officer's checking account so Special Officer can make this disbursement (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/02/1991)
300 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for the Court's adoption of the Special Officer's report of 4/10/91 as the Court's finding of fact [140-1] by TWO JOHN DOES, TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:79cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/08/1991)
MOTION by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions and award of attorney's fees to 5/15/91 (ks) (Entered: 05/13/1991)
301 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions and award of attorney's fees to 5/15/91 [450-1] by DC in 1:80cv-02136 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/21/1991)
RESPONSE by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for finding of contempt [447-1] by TWO JOHN DOES, TWELVE JOHN DOES; Exhibits (ks) (Entered: 05/16/1991)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 34 of 119

05/17/1991 05/22/1991
05/31/1991 06/12/1991 06/14/1991 06/17/1991 06/19/1991 06/20/1991 06/21/1991
06/21/1991 06/24/1991

MOTION by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 to hold in abeyance consideration of plaintiffs' motion for contempt , and to extend time to 6/4/91 in which to reply to opposition to said motion (ajr) (Entered: 05/22/1991)
302 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to hold in abeyance consideration of plaintiffs' motion for contempt [145-1] by JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726, granting motion to extend time to 6/4/91 in which to reply to opposition to said motion [145-2] by JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv01726 reply to motion due 6/4/91 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 05/31/1991)
MOTION by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 6/12/91 in which to reply to opposition to plaintiffs' motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions, and awarding of attorneys' fees (ajr) (Entered: 06/05/1991)
JOINT MOTION by the parties in CA 80-2136 for adoption of consent order (ajr) (Entered: 06/14/1991)
MOTION by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to permit defendants not to count residents housed in a newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted (blj) (Entered: 06/19/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer Kathryn Monaco for compensation Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 06/19/1991)
MOTION by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the health care portion of this case (blj) (Entered: 06/25/1991)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer of the Court to expend and transfer funds (blj) (Entered: 06/26/1991)
RESPONSE by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 in opposition to defendants' motion to permit defendants not to count residents housed in a newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted [149-1] by DC (blj) (Entered: 06/25/1991)
305 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion Kathryn R. Monaco, Special Officer of the Court to expend and transfer funds [154-1] in 1:79cv-01726 directing the Clerk of Court to transfer $25,000.00 to the checking account of the Special Master (N) (ajr) (Entered: 07/08/1991)
303 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $16,063.42 for services and expenses of Special Officer, investigative assistant and expert consultants; Payment to be made from $20,000.00 fund; Directing Dist. of Col. to pay $16,063.42 to Clerk of Court by July 9, 1991 in order to return balance on deposit in fund to $20,000.00 [150-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (blj)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 35 of 119

06/25/1991 06/25/1991 07/01/1991 07/01/1991
07/01/1991
07/11/1991 07/11/1991
07/17/1991 07/22/1991 07/22/1991

(Entered: 06/25/1991)
REPLY by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726to response to motion to permit defendants not to count residents housed in a newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted [149-1] by DC (ajr) (Entered: 07/08/1991)
309 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions be imposed at a hearing before this Court scheduled for 7/25/91 at 10:45 a.m. (N) (mbh) (Entered: 07/31/1991)
304 MOTION by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the health care portion of this case to 7/12/91 (mbh) (Entered: 07/05/1991)
306 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : motion hearing set for 10:00 7/11/91 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 to consider defendant's motion to permit defendant not to count residents housed in newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 07/10/1991)
310 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the health care portion of this case to 7/12/91 [304-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (mbh) (Entered: 08/01/1991)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : by DC motion to permit defendants not to count residents housed in a newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted [149-1] heard in 1:79-cv-01726 reporter: K. Moomey (Miller) (ajr) (Entered: 07/12/1991)
307 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion to permit defendants not to count residents housed in a newly added cellblock towards the population cap imposed on the maximum security facility as formerly constituted [149-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 directing that defendants be permitted to operate the newly constructed Cellblock #7 with certain provisions (N) (ajr) (Entered: 07/12/1991)
MOTION by Kathryn R. Monaco, the Special Officer of the Court to expend and transfer funds ; exhibits (2) (cjp) (Entered: 07/19/1991)
NOTICE OF FILING by Special Officer of the Court to withdraw the motion of special officer to expend funds filed 7/17/91 (cjp) (Entered: 07/23/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer to expend funds ; exhibit (1) (cjp) (Entered:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 36 of 119

07/26/1991 07/31/1991 08/01/1991
08/06/1991 08/07/1991
08/12/1991
08/14/1991 08/15/1991 08/15/1991

07/23/1991)
308 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 of withdrawal of motion to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the health care protion of this case; Attachment (mbh) (Entered: 07/29/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer for compensation ; attachments (cjp) (Entered: 08/07/1991)
311 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk to pay Special Officer Kathryn Monaco the sum of $16,188.03 for services and expenses of Special Officer, assistants, and consultants; payment to be made from the $20,000.00 fund , directing defendant DC to pay $16,188.03 to the Clerk of Court by 8/16/91 in order to return the balance of the Fund to $20,000.00 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (ajr) (Entered: 08/02/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer to purchase office equipment ; exhibits (2) (cjp) (Entered: 08/07/1991)
312 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing that the Clerk of Court SHALL NOT TRANSFER certain funds to the Special Officer's checking account, as directed in this Court's order of 6/21/91, but, instead, shall disburse the funds directly to the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc. The clerk shall pay the $25,000.00 installment due on 7/1/91 as soon as practicable. The clerk is directed to pay the final $25,000.00 installment by 10/1/91 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (ajr) (Entered: 08/08/1991)
313 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing that certain computer and office furnishings be purchased jfor the Special Officer and that receipts for same be submitted th Clerk of Court who will pay for same from the Special Fund; directing defendants to pay to Clerk of Court an amount equal to such expenditures to return Special Fund to $20,000.00; directing the Clerk to notify defendants of each payment and the amount and defendants will make a payment to the Clerk within 14 days of said notice (N) (ajr) (Entered: 08/13/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer for compensation (cjp) (Entered: 08/16/1991)
314 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : appointing Grace M. Lopes as Special Officer of the Court; effective 9/9/91; directing defendants to pay certain fees and expenses; setting forthe powers and duties of Special Officer; directing Clerk of Court to make certain payments from the fund in Court's Registry (N) (cjp) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
316 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of Court to Pay Kathryn R. Monaco the sum of $19,228.53 from the fund; directing the District of Columbia to pay $19,228.53 to the Clerk of Court by 8/30/91 (N) (cjp) (Entered: 08/21/1991)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 37 of 119

08/16/1991 08/19/1991 08/20/1991 08/23/1991 08/30/1991 09/12/1991 09/24/1991 09/30/1991 10/08/1991
10/16/1991 10/21/1991 10/30/1991
11/01/1991

315 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion by Special Officer to expend funds [171-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (cjp) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer to expend funds ; exhibit (1) (cjp) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendants RE: parties agree to reduce the number of medical support positions at the Central infirmary to 15 registered nurses (cjp) (Entered: 08/21/1991)
317 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion by special Officer Kathryn Monaco to expend funds to pay $8,899.68 to continue the Bond Iniative Program until 10/15/91; directing that the Special Officer shall make the disbursement (N) (ajr) (Entered: 09/03/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-2136 of $19,288.53 into the Registry of the Court pursuant top order of 8/15/91 (ajr) (Entered: 09/03/1991)
MOTION by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (clv) (Entered: 09/13/1991)
MOTION by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer for compensation ; exhibits (5) (clv) (Entered: 09/27/1991)
NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 of consent decree amendment and and all exhibits; exhibits (2) (cjp) (Entered: 10/02/1991)
318 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA to pay Covington & Burling the sum of Fourty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) in full settlement of fees and costs associated with bringing the contempt motion of 4/29/91 and with monitoring compliance with court's order of 12/14/89 and the Consent Decree, as amended, on or before 11/8/91 (N) (dot) (Entered: 10/10/1991)
MOTION of Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibit (1) (mbh) (Entered: 10/21/1991)
DEPOSIT by defendant/s in CA 80-2136 of $13,634.68 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 9/26/91 (ajr) (Entered: 10/23/1991)
319 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $10,000.88 for services and expenses of herself and her investigative assistant, Lee Coykendall; directing that this amount be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account; directing District of Columbia to pay $10,000.88 to the Clerk of the court in order to replenish the $20,000.00, this is to be done by 11/15/91 (N) (dot) (Entered: 10/30/1991)
MOTION by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for finding of contempt , imposition of sanctions , and for an award of attorney fee (cjp) (Entered:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 38 of 119

11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/13/1991 11/13/1991
11/13/1991
11/18/1991 11/18/1991 11/19/1991 11/20/1991 11/20/1991

11/05/1991)
MOTION by special officer Grace M. Lopes for compensation ; exhibits (3) (cjp) (Entered: 11/12/1991)
320 MOTION by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (cjp) (Entered: 11/12/1991)
321 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : requiring the District of Columbia to pay National Prison Project the sum of thirty nine thousand five hundred and fifty dollars ($39,550.00) in full settlement of claims by plaintiffs' attorney's fees or costs, exclusive of expert fees, from 5/12/90 through 7/31/91 (N) (dot) (Entered: 11/13/1991)
322 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [182-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; requiring Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $13,186.32; payment shall be drawn from the $20,000.00 account fund; the District of Columbia shall pay $13,186/32 to Clerk of the Court to replenish the account fund by 11/26/91 replenish funds due by 11/26/91 (N) (dot) (Entered: 11/13/1991)
RESPONSE by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for finding of contempt [181-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, motion imposition of sanctions [181-2] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:79-cv01726, 1:80-cv-02136, motion for an award of attorney fee [181-3] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv02136 (ajr) (Entered: 11/15/1991)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to shorten time for defendants' response filed in 862128 (cjp) (Entered: 11/21/1991)
323 MOTION by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 for clarification of the terms of the mental health provisions of the Agreed Plan , and to shorten the time in which defendants may respond to this motion Attachment (ajr) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
324 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to shorten the time in which defendants may respond to this motion for clarification [323-2] by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128, 1:79-cv-01726 response to motion due 11/26/91 in 1:86-cv-02128, in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81cv-02072 ; (N) (cjp) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
REPLY by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726to response to motion imposition of sanctions [181-2] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 (kmk) (Entered: 11/22/1991)
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to opposition [186-1] by defendant in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 to plaintiffs' motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanction and award of attorney's fees (kmk) (Entered: 11/22/1991)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 39 of 119

11/22/1991 11/25/1991 11/26/1991
12/04/1991 12/04/1991 12/09/1991 12/12/1991
12/12/1991 12/12/1991 12/19/1991

MOTION by Grace M. Lopes, the appointedd Special Officer to expend funds (clv) (Entered: 11/26/1991)
REPLY by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant USA in 1:79-cv01726to response to motion for clarification of the terms of the mental health provisions of the Agreed Plan [188-1] by plaintiff; exhibit (1) (dot) (Entered: 12/04/1991)
325 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk to issue check to Special Officer Grace Lopes drawn on the Lorton Fund in the amount of $15,848.55; directing Special Officer to deposit this amount in her account (N0. 86790284) and pay Westlaw $24,394.93 as compensation for services; directing defendants to reimburse Lorton Fund by 12/13/91 in the amount of $1,957.55 reimburse of funds due by 12/13/91 in 1:79cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (dot) (Entered: 11/27/1991)
326 REPLY by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 in support of motion for clarification of the terms of the mental health provisions of the Agreed Plan [323-1] by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128, 1:79-cv-01726 (cjp) (Entered: 12/05/1991)
STATUS REPORT by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 RE: individuals have been selected for the vacant facilities management positions, that those selected have accepted the offer of employment and will commence work at the facility beginning 12/16/91 (cjp) (Entered: 12/05/1991)
MOTION by Special Officer for compensation ; exhibits (4) (cjp) (Entered: 12/10/1991)
327 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $22,522.52 for her services and expenses, those of her investigative assistant, her expert consultant and former Special Officer Monaco's investigative assistant; Further directing that payment in the sum of $7,057.44 for fees and expenses of Ms. Lopes' expert consultant and Ms. Monaco's investigative assistant be drawn from Perpetual Savings Account Number 500-726-02; Directing that the District of Columbia pay $7,057.44 to the Clerk of Court by 12/30/91 to replenish Account Number 500-727-02; Further ordering that payment of fees and expenses of Special Officer Lopes and Ms. Coykendall, in the sum of $15,465.08 be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account; Further directing District of Columbia to pay $15,465.08 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 account by 12/30/91. (N) (dot) (Entered: 12/13/1991)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : reporter: Laura Beasley (cjp) (Entered: 12/16/1991)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to comply with the Court's instructions within time contraints as set forth in this order (N) (cjp) (Entered: 12/16/1991)
MOTION by the Special Officer appointed by the Court to expend

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 40 of 119

12/19/1991
12/20/1991 12/23/1991 12/27/1991 01/04/1992
01/06/1992 01/07/1992 01/09/1992 01/10/1992 01/13/1992
01/13/1992

funds ; exhibits (2) (clv) (Entered: 12/19/1991)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [4871]; directing that Special Officer disburse $38,472.00 to the National Center for Institutions and alternatives as soon as possible after the date of this order; directing that Special Officer receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement (N) (cjp) (Entered: 12/24/1991)
FIRST REPORT OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER, GRACE M. LOPES, on The Modular 200 reception and diagnostic unit; exhibits (14) (filed in C.A. 80-2136) (mbd) Modified on 01/13/1992 (Entered: 01/13/1992)
DEPOSIT by defendant in the amount of $1,957.55 pursuant to the Court's Order of 11/26/91 (clv) (Entered: 12/27/1991)
MOTION filed by plaintiffs TWO JOHN DOES, TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for the adoption of the Special Officer's Report of 12/20/91 as the Court's findings of fact (ajr) (Entered: 12/30/1991)
341 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 1/11/93, to respond to plaintiffs' motion to show cause [340-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, granting motion for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the Health Case portion of this case [261-1] by plaintiff(s)ssssssssssssss in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/05/1993)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 pursuant to the Court's order of 12/12/91 (cjp) (Entered: 01/08/1992)
DEPOSITS in the amounts of $7,057.44 and $15,465.08 pursuant to the Courts order of 12/12/91 by the defendant (clv) (Entered: 01/08/1992)
MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions , and for award of attorneys' fees (cjp) (Entered: 01/10/1992)
MOTION by Special Officer filed for compsenation ; exhibits (2) (cjp) (Entered: 01/16/1992)
328 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of the court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $15,925.15 for services and expenses; directing that payment of fees and expenses of Lope and Coykendall be drawn from $20,000.00 fund account; directing the District of Columbia to pay $15,925.15 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund by 1/27/92; to replenish the fund by 1/27/92 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (dot) (Entered: 01/13/1992)
329 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting in part, denying in part motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions [201-] and award of attorneys' fees [201-2] ; the Court finds defendants in contempt of its orders, but declines to impose a monetary sanction; the Court also grants

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 41 of 119

01/28/1992 01/29/1992
01/30/1992 02/04/1992 02/05/1992 02/06/1992 02/11/1992
02/11/1992 02/11/1992
02/24/1992 03/05/1992

plaintiffs' motion for award of attorney fees; directing defendants pay plaintiffs' counsel their reasonable attornyes' fees and costs associated with bringing this contempt motion; directing parties to negotiate concerning the amount of this fee award in 1:79-cv-01726, (N) (cjp) (Entered: 01/17/1992)
MOTION by Grace M. Lopes, the Special Officer for compensation ; attachment (clv) (Entered: 01/29/1992)
330 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $8,199.70 for services and expenses of her expert Dr. Robert Cohen; directing payment be made from Perpetual Account Number 500-726-02; directing District of Columbia to pay $8,199.70 to Clerk of Court to replenish said account by 2-14-92. replenish funds due 2/14/92 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86cv-02128 ; (N) (dot) (Entered: 01/30/1992)
DEPOSIT by defendants in CA 80-2136 of $15,925.15 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 1/13/92 (ajr) (Entered: 01/31/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) in 1:80-cv02136, defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) in 1:80-cv-02136 for adoption of consent order on the operation of the diagnostic unit (cjp) (Entered: 02/07/1992)
MOTION by Special Officer filed for compensation ; attachments (cjp) (Entered: 02/10/1992)
CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : setting forth a schedule for compliance by defendants; and instructions to plaintiffs and the special officer (N) (cjp) (Entered: 02/11/1992)
331 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing clerk to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $18,107.31 for services and expenses for her and her investigative assistant; directing that payment of fees and expenses be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund; directing that the District of Columbia pay $18,107.31 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by 2/24/92 replenish of fund due 2/24/92 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (dot) (Entered: 02/11/1992)
332 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge June L. Green (N) (dmb) (Entered: 02/18/1992)
333 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting plaintiffs' motion to clarify; accompanying memorandum clarifies the Court's Order of 12/21/89; denying plaintiffs' request for discovery concerning Correctional Treatment Facility (N) (lpp) Modified on 03/03/1992 (Entered: 02/26/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 for adoption of consent order temporarily amending 12/17/90 consent decree (sm) (Entered: 02/24/1992)
334 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for adoption of

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 42 of 119

03/09/1992 03/10/1992 04/15/1992 05/18/1992
05/21/1992 05/28/1992
06/09/1992 06/10/1992
07/02/1992 07/07/1992 07/24/1992

consent order temporarily amending 12/17/90 consent decree [211-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (sm) (Entered: 03/06/1992)
DEPOSIT by defendant District of Columbia the sum of $260.27 into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 4/5/90 (sm) (Entered: 03/09/1992)
MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibits (3) (sm) (Entered: 03/10/1992)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing District of Columbia to pay Covington & Burling the sum of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000.00) in full settlement of fees and costs; (N) (clv) (Entered: 04/15/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 5/22/92, to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for finding of contempt, imposition and sanctions and award of attorneys'fees for medical and mental health conditons at Lorton Central Facility (lpp) (Entered: 05/20/1992)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court to expend funds Exhibits: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 05/27/1992)
MOTION (consent) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 6/5/92 to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for finding of contempt, imposition of sanctions and award of attorneys' fees for medical and mental health conditions at Lorton Central Facility (cjp) (Entered: 06/03/1992)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court for special officer for compensation Exhibits (3) (lpp) Modified on 06/10/1992 (Entered: 06/10/1992)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $22,799.84 for services and expenses; directing that payment in the amount of $17,587.51 for fees and expenses of Special Officer Lopes and Ms. Coykendall be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account established by previous orders of this Court; directing the District of Columbia shall pay $17,587.51 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the $20,000.00 fund by June 26, l992; directing that payment in the amount of $5,212.33 for services and expenses of Dr. Robert Cohen and Dr. Cassandra Newkirk be drawn from the Perpetual/Crestar Savings Account; directing that the District of Columbia pay $5,212.33 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Perpetual/Crestar account by June 26, l992. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/11/1992)
MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 7/31/92, to file proposed procedure to facilitate the special officer's ability to contract (lpp) (Entered: 07/07/1992)
MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation Exhibits (5) (lpp) (Entered: 07/09/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 43 of 119

08/06/1992 08/10/1992 08/13/1992 08/28/1992 09/02/1992
09/08/1992 09/09/1992 09/18/1992 09/23/1992
09/23/1992
09/24/1992

9/15/92 to file a quality assurance plan with the Court (ks) (Entered: 07/27/1992)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, the Special Officer for compensation Exhibits; (5) (lpp) (Entered: 08/06/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 9/11/92 to submit a revised draft of the plans and 9/18/92 to finalize plans (lpp) (Entered: 08/11/1992)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 9/11/92 to submit a revised draft of the plans and 9/18/92 to finalize plans [525-1] by DC in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 08/13/1992)
MOTION filed by Special Officer to award contingent and restricted funding Exhibits: (3) (lpp) Modified on 09/04/1992 (Entered: 09/04/1992)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting motion of Special Officer to award contingent and restricted funding; setting forth instructions to the Special Officer and directing the Clerk of the Court to deposit $60,000.00 from the Lorton Fund into the Speccial Officer's checking account.(N) : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
MOTION filed by Special Officer appointed Grace M. Lopes for special officer for compensation for special officer for compensation Exhibits: (4) (lpp) (Entered: 09/10/1992)
JOINT MOTION by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) in for adoption of consent decree amendment regarding modular 200 unit (lpp) (Entered: 09/09/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to submit its plan 10/20/92 (dcn) (Entered: 09/21/1992)
335 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time for filing a plan addressing the special needs of physically handicapped inmates be extended to 9/25/92, special medical diets plan be filed by 10/20 /92; plan for implementation of a computerized pharmacy system be filed 10/2/92 draft being provided to plaintiffs and the Special Officer by 9/25/92, and the Special Officer's report on whether masters degree social workers should continue to staff psychologist's positions be extended unitl 9/25/92 [533-1] by DC in 1:80-cv-02136 due by 10/20/92 in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 09/24/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 10/20/92, to submit its plan to address and remedy general maintenance and structural deficiencies in Dorm 20 and Infirmary and the Special Officer's report on whether masters degree social workers should continue to staff psychologist's positions (lpp) (Entered: 09/24/1992)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 10/20/92, to submit its plan to address and remedy general maintenance

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 44 of 119

10/09/1992 11/05/1992 11/20/1992 11/25/1992
11/30/1992 11/30/1992 12/09/1992 12/11/1992
12/15/1992
12/23/1992 01/11/1993 01/11/1993 01/15/1993

and structural deficiencies in Dorm 20 and Infirmary and the Special Officer's report on whether masters degree social workers should continue to staff psychologist's positions [537-1] by DC in 1:80-cv02136, granting motion to extend time to submit its plan 10/20/92 [2481] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/24/1992)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer, for compensation (lpp) (Entered: 10/13/1992)
336 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion [541-1] in 1:80-cv02136 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 11/06/1992)
MOTION filed by Special Officer, Grace M. Lopes to expend funds , Exhibits: (3) (lpp) Modified on 11/24/1992 (Entered: 11/23/1992)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [5441]; the Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a check for $20,000.00 to the Special Officer for deposit in the Special Officer's checking account as soon as funds become available; Special Officer is directed to make full disbursement of this sum to the National Women's Law Center; Special Officer shall receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement (N) (lpp) (Entered: 11/25/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys'fees (lpp) (Entered: 12/01/1992)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 4/15/93, to file a quality assurance plan (lpp) (Entered: 12/01/1992)
337 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for sadoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (lpp) (Entered: 12/10/1992)
338 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the District of Columbia to pay the National Prison Project the sum of $26,400.00, and it is further ordered, payment shall be in full settlement of any claims by plaintiffs for attorneys' fees or costs (N) (lpp) (Entered: 12/13/1992)
339 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) in 1:86-cv-02128 for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the Health Case portion of this case (lpp) (Entered: 12/16/1992)
340 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 1/11/93, to respond to plaintiffs' motion to show cause (lpp) (Entered: 12/24/1992)
342 RESPONSE by defendants in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt [339-1] by plaintiffs; Exhibits (5) (ks) (Entered: 01/13/1993)
MOTION filed by Special Officer of the Court for Compensiation ; Exhibits (4) (ks) (Entered: 01/13/1993)
343 REPLY by plaintiff(s) in 1:86-cv-02128 to response to the Health Care

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 45 of 119

02/12/1993
02/12/1993 02/17/1993
02/18/1993 02/25/1993 02/25/1993 03/02/1993 03/08/1993 03/10/1993 03/10/1993 03/19/1993

Portion of this Casei, Exhibit (2) (lpp) (Entered: 01/25/1993)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Compensiation [263-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M.Lopes the sum of $14,961.92 for her services and expenses and that the payment be drawn from the $20,000. fund established by previous orders; further ordered that the District of Columbia pay $14,961.92 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the $20,000. fund by 3/1/93; directing Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $14,276.25 for services and expenses of her investigative assistant and her expert consultant; directing that this payment be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account established by previous orders of this Court; directing the District of Columbia to pay $14,276.25 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the Crestar Savings Account bty 3/1/93. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
344 MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation Exhibits (3) (lpp) (Entered: 02/16/1993)
345 ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing that pltf's medical expert shall visit the medical facility at the Occoquan Complex and prepare an updated report by 3-1-93; setting a hearing at 2:00 P.M. March 8, l993, on pltf's motion to show cause why defts. should not be held in contempt; directing that pltf's medical expert be available to give testimony at the hearing. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/17/1993)
346 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiff(s) in 1:86-cv-02128 of Mary Jane Viveros and Dr. William H. Hall (lpp) (Entered: 02/19/1993)
347 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant DC for protective order (jeb) (Entered: 02/26/1993)
348 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by District of Columbia of plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Charles Braslow. (jeb) Modified on 02/26/1993 (Entered: 02/26/1993)
349 MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to within which it must submit its plan on addressing special needs of physically handicapped inmates (lpp) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
350 NOTICE by plaintiff(s) in 1:86-cv-02128 of withdrawal of motion to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the Health Care portion of this case (lpp) (Entered: 03/09/1993)
351 ORDER by Judge June L. Green approving pltffs' notice of withdrawal and the letter of agreement becomes an order of this Court; Attachment: letter of agreement. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/10/1993)
352 MOTION filed by special Officer for Compensation , Exhibits: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 03/11/1993)
353 MOTION filedi Grace M. Lopes, to expend funds , Exhibits: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 03/22/1993)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 46 of 119

04/05/1993
04/09/1993 04/14/1993 04/20/1993
04/20/1993 04/21/1993 04/22/1993 04/26/1993

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [2721] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136: Clerk of the Court will pay the sum of $30,587.64 for her services and expenses and staff; Further Ordered that payment in the amount of $16,788.95 for the fees and expenses of Ms. Lopes be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account extablished by previous order of this Court; Further Ordered the District of Columbia shall pay $16,788.95 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account; Further ordered that payment in the amount of $13,798.69 for the services and expenses of Ms. Coykendall and Dr. Shansky be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; Further Ordered that the District of Columbia shall pay $12,798.69 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/05/1993)
354 MOTION filed by Special Master Grace M. Lopes for return of Funds Exhibit: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 04/12/1993)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for return of Funds [567-1; the United Black fund shall deposit the full balance in all accounts maintained for the Bonding Initiative Program into the Registry of the Court; the Department of Corrections and the United Black Fund shall promptly deposit into the Registry of the Court all fees collected from BIP Program participants in the future (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
355 ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing that the August 15, l993 Order does not authorize Special Officer Lopes to perform judicial functions in the above captioned cases; directing the Special Officer's findings of fact and recommendations have been and shall continue to be treated as advisory in nature; directing that the Court shall continue to make all determinations in the above captioned cases upon full consideration of the Special Officer's report and all information, including filed papers and testimony provided by the parties in each case. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 04/21/1993)
356 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) in 1:86-cv-02128 for order to show cause regarding mental health , Exhibits: (16), Bulky pleading (lpp) (Entered: 04/21/1993)
358 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for adoption of consent odecree amending final settlement and consent decree of 3/23/84 and the order of 7/11/91 , Attachment (1) (lpp) (Entered: 04/23/1993)
357 CONSENT DECREE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726, Amending Final Settlement and Consent Decree of March 23, l984 and the Order of July 11, l991, Attachments, Fiat (lpp) (Entered: 04/22/1993)
359 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: this Court's 9/1/92 order is vacated, Clerk of the Court shall promptly return these funds to the general Lorton Funds accounts (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/26/1993)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 47 of 119

04/26/1993 04/26/1993 04/26/1993 05/03/1993 05/03/1993 05/07/1993 05/07/1993 05/11/1993
05/13/1993 05/24/1993 05/24/1993

360 MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court to vacate the 9/1/92, Order , Exhibit: (1) (lpp) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
361 MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court to expend funds , Exhibits: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
NOTICE OF FILING of the Special Officer's recommondations concernings the 4/21/93 proposed amendment to the consent decrees (dmb) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
362 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for protective order (lpp) (Entered: 05/04/1993)
363 RESPONSE by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion for order to show cause regarding mental health [356-1] by plaintiff(s) (lpp) (Entered: 05/04/1993)
364 MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court, for Compensation Exhibits: (3) (lpp) (Entered: 05/10/1993)
365 NOTICE by Grace M. Lopes, special Officer of the Court, Exhibit (1) (lpp) (Entered: 05/10/1993)
366 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for Compensation [288-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:81-cv-02072, 1:86-cv02128, the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,251.22 for her services and expenses and Dr. Ronald Shanksy's expenses, this payment shall be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account established by previous orders of this Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $19,251.22 to the Clerk of the COurt in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by 5/21/93; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $11,718.33 for the services and expenses of her investigative assistant and expert consultant; this payment shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; Further Ordered the District of columbia shall pay $11,718.33 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 5/21/93 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 05/12/1993)
367 REPLY by plaintiff(s) in 1:86-cv-02128to response to motion for protective order [362-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (lpp) (Entered: 05/14/1993)
368 pltffs' motion to show cause regarding mental health for JUNE 24, 1993 at 10:00 A.M. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/24/1993)
369 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to enlarge the tiem wihin which defendant must submit its plan on addressing the special needs of physically handicapped inmates; Further Ordered that time for defendant to submit its written evaluation of the care, services and physical facilities is extended to 3/30/93; a draft of the final plan to address the special needs of the physically handicapped at the Central

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 48 of 119

06/02/1993 06/04/1993 06/08/1993
06/09/1993 06/23/1993 07/01/1993 07/01/1993
07/07/1993 07/08/1993

Faciity is to be provided to plaintiffs and the Special Officer by 4/30/93 and Final draft of the plan by 5/31/93 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
370 MOTION filed to continue hearing date (lpp) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
372 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to continue hearing date [370-1] in 1:86-cv-02128, 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:81-cv02072 motion hearing set for 7/1/93 in 1:86-cv-02128, in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072 ; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Compensation [288-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136; that the Clerk of Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,356.32 for her services and expenses and the sum of $20,244.46 for the services and espenses of her investigative assistants and her expert consultant; Ordered that the DC shall pay $17,356.32 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the 20,000.00 fund account by 6/21/93, and pay $20,244.46 to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 6/21/93 (N) (ks) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
371 MOTION filed by Special Master Grace M. Lopes, to Expend funds (lpp) (Entered: 06/11/1993)
373 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED 7/1/93: SURREPLY by defendants JAMES F. PALMER and MARION S. BARRY JR. to plaintiffs' reply to defendants' response regarding mental health; exhibit. (bm) Modified on 07/01/1993 (Entered: 06/24/1993)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green: (see order) Reporter: Gloria William (lpp) (Entered: 07/01/1993)
374 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: Stricking defendants' surreply from the record; denying plaintiffs' motion to hold defendants in contempt; Parties shall meet with Special Officer Grace Lopes to discuss the delivery of mental health services to acutely mentally ill residents of the Occoquan Facility of Lorton Reformatory; dismissing motion for protective order by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER [362-1] (lpp) (Entered: 07/01/1993)
MOTION filed by Special Officer, Grace M. Lopes, for Compensation, Exhibits: (5) (lpp) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
375 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for Compensation [288-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:81-cv-02072, 1:86-cv02128; the Clerk of the Court will pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,348.32 for her services and expenses and Dr. Ronald Shanksy's services and expenses; Payment should be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account established by previous orders of this Court; D.C. shall pay $18,348.32 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 found account by the 7/23/93; the Clerk of the Court will shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $15,955.00 for the services and expenses of her investigative assistants and Dr. Goulda Downer's services and expenses; this payment be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; Further Ordered the District of Columbia shall pay $15,955.00 to the Clerk of the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 49 of 119

07/08/1993 08/10/1993 08/11/1993
08/18/1993
08/18/1993 09/08/1993
09/08/1993 09/09/1993

Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 7/23/93 (N) (lpp) Modified on 07/08/1993 (Entered: 07/08/1993)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the clerk of the Court to disburse a check in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 from the Lorton Fund to purchase fans for the Maximum Security Facility; check shall be made payable to vendor; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 07/12/1993)
MOTION filed by Special Officer Grace M. Lopes for compensation , Exhibit: (4) (lpp) (Entered: 08/11/1993)
376 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [301-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $13,996.70 for the services and expenses of her investigative assistants; the District of Columbia shall pay $13,996.70 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,00.00 fund account; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $24,095.06 for her services and expenses and Dr. Robert Cohen's services and expenses; the District of Columbia shall pay $24,095.06 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account (N) (lpp) (Entered: 08/12/1993)
377 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion Expend funds [584-1] in 1:80-cv-02136, [295-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, [179-1] in 1:81-cv-02072, [371-1] in 1:86-cv-02128; Special Officer shall issue a check in the amount of $1,666.99 that is drawn from her trustee checking account directly to the Springfield, Hilton Hotel and Springfield, Virginia in order to subsidize the cost of the mental health transfer workship; the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check from the Lorton Fund to the Special Officer in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars in order to subsidize the expenses of the tool and key control training; the Special officer shall pay the expenses of the tool and key control training from the above-stated disbursement following receipt and review of all appropriate receipts and invoices (N) (lpp) (Entered: 08/18/1993)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes to expend funds , Exhibits (4) (lpp) (Entered: 08/19/1993)
378 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant and Judge June L. Green : that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $10,605.00 for the services and expenses of Ms. Coykendall, Mr. Roche and Dr. Downer; that the District of Columbia shall pay $10,605.00 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00 fund account by 9/22/93; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $25,790.39 for her services and expenses and Dr. Belitsky's services and expenses; and that the District of Columbia shall pay $25,790.39 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 9/22/93 (N) (Original filed in CA 1462-71) (ks) Modified on 09/09/1993 (Entered: 09/09/1993)
MOTION filed by Special Master Grace m. Lopes for compensation (lpp) (Entered: 09/09/1993)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Master to expend fund,

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 50 of 119

09/14/1993 09/14/1993
10/04/1993 10/12/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 11/08/1993 11/09/1993
12/15/1993 12/15/1993
02/09/1994

Appendix (lpp) (Entered: 09/10/1993)
MOTION filed Special Master Grace M. Lopes to expend funds , Exhibit (2) (lpp) (Entered: 09/15/1993)
379 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [5951] in 1:80-cv-02136; the Clerk of the COurt shall issue a check in the amount of $1000.00 to the Special Officer which the Spcial Officer shall deposit in her trustee checking account; the Special Officer shal disburse this sum to Physician Assistant Eleanor Engeti (N) (lpp) (Entered: 09/15/1993)
DEPOSIT of $25,790.39 and $10,605.00 by Corporation Counsel pursuant to Order of 9/8/93 (ks) (Entered: 10/05/1993)
380 MOTION filed by Special Officer for Compensation , Exhibits: (6) (lpp) (Entered: 10/13/1993)
STATUS REPORT by plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 (lpp) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
STATUS REPORT by plaintiff(s) TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (lpp) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
MOTION filed by Special Master Grace M. Lopes for compensation , Exhibits (2) (lpp) (Entered: 11/09/1993)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [310-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,687.90 from the $20,000.00 fund account, established by previous orders, for services and expenses; directing D.C. to pay 18,687.90 to Clerk of Court by 11/19/93; directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes $13,502.97 from the Crestar Savings Account, established by previous orders, for services and expenses of Ms. Coykendall and Mr. Roche; directing D.C. to pay $13,502.97 to Clerk of Court by 11/19/93 (N) (ab) Modified on 11/10/1993 (Entered: 11/10/1993)
MOTION filed for compensation; exhibits (6) (pm) (Entered: 12/16/1993)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation; [312-1] directing that the Clerk of Court pay Grace Lopez $15,491.21 for services and expenses and DC shall pay $15,491.21 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the fund account. The Clerk of Court shall pay Grace Lopez $12,941.00 for services and expenses of Ms. Coykendall, Ms. Schneider, Dr.Cohen, Dr. Downer and Mr. Roche and DC shall pay $12,941.00 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 12/31/93 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (pm) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
381 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (lpp) (Entered: 02/10/1994)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 51 of 119

02/10/1994
04/06/1994
04/08/1994 04/11/1994 04/12/1994 04/12/1994 04/14/1994 05/09/1994 05/19/1994 05/19/1994

382 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion by the parties for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees [381-1] directing that the District of Columbia pay the National Prison Project the sum of fortysix thousand six hundred and twenty-one dollars ($46,621.00); directing that the payment shall be in full settlement of any claims by plaintiffs for atorneys' fees or costs that may be asserted in this matter for the time period from August 1, 1992 through August 31, 1993. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/14/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for [610-1], the Clerk of the Court shall issue four checks in the amount of $688.00 from the Crestar Account paid to the order of the following Department of Corrections employees who have been designated as participants in the American Correctional Health Association 1994 Multidisciplinary Training Conference; these checks shall be issued by the Clerk of the Court on an expedited basis directly to Grace M. Lopes; Grace M. Lopes shall promptly distribute the checks; participants shall provide documentation of their expenses to the Special Officer within ten days following the attendance of the training conference (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
383 STIPULATION filed and fiated by Judge June L. Green regarding mental health compliance. (N). (bjl) (Entered: 04/08/1994)
MOTION filed by Special Master Grace M. Lopes for compensation Exhibits (4) (lpp) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [325-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/15/94 [323-1] by DC response to motion(s) due by 4/15/94 ; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 4/21/94, to submit its response to plaintiff's contempt motion (lpp) (Entered: 04/15/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : hearing on the Motion fo rFinding of Contempt and Imposition of Sanctions set for 10:00 6/7/94 ; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 05/10/1994)
JOINT STIPULATION filed regarding automatic fines for expired drugs. (N) (bm) (Entered: 05/20/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [334-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 the Clerk of the Court will pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $16,357.43; payment will be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account; the District of Columbia shall pay $16,357.43 to the Clerk of the Court replenish the $20,000.00 fund account; the Clerk of Court will pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,760.28 for the services and expenses of Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Robert L. Cohen, payment will be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; D.C.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 52 of 119

05/27/1994 06/02/1994
06/10/1994 06/14/1994 07/05/1994 07/05/1994 07/06/1994
09/09/1994 09/09/1994 10/14/1994 10/18/1994 10/20/1994

shall pay $19,760.28 to the Clerk of the Court in order to treplenish the Crestar Savings Accountby 6/2/94 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 05/23/1994)
MOTION filed by Special Officer to expend funds ; exhibits (3). (bm) (Entered: 06/01/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds [6171] in 1:80-cv-02136; the clerk of the Court shall ssue a check to the Special Officer in the amount of $25,000.00 which the Special Officer shall deposit in her trustee checking account; the Special Officer shall make full disbursement of the sum to the Lorton Art Program, Inc., for the operating costs incurred during the period commencing on 6/1/94 and ending on 5/31/95; and it is further ordered that the Special Officer shall received periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/03/1994)
MOTION filed by Special Master Grace Lopez for compensation , Exhibits (4) (lpp) (Entered: 06/15/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [339-1] in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (lpp) Modified on 07/22/1994 (Entered: 06/15/1994)
DEPOSIT by Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia into the registry of the Court the sum of $20,329.52. (jeb) (Entered: 07/06/1994)
DEPOSIT by Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia for the D.C. Department of Corrections the sum of $20,671.94 in the registry of the Court. (jeb) (Entered: 07/06/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,407.63 for her services and expenses as well as Dr. Downer's services and expenses; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $27,315.26 for the services and expenses of Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, Dr. Belitsky, and Dr. Cohen (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N)(ks) Modified on 07/22/1994 (Entered: 07/15/1994)
STATUS REPORT by plaintiff(s) JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 (lpp) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
STATUS REPORT by plaintiff(s) TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff(s) TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (lpp) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
MOTION filed by Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer, for protective order , Exhibits (5) (lpp) (Entered: 10/17/1994)
MOTION filed by special master, Grace M. Lopes, for compensation (lpp) (Entered: 10/19/1994)
COPY OF ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [350-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,265.15

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 53 of 119

10/20/1994 12/01/1994 12/13/1994 12/19/1994 02/10/1995 02/14/1995
03/03/1995 03/10/1995 03/14/1995 03/15/1995 04/04/1995 05/08/1995

for her services and expenses; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lpes the sum of $32,408.21 for the services and expenses of Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, Mr. Hayes, Dr. Belitsky, Mr. Balsamo and Mr. Henderson (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 10/21/1994)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Carrie Gansle (jeb) (Entered: 10/21/1994)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : vacating without prejudice the Court's Order of 10/24/94 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 12/02/1994)
NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of John Thomas by plaintiff in 1:79cv-01726. (bm) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
384 STIPULATION filed and fiated by Judge June L. Green regarding mental health compliance. (N) (ted) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
TRANSCRIPT filed for status hearing held on 10/20/94. Reporter: Carrie Gansle (lpp) (Entered: 02/13/1995)
385 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [365-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lpes the sum of $17,590.90 for her services and expenses amd services of Mr. Lindsay Hayes; this payment shall be drawn from the $20,000.00 fund account established by previous order; D.C. shall pay $17,590.90 the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000.00; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $27,768.40 for the services and expenses of Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, Mr. Henderson and the law firm of Zuckerman, Spaeder, Goldstein, Taylor and Kolker, and it is further ordered payment shall be drawn from the Crestar Savigns Account; D.C. shall pay $27,768.40 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings Account by 2/28/95 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 02/21/1995)
386 MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 for attorney fee and expenses for post Judgment monitoring , Declarations (5) (lpp) (Entered: 03/06/1995)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 3/24/95 to file response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt (ted) (Entered: 03/13/1995)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 3/28/95 to file response to contempt motion (ted) (Entered: 03/15/1995)
387 Text not available. (Entered: 03/16/1995)
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 by Jacques P. Lerner (lpp) (Entered: 04/09/1995)
388 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to stay discovery pending the Court's decision on plaintiffs' motion for an order to show cause why defendants' should not be held in contempt of Court (lpp)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 54 of 119

05/08/1995 05/08/1995 05/24/1995 05/25/1995
05/26/1995
06/01/1995 06/05/1995 06/14/1995 06/26/1995 06/30/1995

(Entered: 05/09/1995)
389 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for protective order (lpp) (Entered: 05/09/1995)
390 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 5/26/95, to response to plaintiffs' Motion for order to show cause (lpp) (Entered: 05/09/1995)
391 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 5/26/95, to response to plaintiffs' Motion for order to show cause [390-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/24/1995)
392 RESPONSE by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion for protective order [389-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER, motion to stay discovery pending the Court's decision on plaintiffs' motion for an order to show cause why defendants' should not be held in contempt of Court [388-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (lpp) (Entered: 05/26/1995)
393 RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to plaintiffs' motion for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt, and automatic sanctions imposed with respect to the health care and personal safety portion of this case, Exhibit (4) (lpp) (Entered: 06/02/1995)
394 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 by Ayesha Khan (lpp) (Entered: 06/05/1995)
395 REPLY by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128to response to motion to stay discovery pending the Court's decision on plaintiffs' motion for an order to show cause why defendants' should not be held in contempt of Court [388-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (lpp) (Entered: 06/05/1995)
ORDER (copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for order for compensation [389-1]; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $54,738.97 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Mr. Roche, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Shansky (N) (ks) (Entered: 07/14/1995)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend fund and for compensation of office manager [658-1] (N) (ted) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
MOTION filed by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for leave to file a redacted version of its 3/3/95 contempt motion ; EXHIBIT (ted) (Entered: 07/05/1995)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 55 of 119

07/05/1995 07/05/1995 07/18/1995 07/18/1995
07/20/1995
07/27/1995 08/11/1995 08/14/1995 08/15/1995 08/16/1995 09/07/1995 09/07/1995 09/12/1995

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv02136, plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 of redacted version of their motion for findings of contempt. (ted) (Entered: 07/06/1995)
396 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file a redacted version of its 3/3/95 contempt motion [661-1] by TWO JOHN DOES, TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (ted) (Entered: 07/06/1995)
MOTION filed by the Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibits (ted) (Entered: 07/20/1995)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [392-1]; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $32,649.63 which represents compensation for the Sepcial Officer's fee and Ms. Schneider's fee and expenses; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,377.90 which represents compensation for Mr. Roche's fee and expenses and the Special Officer's expenses; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $15,356.51 which represents compensation for Dr. Shansky's fee and expenses (N) (ks) (Entered: 07/21/1995)
397 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for protective order [389-1] by defendants; finding defendants' motion to stay discovery moot; granting plaintiffs' motion for an order to show cause why defendants' should not be held in contempt of Court; setting an evidentiary hearing on either 9/25/95 or 9/26/95. (N) . (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/20/1995)
398 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : evidentiary hearing set for 10:00 11/2/95 ; (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibits(7) (ted) (Entered: 08/14/1995)
MOTION (JOINT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136 to adopt consent order (ted) (Entered: 08/17/1995)
MOTION filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for report by Special Officer concerning medical services ; Exhibits(9) (ted) (Entered: 08/16/1995)
MOTION filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for report by special officer concerning medical services (ted) (Entered: 08/17/1995)
REPLY by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 in support of motion for report by special officer concerning medical services [396-1] by JOHN DOE (ted) (Entered: 09/08/1995)
399 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : motion for show cause hearing set for 11:00 12/4/95. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/08/1995)
MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation ; Exhibits(5) (ted)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 56 of 119

09/13/1995 09/13/1995
10/10/1995 10/10/1995 10/12/1995 10/17/1995
10/18/1995 10/19/1995
10/24/1995 10/31/1995 10/31/1995

(Entered: 09/13/1995)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 RE: opposition to plaintiff's motion for report by Special Officer concerning medical services (JMF) Modified on 09/15/1995 (Entered: 09/15/1995)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [400-1]; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $31,387.72 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes and Mr. Roche; and the the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $17,126.69 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Dr. Belitsky and Mr. Hayes (Original filed in CA 79-1726) (N) (ks) (Entered: 09/28/1995)
SPECIAL REPORT on defendants' compliance with the orders related to officer staffing, mental health staffing, medical staffing, services for handicapped inmates environmental health and safety, and certain medical emergencies; BULKY (JMF) (Entered: 10/12/1995)
MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for special officer to investigate new enforcement (JMF) (Entered: 10/13/1995)
DEPOSIT of $17,126.69 into Court Registry pursuant to Order of 09/13/95. (JMF) (Entered: 10/12/1995)
400 MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 for joinder in request that the special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms that will ensure the defendants' complaince with this court's orders concerning medical and mental health services at lorton (JMF) (Entered: 10/18/1995)
MOTION filed by SPECIAL OFFICER for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 10/19/1995)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [405-1] in 1:79-cv-01726; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $38,890.19 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Mr. Roche, Ms. Chneider, and Dr. Cohen (Original filed in CA 79-1726) (N) (ks) (Entered: 11/01/1995)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 11/6/95 to file response to plaintiff's request that the Special Officer be authorized to conduct investigation (JMF) Modified on 10/25/1995 (Entered: 10/25/1995)
MOTION filed by plaintiffs in 1:80-cv-02136 for preliminary injunction (bjl) (Entered: 11/01/1995)
MOTION filed by plaintiffs' NATHANIEL MCQUEEN-EL, LAVANCE GREENE-BEY, EUGENE CUNNINGHAM, RAYMOND QUIGLEY, WALTER BROOKS-EL AND NORMAN MINOR-BEY in 1:80-cv-

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 57 of 119

11/07/1995 11/14/1995
11/16/1995 11/16/1995 11/20/1995 11/22/1995 11/22/1995
11/22/1995 11/27/1995

02136 for temporary restraining order enjoining Covington and Burling from representing plaintiffs' (JMF) Modified on 12/26/1995 (Entered: 11/01/1995)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 of letter to plaintiff's counsel setting forth the actions defendant has taken to comply and maintain compliance with the officer staffing requirements imposed; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 11/08/1995)
401 ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant :granting motion for compensation; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $29,112.66 which represnets compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Mr. Roche, and Ms. Schneider; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $9,473.02 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Fisher and Mr. Henderson (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 11/21/1995)
ORDER by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : directing plaintiff to file reply to the opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction by 11/28/95; status hearing set for 10:30 12/5/95 ; (N) (clv) (Entered: 11/16/1995)
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE: status hearing set for 10:30 12/5/95 ; before Judge June L. Green . (clv) (Entered: 11/16/1995)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time for two additional days within which to file a response to plaintiffs' request that the special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms that will insure defendants' compliance with this court's orders concerning medical and mental health services. (JMF) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to November 23, 1995 which to file a response to plaintiffs' request that the special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms that will insure defendants' compliance with court's orders concerning medical and mental health services. [415-1] by DC (N) (JMF) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time for two additional days within which to file a response to plaintiffs' request that the special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms that will insure defendants' compliance with this court's orders concerning medical and mental health services. [415-1] by DC brief due by 11/24/95 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 ; in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (cjp) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to extend time to 12/4/95 to deposit with the court the $50,000.00 payment in Court's order of October 23, 1995 (JMF) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
402 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv02128 of a request for the Special Officer be authorized to conduct an

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 58 of 119

11/29/1995 11/30/1995 12/04/1995 12/04/1995 12/04/1995
12/05/1995
12/05/1995 12/05/1995 12/05/1995 12/07/1995 12/11/1995 12/13/1995

investigation; attachments (JMF) Modified on 11/30/1995 (Entered: 11/29/1995)
403 JOINT MOTION by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff in 1:86-cv02128 to continue December 04, 1995 hearing (JMF) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
404 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion to continue December 04, 1995 hearing [403-1] by plaintiffs and defendants to 12/11/95 at 10:30 A.M. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
405 MOTION filed for leave to file the special officer's report with selected exhibits under seal ; EXHIBIT (report) (JMF) (Entered: 12/05/1995)
413 NOTICE OF FILING of redacted version of the Special Officer's report on defendants' compliance with the orders related to personal safety and mental health care; Exhibits(62) (ted) (Entered: 12/18/1995)
REPLY by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 in support of their request that the special officer be authorized to conduct an investigation into new enforcement mechanisms that will insure the defendants' compliance with this Court's orders concerning medical and mental health services at Lorton; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 12/26/1995)
406 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file the special officer's report with selected exhibits under seal; directing that the Clerk of the Court take all steps necessary to ensure that the non-redacted version of the Special Officer's Report on the defendant's compliance with the orders relalting to personal safety and mental health care and accompanying exhibits, are filed under seal. [405-1] in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/05/1995)
407 SPECIAL OFFICER'S REPORT on defendants' compliance with the orders related to personal safety and mental health care; (volumes 1-4) (FILED UNDER SEAL) (JMF) (Entered: 12/06/1995)
415 NOTICE OF FILING of Special Report; Vol I and II (redacted) (JMF) (Entered: 01/02/1996)
416 NOTICE OF FILING Special Report; Vol I and II; (FILED UNDER SEAL) (JMF) (Entered: 01/02/1996)
408 MOTION filed by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to continue show cause hearing to 12/15/95 (ted) (Entered: 12/11/1995)
409 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to continue show cause hearing to 12/15/95 at 10:00 a.m. [408-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/12/1995)
410 ORDER (copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting Special Officer GRACE M. LOPES's motion for compensation; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $39,042.52 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 59 of 119

12/15/1995 12/15/1995 12/15/1995 12/20/1995 12/22/1995 01/02/1996 01/16/1996 01/17/1996
01/17/1996
01/17/1996
01/19/1996
01/22/1996 01/31/1996

Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, and Ms. Fisher (Original filed in CA 711462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 12/15/1995)
411 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge June L. Green (N) (jeb) (Entered: 12/15/1995)
412 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREED PLAN & CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : (N) (jeb) (Entered: 12/15/1995)
MOTION on plaintiffs' motion for contempt held before Judge June L. Green; Defendants found in violation of 8th Amendment. Reporter: Robt. Haines (Miller) (bjl) (Entered: 12/21/1995)
MOTION filed by Special Officer Grace M. Lopes to increase compensation rate for special assistant (JMF) (Entered: 01/05/1996)
414 TRANSCRIPT filed for motion hearing held on date(s) of December 15, 1995. Reporter: Robert Haines (JMF) (Entered: 12/27/1995)
417 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 for reconsideration of order dated December 15, 1995 [412-1] ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 01/03/1996)
420 MOTION filed by GRACE M. LOPES; SPECIAL OFFICER for compensation ; exhibits (3) (JMF) (Entered: 01/22/1996)
418 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion for reconsideration of order dated December 15, 1995 [412-1] [417-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER . (JMF) (Entered: 01/18/1996)
421 ORDER (copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to increase compensation rate for special assistant [4291]; that Ms. Schneider's compensation rate shall be increased to $60.00 per hour (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
422 ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [434-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:86-cv-02128; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $29,979.04 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Speical Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, and Ms. Lytle (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
419 REPLY by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion for reconsideration of order dated December 15, [4121] [417-1] (JMF) (Entered: 01/22/1996)
423 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : motion hearing set for oral argument on 1:30 1/31/96 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (Original filed in CA 79-1726) (N) (ks) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green for report by Special Officer regarding medical services heard and taken under advisement.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 60 of 119

01/31/1996 02/06/1996 02/07/1996
02/15/1996 02/15/1996 02/21/1996
03/13/1996 03/14/1996

Reporter: Frank Rangus (bjl) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
424 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : for order covering automatic fines for defendants failure to prepare medical plans as required in this Court's August 22, 1995 Order. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting oral motion by plaintiffs for emergency relief; setting forth instructions to the parties and the Special Officer; setting a hearing on 2/21/96 at 10:00 a.m. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/08/1996)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing tht defendants shall report to the Court in writing, no later that 4/2/96 on their progress in hiring a correctional health care coordinator with systemwide supervisory authority over the provision of medical and mental health services at Lorton; if a coordinator is not hired by 4/2/96, oral argument is set for 4/10/96 at 1:30 P.M. : (N) (bjl) Modified on 02/08/1996 (Entered: 02/08/1996)
425 NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv02128 of tracking and recall system for inmates receiving psychiatric care. (ted) (Entered: 02/16/1996)
429 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for compensation (JMF) (Entered: 03/15/1996)
426 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,921.87 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes; this check shall be drawn from the $20,000 Fund established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $18,921.87 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000 Fund by 3/5/96; the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $25,330.50 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle, Mr. Roche and Dr. Belitsky; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $25,330.50 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 3/5/96. (N) (bm) (Entered: 02/21/1996)
427 MOTION filed by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 4/15/96 to deposit $200,000.00 payment referenced in the Consent Decree dated 12/15/95 (JMF) (Entered: 03/14/1996)
428 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 4/30/96 to develop a plan to recruit and retain correctional officers set forth in paragraph 7 of the 12/15 95 order (JMF) Modified on 03/20/1996 (Entered: 03/15/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 61 of 119

03/15/1996
03/18/1996 03/18/1996 03/20/1996 03/29/1996 04/01/1996 04/04/1996

(STRIKEN AND RETURNED PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED 03/19/96 #746) NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136 from order granting oral motion by plaintiffs' for further emergency relief; setting forth specific instructions to defendants and directing the Special Officer to report to the parties and the Court by 3/15/96 as to whether defendants have complied with certain requirements; instructions are set forth for the Special Officer; setting a hearing for 2:30 P.M. on 4/10/96 to determine whether additional relief is necessary to achieve compliance with the Court's Orders. [737-1], order [737-2] , entered on: February 29, 1996. IFP. Copies mailed to John Michael Facciola, Jacques P. Lerner, Paul A. Quander, Michael E. Zielinski, Clare E. Kindall, Peter J. Nickles, Eric G. Lasker, Alan A. Pemberton, Kemi M. Morten, Brian J. H. Lederer, Nathaniel McQueen-El, Norman Minor, Walter Brooks-El, Raymond Quigley, Eugene J. Cunningham and Lavance Greene-Bey. (Submitted to Judge June L. Green). (Buck slip w/noa to Judge). (JMF) Modified on 03/19/1996 (Entered: 03/18/1996)
TRANSMITTED PRELIMINARY RECORD on appeal [744-1] by RAYMOND QUIGLEY, WALTER BROOKS-EL, LAVANCE GREENE-BEY, NORMAN MINOR, EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM to U.S. Court of Appeals (JMF) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
430 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/30/96 to develop a plan to recruit and retain correctional officers set forth in paragraph 7 of the 12/15 95 order [428-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
431 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [456-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $22,098.03 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Mr. Roche and Mr. Brown; and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $33,686.64 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle, and Mr. Henderson (N) (See Order for details) (ks) (Entered: 03/22/1996)
432 MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt, and automatic sanctions imposed, with respect to the environmental health and fire safety portion of this case ; exhibits (2) (JMF) Modified on 04/01/1996 (Entered: 04/01/1996)
433 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 4/19/96 to develop in conjunction with plaintiffs and the special officer plans for the recruitment and retention of psychologists, officer staffin deployment and for the segregation of protective custody inmates (JMF) (Entered: 04/03/1996)
434 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting defendants' motion to extend time to 4/19/96 to develop a plan for te recuitment and retention of

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 62 of 119

04/04/1996 04/10/1996 04/10/1996 04/12/1996 04/17/1996 04/17/1996 04/18/1996
04/19/1996

psychologists, officer staffing deployment and for the segregation of protective custody inmates. [433-1] (N) (bjl) (Entered: 04/05/1996)
435 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting defendant's motion to extend time to 4/15/96 to deposit $200,000.00 payment referenced in this Court's Order of 12/15/95 [427-1] (N) (bjl) (Entered: 04/05/1996)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court $200,000.00 pursuant to consent order dated 12/15/95. (JMF) (Entered: 04/12/1996)
436 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 4/30/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion to show cause why defendants' should not be held in contempt regardig environmental and fire safety portions (JMF) (Entered: 04/12/1996)
437 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/30/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion to show cause why defendants' should not be held in contempt regarding environmental and fire safety portions [436-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (N) (jeb) (Entered: 04/12/1996)
438 MOTION filed by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 to modify care remedial order in this case ; exhibits (2) (JMF) (Entered: 04/18/1996)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 2:00 6/19/96 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; , and status hearing set for 2:00 5/29/96 for parties to return to court for a update of the report and recommendation of Grace Lopes on facilities in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; Reporter: Frank Rangus (JMF) (Entered: 04/26/1996)
443 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: directing Special Officer to assist defendants in identifying an appropriate systemwide medical coordinator, and shall, after consulting with the parties, report to the Court as to whether the person whom defendants propose to hire for that position is qualified to undertake the tasks necessary to improve systemwide compliance with the Court's Orders; Special Officer shall report to the Court as to whether the Court should enter additional orders regarding the powers and responsibilities of the systemwide medical coordinator so as to better enable the systemwide medical coordinator to improve compliance with the Court's existing Orders; if defendants have not hired an appropriately qualified systemwide medical coordinator within 60 days from the date of this Order, the Special Officer shall present further recommendations concerning other compliance mechanisms that may improve defendants' compliance with the Court's Orders regarding mental health care and medical care at the Lorton facilities; further status hearing set for 2:00 6/19/96 in 80-cv-2136, in 79-cv-1726, in 81-cv-2072, in 86cv-2128. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
439 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 5/17/96 (lkn) (Entered: 04/22/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 63 of 119

04/19/1996 04/19/1996 04/19/1996 04/22/1996 04/22/1996 04/22/1996 04/23/1996 04/25/1996 04/26/1996 04/29/1996

440 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 nunc pro tunc to comply with paragraph E(1) of the December 15, 1996, wherein it must ensure each prisoner receives a mental health screening utilizing a new mental health screening form (lkn) (Entered: 04/22/1996)
441 RESPONSE by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 to order dated December 15, 1996 to submit pian regarding correctional officer deployment [412-1]; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 04/22/1996)
452 NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv02128 of plan regarding the segregation of inmates housed on protective custody status at Occoquan. The plan has been approved by the parties and by the Special Officer pursuant to B.2. of the 12/15/95 order. (JMF) (Entered: 05/03/1996)
442 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 5/17/96 [439-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (adc) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
444 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for compensation (JMF) (Entered: 04/24/1996)
445 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for enlargement of time nunc pro tunc to March 15, 1996, to begin monthly reporting time, and moves to enlarge time to 5/3/96 within which it will produce monthly reports to plaintiffs (lkn) Modified on 04/25/1996 (Entered: 04/24/1996)
446 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for enlargement of time nunc pro tunc to March 15, 1996, to begin monthly reporting time, and moves to enlarge time to 5/3/96 within which it will produce monthly reports to plaintiffs [445-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (adc) (Entered: 04/25/1996)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant ATTY GEN. in 1:80-cv02136 to extend time to 5/13/96 to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants' are in violation of the court's orders concerning einvironmental health and sanitation conditions (JMF) (Entered: 05/02/1996)
MOTION filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726, plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for the court appointment of Grace M. Lopes as an expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 ; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
449 RESPONSE by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion nunc pro tunc to comply with paragraph E(1) of the December 15, 1996, wherein it must ensure each prisoner receives a mental health screening utilizing a new mental health screening form [440-1] by MARION S.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 64 of 119

04/29/1996 04/30/1996 04/30/1996
05/01/1996 05/01/1996 05/03/1996 05/08/1996 05/08/1996

BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; exhibits (3) . (JMF) (Entered: 05/01/1996)
460 MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 joinder in emergency motion for the court appointment of Grace M. Lopes as an expert witness under federal rule of evidence 706 ; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/23/1996)
448 RESPONSE by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion for order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt, and automatic sanctions imposed, with respect to the environmental health and fire safety portion of this case [432-1] by plaintiffs'; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/01/1996)
453 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for the court appointment of Grace M. Lopes as an expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 [471-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES, JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136; Directing that the orders of the Court appointing Ms. Lopes as the special officer of the Court FRCvP 53 are stayed pending further order of the Court; Setting forth instructions regarding Ms. Lopes appointment; Directing defendants' to file and hand serve response to plaintiffs' motion for appointment of Ms. Lopes as expert by 12:00 noon May 15, 1996; Plaintiffs shall file and hand serve their reply thereto by 2:00p.m. May 16, 1996; Setting argument on the motion on 4:00p.m. May 16, 1996. (N) (JMF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
450 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 5/31/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion to modify the medical care remedial order (JMF) (Entered: 05/02/1996)
451 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time nunc pro tunc to March 31, 1996 the time within which it must comply with paragraph B(1) of the December 15, 1996 order, must have a full staff of six psychologists. (JMF) (Entered: 05/02/1996)
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for a finding that defendants are in proposed reduction of the UDC Program is unreasonable and in violation of the court's orders concerning programs, based on subsequent change of law. [758-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
454 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion for reconsideration of order dated December 15, 1995 [412-1] [417-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/09/1996)
456 RESPONSE by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 do not oppose defendants' motion to extend time to 5/31/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion to

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 65 of 119

05/09/1996 05/10/1996 05/13/1996 05/15/1996
05/16/1996 05/16/1996 05/17/1996 05/20/1996
05/20/1996

modify the medical care remedial order [450-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (JMF) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
455 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 5/31/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion to modify the medical care remedial order [450-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/10/1996)
MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to withdraw without prejudice their motion for a finding that defendants' proposed reduction of the UDC Program is unreasonable and in violation of the court's orders concerning programs (JMF) (Entered: 05/15/1996)
457 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 5/17/96 reply to defendants' opposition to motion to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt with respect to fire safety and sanitation (JMF) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
458 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726, plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff ROBERT LEON WILSON in 1:86-cv02128, plaintiff CARL WILLIAMS in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff CALVIN ROOKARD in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff WALTER ROBINSON in 1:86cv-02128, plaintiff AHMED PASHA in 1:86-cv-02128 to vacate the Court's Order of April 30, 1996 (JMF) Modified on 05/16/1996 (Entered: 05/16/1996)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green to vacate the Court's Order of 4/30/96 heard and granted. Reporter: Gordon Slodysko (bjl) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to vacate the Court's Order of April 30, 1996 [474-1] by plaintiffs; setting forth further instruction re Ms. Lopes as an expert witness. in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv02136 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
464 REPLY by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to defendants' opposition to motion for an order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt with respect to Fire Safety and Sanitation; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/31/1996)
459 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green: entering judgment for plaintiffs against the defendant DC in the amount of seventy-seven thousand, eight hundred dollars ($77,800.00), without interest; directing that the defendant DC shall pay the judgment issuing the check made payable to the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
461 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:81-cv-02072, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 66 of 119

05/21/1996
05/21/1996 05/21/1996
06/03/1996 06/03/1996 06/06/1996 06/10/1996 06/11/1996 06/12/1996

05/24/1996)
MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 6/12/96 to file a reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a finding that the defendants' are in violation of the Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions (JMF) Modified on 05/24/1996 (Entered: 05/24/1996)
462 RESPONSE by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion to extend time nunc pro tunc to March 31, 1996 the time within which it must comply with paragraph B(1) of the December 15, 1996 order, must have a full staff of six psychologists. [451-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER .; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 05/24/1996)
463 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [476-1] by GRACE M. LOPES ; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lo[pes the sum of $42,171.74 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Ms. Lytle; directing that the check be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia to pay $42,171.74 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings accout. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
465 RESPONSE by defendants' in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion to modify care remedial order in this case [438-1] by plaintiffs' (JMF) (Entered: 06/04/1996)
466 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
467 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : motion hearing set for 10:00 7/2/96; (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
469 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 to expend redeemable contempt fine funds which are currently on deposit in the Court Registry Investment System ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 to expend funds: correctional health care coordinator ; exhibits (2) (JMF) (Entered: 06/13/1996)
468 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting the Special Officer's motion to expend redeemable contempt fine funds and in order to subsidize the cost of the centralized master roster management training; the Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a check in the sum of $6,396.13 to James D. Henderson from fine monies deposied tin this case that are held in the Court Registry; directed that the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check in the amount of $6,231.44 to Jerry A. O'Brien from fine monies deposited

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 67 of 119

06/13/1996 06/13/1996 06/17/1996 06/18/1996 06/18/1996 06/18/1996 06/19/1996 06/20/1996
06/27/1996

in this case that are held in the Court Registry Investment System; further directing that the sum of $200,000.00 in redeemable contempt fines that were deposited in the Court Registry Investment System pursuant to the December 15, 1995 Order. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
470 REPLY by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 to government's brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to modify care remedial order in this case [438-1] (JMF) (Entered: 06/13/1996)
471 MOTION (Consent) filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128, to extend time to 7/22/96 to file mental health plan. (bjl) (Entered: 06/14/1996)
472 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to continue status conference July 09, 1996 at 1:30 p.m. and requirements imposed on the Special Officer as set forth in the Court's order April 18, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
473 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting defendants' motion to extend time to 7/22/96 to develop and nt a an to address the needs of seriously mentally ill inmates at Occoquan. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to continue status conference July 09, 1996 at 1:30 p.m. and requirements imposed on the Special Officer as set forth in the Court's order April 18, 1996 [798-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., DC, DC in 1:80-cv-02136, 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/20/1996)
474 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to continue status conference July 09, 1996 at 1:30 p.m. and requirements imposed on the Special Officer as set forth in the Court's order April 18, 1996 [472-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., DC, DC (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/20/1996)
475 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:81-cv-02072, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 06/25/1996)
476 ORDER (COPY) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [490-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; Ordered that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $41,946.70 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Dr. Cohen and Mr. Henderson. (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 06/28/1996)
477 ORDER (COPY) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation by Special Officer; Ordered that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $44,033.90 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle and Dr. Belitsky. (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 06/28/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 68 of 119

06/27/1996 06/27/1996 06/27/1996
07/09/1996 07/09/1996 07/18/1996 07/18/1996
07/22/1996 07/23/1996 07/23/1996

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 06/28/1996)
478 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to continue hearing date on four pending motions from July 02, 1996 to July 18, 1996 (JMF) Modified on 06/28/1996 (Entered: 06/28/1996)
479 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to continue hearing date on four pending motions from July 02, 1996 to July 18, 1996 at 10:00 a.m., [478-1] by AHMED PASHA, WALTER ROBINSON, CALVIN ROOKARD, CARL WILLIAMS, ROBERT LEON WILSON (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/28/1996)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green regarding District's hiring of Health Care Coordinator. : Reporter: Vicky Stallsworth (bjl) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to order plaintiffs' submitted to the Court at hearing on July 09, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
MOTIONS HEARING before Judge June L. Green Reporter: Vicky Stallsworth (bjl) (Entered: 07/19/1996)
480 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting plaintiffs' oral motion to withdraw motion to modify the Medical Care Remedial Order; Granting defendants' motion for enlargement of time nunc pro tunc to 2/15/96 and defendants' motion for enlargement of time nunc pro tunc to 3/31/96 . : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/19/1996)
481 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 10/1/96 to file Mental Health Plan. (bjl) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
482 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 10/1/96 to file Mental Health Plan. [481-1] by defendants. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/24/1996)
483 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : [432-1] finding that the defendants have failed to comply with the fire safety and environmental health orders of the Court; further finding that the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do not apply to the provisions of this Consent Order because it does not provide relief beyond the relief provided in the Court's prior orders; adopting the findings of the plaintiffs' fire safety and environmental health experts memorialized in affidavits attached to the 3/28/96 motion for an order to show cause; setting forth deadlines for defendants to comply with certain environmental health and fire safety standards; directing the defendants to deposit $100,000 into the Registry of the Court; directing the defendants shall be fined $1000.00 per day for each unexcused violation of the fire safety provisions as set forth in this order; directing defendants to pay plaintiffs' counsel their reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, including expert expenses, related to the motions set for hearing on 7/18/96, and for the monitoring of the compliance with the fire safety and

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 69 of 119

07/26/1996 07/26/1996 07/29/1996 07/30/1996 07/31/1996 08/06/1996
08/07/1996 08/08/1996 08/08/1996 08/08/1996
08/29/1996 09/03/1996

environmental orders of this Court. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 07/24/1996)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726 for the adoption of a consent order concerning systemwide medical and mental health care (JMF) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
484 STATUS REPORT by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv02128; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
485 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 1:30 10/9/96 in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/30/1996)
486 MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to modify the Court's December 15, 1996 consent decree , and to extend time limits in the Court's December 15, 1996 consent decree (JMF) (Entered: 07/31/1996)
487 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : enlarging the time limits set forth in Sections I.A.3 and I.A.7 of the Court's December 15th, l996 Second Supplemental, Agreed Plan and Consent Order; setting forth other instructions. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 07/31/1996)
MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to continue oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the Court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions to September 13, 1996 , and for order requiring defendants to adopt new inspection and abatement procedures to adopt (JMF) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 for termination of prospective relief (JMF) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
488 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
489 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [498-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726, granting motion for compensation [488-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128; directing the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $36,938.29 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Mr. Roche and Ms. Lytle; directing that this check be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia pay $36,938.29 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 8/22/96. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136 for reimburse funds ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 09/03/1996)
490 MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 for enforcement of the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 70 of 119

09/04/1996
09/04/1996 09/06/1996 09/09/1996
09/09/1996 09/10/1996 09/11/1996 09/11/1996
09/12/1996

Court's order of July 23, 1996 , and for hearing on this motion (JMF) (Entered: 09/04/1996)
491 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting the Special Officer's motion to withdraw and deposit funds; directing the Clerk of the Courtto withdraw $5.543.50 from the contempt fine monies held in 12 John Does pursuant to the Court's October 23, 1995 and February 26, 1996 Orders and deposit these monies in the Court Registry Investment System account currently maintained in the Inmates of Occoquan case. (N) : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/04/1996)
DEPOSIT into the Registry pursuant to the Court's order 08/08/96 in the amount of $36,938.29. (JMF) (Entered: 09/06/1996)
492 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend the time limit in the Court's December 15, 1995 consent order (JMF) (Entered: 09/09/1996)
493 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend the time limit in the Court's December 15, 1995 consent order [492-1] by AHMED PASHA, WALTER ROBINSON, CALVIN ROOKARD, CARL WILLIAMS, ROBERT LEON WILSON; directing that by 9/16/96, in consultation with the Special Officer, defendants shall develop and implement a plan, to be approved by the Special Officer, to recuit and retain the requisite complement of six psychologists. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/09/1996)
494 STATUS REPORT by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant in 1:79cv-01726, defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 (bjl) (Entered: 09/10/1996)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 09/12/1996)
495 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : motion hearing set for 10:00 9/26/96 ; (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
496 ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing the Clerk of the Court to pay the sum of $40,622.03 to Grace Lopes which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle and Mr. Roche; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account; directing the District of Columbia to pay the sum of $40,622.03 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 9/26/96. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
497 RESPONSE by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion for enforcement of the Court's order of July 23, 1996 [490-1] by AHMED PASHA, WALTER ROBINSON, CALVIN ROOKARD, CARL WILLIAMS, ROBERT LEON WILSON, motion for hearing on this motion [490-2] by AHMED PASHA, WALTER ROBINSON, CALVIN ROOKARD, CARL WILLIAMS, ROBERT LEON WILSON . (JMF) (Entered: 09/13/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 71 of 119

09/17/1996 09/18/1996 09/19/1996
09/19/1996 09/23/1996 09/24/1996 09/24/1996 09/24/1996 09/25/1996 09/25/1996 09/25/1996 09/27/1996

498 MOTION filed by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses for post-judgment monitoring ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
DEPOSIT pursuant to order of 09/04/96 into the Registry in the amount of $5,543.50. (JMF) (Entered: 09/18/1996)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for a continuance of the oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for a finding that defendants are in violation of the court's orders concerning environmental health and sanitation conditions and for an order requiring defendants to adopt new inspection and abatement procedures until October 30, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 09/20/1996)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 10/23/96 to file a response to defendants' motion for termination of prospective relief (JMF) (Entered: 09/20/1996)
499 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 10/23/96 to file a response to defendants' motion for termination of prospective relief [833-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (dcn) (Entered: 09/23/1996)
500 MOTION (Consent) filed by defendants in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 10/10/96 to respond to plaintiffs' Motion for attorney fees. (bjl) (Entered: 09/25/1996)
501 MOTION (Consent) filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 10/7/96 to develop plans for the recruitment and retention of correctional officers and psychologists. (bjl) (Entered: 09/25/1996)
502 MOTION filed by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 to vacate hearing on emergency motion for enforcement scheduled for 9/26/96 (bjl) (Entered: 09/25/1996)
503 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 10/7/96 (NPT to 9/16/96) to develop, in conjunction with the Special Officer, and implement plans for the recruitment and retention of correctional officers and psychologists. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/25/1996)
504 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 10/10/96 to respond to plaintiffs' Motion for attorney fees. [500-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/25/1996)
505 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to vacate hearing on emergency motion for enforcement scheduled for 9/26/96 [502-1] by plaintiffs. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/25/1996)
506 MOTION filed by Special Officer to expend redeemable contempt fine funds; Appendix (bjl) (Entered: 09/30/1996)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 72 of 119

10/01/1996
10/01/1996 10/01/1996 10/03/1996 10/08/1996
10/09/1996 10/09/1996 10/09/1996 10/10/1996 10/16/1996

507 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting the Special Officer's motion to expend redeemable contempt fine funds; [506-1] directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check in the amount of $84,714.95 to the Special Officer from the fine monies deposited in this case that are held in the Court Registry Investment System; directing the Special Officer to promptly deposit these funds and provide defendants with checks for the vendors listed in defendants' 9/12/96 application, in the amounts listed in this application; directing defendants to promptly pay the vendors and commence the repair required by the 7/23/96 Order; directing that within 120 days of defendants' receive of these monies from the Special Officer, defendant shall reimburse the Court Registry for the full amount of (bjl) (Entered: 10/01/1996)
508 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128; Declaration (corrected) of Elizabeth Alexander with attachment. (bjl) (Entered: 10/02/1996)
509 MOTION (consent) filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 11/15/96 to file a mental health plan (bjl) (Entered: 10/02/1996)
510 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 11/15/96 to file a mental health plan [509-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/03/1996)
511 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 10/21/96 nunc pro tune October 07, 1996 within which it must develop, in conjunction with the Special Officer plans for the recruitment and retention of correctional officers and psychologists (JMF) (Entered: 10/09/1996)
512 MOTION (CORRECTED) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 10/25/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees (JMF) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
HEARING before Judge June L. Green : regarding the hiring of a system wide medical health care coordinator held; Further progress hearing set for 12/17/96 at 10:00 A.M. Reporter: Susan Tyner (bjl) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
513 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting oral motion of plaintiffs for additional relief concerning the need for improved medical leadership within the Department of Corrections; setting a further Progress Report Hearing on 12/17/96 at 10:00 a.m. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
514 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 10/21/96, nunc pro tunc, October 7, 1996, within which it must develop, in conjunction with the Special Officer, plans for the recruitment and retention of correctional officers and psychologists [511-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/11/1996)
515 MOTION filed by Special Master for compensation; Exhibits A-E. (bjl)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 73 of 119

10/16/1996 10/18/1996 10/18/1996 10/21/1996 10/21/1996 10/22/1996 10/22/1996 10/23/1996 10/23/1996 10/23/1996 10/23/1996 10/29/1996

(Entered: 10/17/1996)
516 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation; [507-1] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:81-cv-02072, 1:86-cv-02128 (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/17/1996)
517 RESPONSE by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion to extend time to 10/25/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees [512-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (JMF) (Entered: 10/21/1996)
518 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion to extend time to 10/25/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees [512-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (JMF) (Entered: 10/21/1996)
519 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 10/25/96 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees [512-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/21/1996)
520 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 10/21/96 to file correctional officer and mental health staffing plan (JMF) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
RESPONSE by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to order [734-1], dated February 27, 1996 [734-2]; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to waive imposition of any applicable fines and extend time to nunc pro tunc, the time within which defendants may file this plan (JMF) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
RESPONSE by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to motion for termination of prospective relief [817-1] by defendants; exhibits (2) (JMF) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for evidentiary hearing (JMF) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for contempt fines on defendants for their failure to comply with the Court's Consent Order of August 22, 1995 (JMF) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
521 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion to extend time to 10/21/96 to file correctional officer and mental health staffing plan [520-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER . (JMF) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for reconsideration of

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 74 of 119

10/31/1996 11/04/1996 11/05/1996 11/05/1996
11/06/1996 11/07/1996
11/08/1996 11/15/1996 12/02/1996 12/02/1996 12/03/1996 12/04/1996

order [843-1] 10/22/96 ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
522 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 11/12/96, nunc pro tunc 10/25/96, to respond to plaintiffs' motion for reasonable attorney fees. (bjl) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
523 RESPONSE by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to order of December 15, 1996 [412-1] (JMF) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green; oral motion by defendant for extention of time to 11/8/96 to file plan regarding staffing heard and granted. : Reporter: Wm. McAllister (bjl) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
524 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : ENTERING JUDGMENT in favor of plaintiffs and against the District of Columbia in the amount of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00); directing that this Judgment, being in the nature of a settlement, shall bear no interest; directing the District to pay the Judgment issuing the check made payable to the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
525 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $51,675.11 which represents the compensation for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Dr. Belitsky; directing that this check be drawn from the Crestar savings account; directing that the District of Columbia pay $51,675.11 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar account. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 11/08/1996)
526 RESPONSE by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to order of December 15, 1995 [412-1] (JMF) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
527 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 12/16/96 to file mental health plan (JMF) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
MOTION (Consent) filed by plaintiffs in 1:80-cv-02136 to continue December 5, 1996 hearing to December 17, 1996 (adc) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
STATUS REPORT by defendants in 1:80-cv-02136 (adc) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
528 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 12/16/96 to file mental health plan [527-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (N) (jeb) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 75 of 119

12/05/1996
12/09/1996 12/17/1996 12/19/1996 12/19/1996 01/06/1997 01/07/1997 01/08/1997
01/14/1997 01/15/1997

for compensation ; exhibits (A-C). (adc) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
529 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [862-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace Lopes the sum of $42,633.39 for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider and Ms. Fisher; directing that the check be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; directing that the District of Columbia pay $42,663.39 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Crestar Savings Account. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/06/1996)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 12/23/96 to submit its response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines (JMF) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
530 MOTION filed by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 2/14/97 to file mental health plan (JMF) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green status hearing set for 1:15 2/5/97 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; Reporter: Wm. McAllister (bjl) (Entered: 12/20/1996)
531 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting plaintiffs' oral motion for further relief concerning procurement and medical matters; setting forth a compliance schedule and a further hearing on 10:00 5/7/97 in 1:79-cv01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv-02128 ; (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/20/1996)
532 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 2/14/97 to file mental health plan [530-1] by S. BARRY JR.; enlarging time within which defendants must develop and implement a plan to address the needs of seriously mentally ill inmates at Occoquan to 2/14/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 01/06/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 01/08/1997)
533 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : for compensation [514-1]; Clerk of Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $34,240.39 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Delaney, Siegel, Zorn and Associates, Inc.; check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account; District of Columbia shall pay $34,240.39 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 1/22/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
534 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 to expend redeemable contempt fine funds ; exhibits (3) (JMF) (Entered: 01/15/1997)
535 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend redeemable contempt fine funds [534-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; Clerk of the Court shall issue a check in the amount of $40,379.22 to the Special Officer

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 76 of 119

01/17/1997 01/21/1997 02/05/1997
02/06/1997 02/06/1997 02/10/1997
02/14/1997

from fine monies deposited in case that are held in the Court Registry Investment System; Special Officer shall promptly deposit funds and provide defendants with checks in the amounts listed and to the vendors listed in defendants' 11/13/96 and 1/6/97 submissions; defendants shall pay vendors and commence repairs required by the 7/23/96 Order on an expedited basis; within 120 days of defendants' receipt of these monies from the Special Officer defendants shall reimburse the Court Registry Investment System for the full amount of this expenditure in accordance with the 7/23/96 Order and 12/15/95 Order; the redeemable contempt fine account that was established in the Court Registry Investment System pursuant to the 12/15/95 order shall be reduced temporarily in light of these expenditures (N) (dbw) (Entered: 01/15/1997)
536 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 03/03/97 for payment of fines filed nunc pro tunc to December 01, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 01/22/1997)
537 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 03/03/97 for payment of fines filed nunc pro tunc to December 01, 1996 [536-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; time to pay fines in sum of $100,000.00, as required by Court's Order dated 7/23/96, enlarged to 3/3/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 01/22/1997)
538 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing Dr. Armand H. Start to submit to the Court by 2/19/97 a written summary briefly outlining steps taken and that will be taken by defendants in future to retain services of full-time systemwide Medical Director and measures Dr. Start has taken and intends to take in the future to improve state of defendants' medical compliance under the Court's Orders and Consent Decrees ; Dr. Start will appear on 2/24/97 at 10:00 to testify more fully as to the defendants' efforts in these areas in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:86-cv02128, in 1:92-cv-01208 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 02/05/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (JMF) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
540 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : that defendants be given until 2/14/97 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136, in 1:81-cv-02072, in 1:86-cv-02128 to file their statement of procurement goals, as well s their supplement to their status report. (N) (adc) (Entered: 02/14/1997)
539 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : Clerk of Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $54,530.83 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Mr. Roche, Mr. Henderson and Dr. Downer [520-1]; check shall be drawn from Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $54,530.83 to Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 2/25/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
541 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 77 of 119

02/19/1997 02/19/1997 02/19/1997 02/24/1997 03/05/1997 03/06/1997 03/07/1997
03/14/1997 03/18/1997
03/20/1997
03/20/1997 03/21/1997

extend time to 3/14/97 to file mental health plan (JMF) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
542 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 3/14/97 to file mental health plan [541-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (N) (jeb) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
DEPOSIT into the Court's Registry pursuant to order of 10/01/96 in the amount of $184,714.95 (JMF) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
STATUS REPORT by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (JMF) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : testimony of Dr. Armond H. Start heard; parties to notify Court of progress, in writing, in two months Reporter: Phyllis Merana (dbw) (Entered: 02/24/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (JMF) (Entered: 03/06/1997)
543 STATUS REPORT by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv02128; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 03/07/1997)
544 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [527-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $28,819.33 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, and Ms Fisher; directing that the District of Columbia pay $28,819,33 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Crestar savings account by 3/20/97. (N) (jeb) Modified on 03/07/1997 (Entered: 03/07/1997)
545 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 4/23/97 to file mental health plan (JMF) (Entered: 03/17/1997)
546 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/23/97 to file mental health plan [545-1] by S. BARRY JR.; enlarging time to 4/23/97 within which defendants must develop and implement a plan to address the needs of seriously mentally ill inmates at Occoquan (N) (dbw) (Entered: 03/18/1997)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green granted joint motion for entry of consent order regarding environmental health and sanitation matters [882-1] by plaintiff, special master, plaintiff, Non Party, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, defendant Reporter: Kay Moomey (lkn) (Entered: 03/20/1997)
OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs' in 1:80-cv-02136 to proposed consent order regarding enivironmental health and sanitation issues; (fiat) JUDGE JUNE L. GREEN (JMF) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (JMF) (Entered: 03/24/1997)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 78 of 119

03/26/1997 04/02/1997 04/07/1997 04/08/1997
04/16/1997 04/18/1997
04/24/1997 04/24/1997 05/02/1997 05/06/1997
05/06/1997 05/09/1997

MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 4/28/97 to submit response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines (JMF) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/28/97 to submit response to plaintiffs' motion for contempt fines [8881] by DC (N) (jeb) (Entered: 04/02/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
547 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : [529-1] directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $44,689.82 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, and Dr. Belitsky; check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous order of the Court; District of Columbia shall pay $44,689.82 to Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 4/23/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
548 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to authorize the Special Officer to cancel and reissue a check issued pursuant to the Court's Order of January 15, 1997 (JMF) (Entered: 04/17/1997)
549 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to authorize the Special Officer to cancel and reissue a check issued pursuant to the Court's Order of January 15, 1997 [548-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (N) (jeb) Modified on 04/21/1997 (Entered: 04/21/1997)
RESPONSE by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to Court's order dated February 27, 1996 (JMF) (Entered: 04/25/1997)
550 RESPONSE by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to Court's order dated December 15, 1995 (JMF) (Entered: 04/25/1997)
MOTION filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 for adoption of consent order regarding fines (JMF) (Entered: 05/05/1997)
551 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $45,947.95 which represents compensaton for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Mr. Roche, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Downer; check shall be drawn from Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; District of Columbia shall pay $45,947.95 to Clerk of Court in order to replenish Crestar savings account by 5/23/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 05/07/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 05/07/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 to substitute order for compensation filed May 06, 1996 , and to vacate

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 79 of 119

05/13/1997
05/23/1997 06/02/1997 06/03/1997
06/11/1997 06/16/1997 07/08/1997 07/09/1997 07/09/1997

order May 06, 1997 (JMF) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
552 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to substitute order for compensation filed May 06, 1996 by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726, granting motion to vacate order May 06, 1997 [534-2] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $45,947.95 which represents compsensation for the services and expenses of Special Master Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Downer; directing that this check be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia pay $45,947.95 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 5/23/97. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/13/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 5/29/97 to report on defendants' achievement of procurement goals and measurable progress in the procurement of supplies and services [536-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/23/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (JMF) (Entered: 06/02/1997)
553 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [539-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lpes the sum of $37,641.67, which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms Schneider and Ms Fisher; directing that this check be drawn from the Inmates of Modular Accounts established by previous orders of the Court; directing the defedant DC to pay $37,641.67 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Inmates Modular Account by 6/18/97. (N) (jeb) Modified on 06/03/1997 (Entered: 06/03/1997)
DEPOSIT into the registry pursuant to Court's order dated 01/15/97 in the amount of $40,379.22. (JMF) (Entered: 06/12/1997)
554 STATUS REPORT by defendants' DC in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv02136, 1:86-cv-02128, (JMF) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) Modified on 07/10/1997 (Entered: 07/10/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting the Special Officer's motion for continuance of status hearing; status hearing set for 10:00 8/27/97 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/09/1997)
555 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion of the Special Officer Lopes for compensation; directing Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,125.66 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 80 of 119

07/18/1997 08/04/1997
08/11/1997 08/11/1997
08/27/1997 08/27/1997 09/03/1997 09/04/1997

previous orders of the Court; directing the Clerk of Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $19,264.10 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Dr. Downer and Mr. Henderson; this check shall be drawn from the Twenty-Thousand Dollar Fund established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia to pay $19,125.66 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account and pay $19,264.10 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Twenty-Thousand Dollar Fund, by 7/25/97. (N) (mlp) Modified on 07/10/1997 (Entered: 07/09/1997)
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, of amended certificate of service for defendants' opposition to the motion of Theresa Green, filed July 1, 1997. (lkn) (Entered: 07/21/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend funds and for compensation of Office Manager [918-1] by GRACE M. LOPES, directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check to Grace M. Lopes, in the amount of $14,604.87, drawn from Inmates of Modular account containing the proceeds of contempt fine monies; Ms. Lopes shall deposit these monies and draw from them in order to make regular payroll and tax payments for her secretary/office manager; defendants shall issue a check that is payable to Grace M. Lopes in the amount of $14,604.88 wihtin 45 days; Ms. Lopes shall deposit these monies and draw from them in order to make regular payroll and tax payments for her secretary/office manager. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/05/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (JMF) (Entered: 08/12/1997)
556 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [547-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $46,084.76 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Dr. Cohen, Dr. Belitsky, and Mr. Henderson; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia to pay $46,084.76 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/12/1997)
PROCUREMENT HEARING before Judge June L. Green: joint proposed plan to be submitted by 9/11/97. Reporter: Gordon Slodysko (mlp) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
557 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to seal the special officer's report on defendnat's compliance with the orders relating to personal safety (st) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
558 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [549-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 81 of 119

09/11/1997 09/15/1997 09/18/1997 09/22/1997
09/25/1997 09/29/1997 09/29/1997 10/02/1997

01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $37,212.70 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, and Mr. Roche; directing that this check be drawn from the Inmates of Modular Facility savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing that the District of Columbia shall pay to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular Facility Savings Account due by 9/18/97. (N) (jeb) Modified on 09/08/1997 (Entered: 09/08/1997)
559 RESPONSE by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion to seal the special officer's report on defendnat's compliance with the orders relating to personal safety [557-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER .; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
560 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of attorney Michael Edward Zielinski for DC in 1:79-cv-01726. (JMF) (Entered: 09/17/1997)
561 REPLY by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to plaintiffs' opposition to motion to seal the special officer's report on defendnat's compliance with the orders relating to personal safety [557-1] (JMF) (Entered: 09/19/1997)
562 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to seal the special officer's report on defendnat's compliance with the orders relating to personal safety [557-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; directing parties to meet and confer forthwith on the following segments of the Special Officer's Draft Report: security paraphernalia, page 32, line 5 through page 37, line 3; level of violence, pages 49-79; and officer deployment plan, pages 108-123; denying remainder of motion to seal; directing parties to meet and confer over which of the voluminous exhibits to be filed along with the Special Officer's Final Report might also need to be sealed. (N) (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting Theresa Green's motion for reconsideration of this Court's Order dated 7/16/97. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
563 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for leave to file nonredacted report and appendices under seal ; LODGED UNDER SEAL; (Volumes (1-17); redacted version)1 (JMF) (Entered: 09/29/1997)
564 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file nonredacted report and appendices under seal [563-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; the nonredacted version of her Special Report on Defendants' Compliance with the Orders related to Personal Safety (filed as Volume I) and its Appendices (filed as Volumes II through XVII) shall be sealed by the Clerk of the Court. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/30/1997)
565 MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 for appointment of a receiver and imposition of fines regarding personal safety ; exhibits (5)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 82 of 119

10/03/1997 10/03/1997 10/08/1997 10/09/1997
10/15/1997 10/16/1997 10/22/1997 10/28/1997 10/30/1997

(JMF) (Entered: 10/03/1997)
566 MOTION filed by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 for adoption of the findings in the special officer's report on defedants' compliance with the orders related to personal safety, dated September 29, 1997 (JMF) (Entered: 10/06/1997)
567 MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt and monetary sanctions imposed for violations of the personal safety provisions of the court's orders . (JMF) (Entered: 10/06/1997)
MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv-01726 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (JMF) (Entered: 10/09/1997)
568 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [554-1] by GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $41,128.90 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of the Special Officer and her staff; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previoius orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia to pay $41,128.90 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar saving account by 10/24/97. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
569 MOTION filed by defendants' in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 11/17/97 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for a receiver and imposition of fines , and for an order to show cause (JMF) (Entered: 10/16/1997)
570 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for adoption of the findings in the special officer's report on defedants' compliance with the orders related to personal safety, dated September 29, 1997 [566-1] by AHMED PASHA, WALTER ROBINSON, CALVIN ROOKARD, CARL WILLIAMS (N) (mlp) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
571 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion to extend time to 11/17/97 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for a receiver and imposition of fines [569-1] and for an order to show cause [569-2] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER (JMF) (Entered: 10/23/1997)
572 REPLY by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to plaintiffs' opposition to motion to extend time to 11/17/97 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for a receiver and imposition of fines [569-1] (JMF) (Entered: 10/29/1997)
573 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 11/17/97 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for a receiver and imposition of fines [569-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; response to dispositive motions due by 11/7/97, and show cause hearing set for 10:00 11/13/97. (N) (mlp) Modified on 10/30/1997 (Entered: 10/30/1997)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 83 of 119

10/31/1997 11/04/1997
11/05/1997 11/06/1997 11/06/1997 11/07/1997 11/12/1997 11/13/1997

574 JOINT MOTION by defendants and plaintiffs for entry of consent Orders modifying appointment of Special Officer. (ks) (Entered: 11/04/1997)
575 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion [556-1] by parties in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136, 1:86-cv-02128 to modify appointment of Special Officer; effective 11/1/97, the Court's Order appointing Special Officer of 8/15/91 with respect to Case Numbers 791726, 80-2136, and 90-727 is modified to provide that the duties previously assigned to Grace M. Lopes are assigned to Karen M. Schneider; the Court's Orders dated 2/29/96 and 7/18/96 in Case Number 92-1208, is modified to provide that the duties previously assigned to Grace M. Lopes are assigned to Karen M. Schneider; the foregoing Orders otherwise shall continue in full force and effect; Ms. Schneider is authorized to consult with and seek assistance from Ms. Lopes with regard to any matter within the scope of the Special Officer's duties; the Court's Order appointing Special Officer of 8/15/91 in Case Number 862128, shall continue in full force and effect, except that Ms. Schneider shall perform all monitoring functions in Case Number 86-2128; upon notice of resignation by Ms. Lopes to the Court, Ms. Schneider shall assume all the duties assigned to the Special Officer as set forth in the Court's Order appointing Special Officer of 8/15/91 in Case Number 862128. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
578 NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:79-cv01726, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:80-cv-02136, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:81-cv-02072, special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 of final accounting; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
576 MOTION filed by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 for resonable attorney fees and expenses for post-judgment monitoring ; exhibits (22); declarations (3); attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
577 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: show cause hearing set for 11/13/97 at 10:00 is reset to 2:00 11/20/97. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
582 RESPONSE by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 in opposition to motion for appointment of a receiver and imposition of fines regarding personal safety [565-1] by AHMED PASHA, WALTER ROBINSON, CALVIN ROOKARD, CARL WILLIAMS, ROBERT LEON WILSON .; declarations (2) (JMF) (Entered: 11/25/1997)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
579 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for compensation [559-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $39,652.04 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Lopes, Ms. Schneider and Mr. Roche; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders of the Court, D.C. shall pay $39,652.04 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 84 of 119

11/19/1997 11/20/1997 11/20/1997 11/24/1997 11/26/1997 11/26/1997
12/01/1997 12/02/1997 12/03/1997
12/04/1997 12/05/1997 12/08/1997

the Inmates of Modular account by 12/5/97; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $5,931.24 which represents underpayment by the defendants in prior motions for compensation; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $5,931.24 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 12/5/97. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
580 MOTION filed by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 12/5/97 to respond to plaintiffs' petition for attorney fees and costs (JMF) (Entered: 11/20/1997)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green: proposed resolution submitted to the Court; Consent Order signed by the Court. Reporter: Ed Hawkins (mlp) (Entered: 11/20/1997)
581 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green: regarding interim management assistance, new adjustment unit, population, classification, miscellaneous provisions. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/20/1997)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to the order dated 10/09/97 in the amount of $33,750.00 (JMF) (Entered: 11/25/1997)
583 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion to extend time to 12/5/97 to respond to plaintiffs' petition for attorney fees and costs [5801] by MARION S. BARRY JR. (JMF) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
584 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendants' and plaintiffs' for the District Court to request the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to convene a Three-Judge Court (JMF) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
586 REQUEST by Judge June L. Green for the convening of a Three-Judge Court (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
585 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 12/15/97 to open the new adjustment as required by this Court's order of 11/20/97 (JMF) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
587 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to extend time to 12/15/97 to open the new adjustment as required by this Court's order of 11/20/97 [585-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/03/1997)
588 STATEMENT filed by defendant in 1:79-cv-01726, regarding: plaintiffs' petition for attorney fees and costs. (JMF) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 12/08/1997)
589 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [563-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $42,988.11 which represents compensation for

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 85 of 119

12/08/1997
12/08/1997
12/08/1997 12/12/1997
12/15/1997 12/17/1997 12/23/1997 01/08/1998 01/09/1998 01/12/1998

the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Roche, Mr. Henderson, and Dr. Downer; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $42,988.11 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 12/31/97. (N) (mlp) Modified on 12/09/1997 (Entered: 12/08/1997)
590 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green: judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against the District of Columbia in the amount of Sixty-Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($63,300.00); this judgment, being in the nature of a settlement, shall bear no interest; the District shall pay the judgment issuing the check made payable to the ACLU National Prison Project. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/08/1997)
591 COPY of Order filed in USCA dated 12/4/97, by Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards, designating Circuit Judge David S. Tatel and District Judge Stanley Sporkin to serve with District Judge June Green to evaluate the parties' request for approval of a Population Consent Order (gt) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
CASE ASSIGNED to Three Judge Panel consisting of: Judge June L. Green , Circuit Judge David S. Tatel and Judge Stanley Sporkin . (gt) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 1/20/98 to submit a list of basic repairs that need to be maed at the Central and Maximum facilities as required by the Court's order of 09/25/97 [566-1] by DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
592 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 1/9/98 to open the new adjustment as required by this Court's order of 11/20/97 (JMF) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
593 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to extend time to 1/9/98 to open the new adjustment as required by this Court's order of 11/20/97 [592-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/17/1997)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to set compensation rate for assistant [568-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; Ms. Sandalow's compensation rate shall be set at $55.00 per hour. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (9) (JMF) (Entered: 01/09/1998)
594 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 1/16/98 to open the new adjustment as required by this court's order of 11/20/97 (JMF) (Entered: 01/12/1998)
595 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 86 of 119

01/16/1998 01/20/1998
01/20/1998 02/02/1998 02/05/1998

motion for compensation [570-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $57,271.81 as compensation for services and expenses; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $57,271.81 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 2/6/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 01/13/1998)
596 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 1/30/98 to open the new adjustment as required by this Court's order of 11/20/97 (JMF) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
597 POPULATION CONSENT ORDER by Judges June L. Green and Stanley Sporkin and United States Circuit Judge David S. Tatel: granting motion for the District Court to request the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to convene a Three-Judge Court [584-1] by plaintiffs and defendants; directing defendants to maintain the population at the Occoquan Facility at or below 1400 inmates and to further reduce the population to 1200 inmates or below by 3/31/98; this population ceiling can be exceeded only if the Director of D.C. Dept. of Corrections files with the Court a written declaration containing specific information outlined in this order. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
598 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 1/30/98 to open the new adjustment as required by this Court's order of 11/20/97 [596-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER, finding motion to extend time to 1/16/98 to open the new adjustment as required by this court's order of 11/20/97 by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER [594-1] moot. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
599 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to substitute the attached correctional officer deployment and ceiling for the number of beds allowed in the larger dorms ; attachment (1) (JMF) (Entered: 02/03/1998)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for further relief concerning the procurement of essential supplies and services [573-1] by JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv-01726; directing defendants to file with the Court within 30 days, a supplement to the list of basic facilities-maintenance repairs they filed on 1/20/98; after defendants file the supplement, every 30 days thereafter, they shall submit a report to the Special Officer with copies to plaintiffs' counsel, regarding the status of each repair; within 30 days, defendants are to take appropriate action with their contract food service vendor regarding nutritional assessment and satellite feeding; within 15 days, defendants are to take steps to improve monitoring of their contract with their food service vendor; within 30 days, defendants are to develop and institute an improved procedure for ensuring the timely distribution of basic hygiene, clothing, bed linens, and grooming items to inmates at the Maximum facility; within 60 days, defendants are

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 87 of 119

02/05/1998
02/06/1998 02/09/1998 02/11/1998
02/19/1998 02/19/1998 02/23/1998

to take such steps as are necessary to prioritize, track, and procure basic housekeeping and sanitation supplies in quantities sufficient to ensure that the Central and Maximum facilities are habitable, sanitary and safe; within 45 days, defendants shall report on what steps they are taking to procure adequate stores of basic food and personal hygiene items on the Canteen and whether sufficient stocks of such items are available; within 30 days, defendants are to take such actions as are necessary to procure medical services and dental supplies sufficient to render essential medical and dental care to the inmates at the Central facility; within 60 days, defendants are to file a status report with the Court describing the steps they have taken to comply with this Order; status hearing is set for 4/30/98 at 10:30. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
600 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to substitute the attached correctional officer deployment and ceiling for the number of beds allowed in the larger dorms [599-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; the Orders of this Court are amended to substitute the attached deployment plan for that filed with the Court on 4/19/96, and the maximum number of beds allowed in dorms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 is increased to 92; attachment. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (11) (JMF) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
601 MOTION filed by plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to amend order dated 12/08/97 [590-1], [590-2],[589-1] (JMF) (Entered: 02/10/1998)
602 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [575-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing the Clerk to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $75,058.19 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Roche, Mr. Sandalow, Dr. Downer, Dr. Belitsky, Mr. Henderson, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Maupin and Mr. Hackle; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $75,058.19 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 3/4/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/12/1998)
603 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of motion to amend order dated 12/08/97 [590-1], [590-2],[589-1] [601-1] by plaintiff (JMF) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
604 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for disbursement and partial repayment of contempt fine funds ; attachments (1) (JMF) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
605 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for disbursement and partial repayment of contempt fine funds [604-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; direcing the Clerk of the court to issue a check in the amount of $63,212.40, payable to Special Officer Ken Schneider, and draw from the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 88 of 119

02/25/1998 03/06/1998 03/10/1998 03/12/1998
03/16/1998 03/18/1998 04/02/1998 04/02/1998

Court Registry Investment System account established with contempt fine funds in this case; direcing the defendants to repay the contempt fine fund by depositing $49,149.00 into the Registry of the Court within 90 days; directing the defendants to report periodically and in writing, to Special Officer Lopes on the status of these expenditures; directing that all funds that are not expended for the items listed in defendants' proposal shall be returned promptly to the Registry of the Court. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 02/24/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 to consolidate accounts containing fine funds (JMF) (Entered: 02/26/1998)
608 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv02128 (JMF) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (10) (JMF) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
606 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [580-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 79-cv1726, granting motion for compensation [947-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 80-cv-2136 and directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider $44,151.12 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Roche, Ms. Sandalow and Ms. Banks; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $44,151.12 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 3/27/98; the Clerk of the Court is to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider $53,086.66 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Mr. Henderson, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Maupin; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $53,086.66 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 3/27/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/16/1998)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 4/6/98 to respond to motin of Nathaniel McQueen, et.al., for appointment of counsel (lkn) (Entered: 03/17/1998)
607 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to consolidate accounts containing fine funds [577-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; setting forth accounting procedures. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (8) (JMF) (Entered: 04/03/1998)
609 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend fine funds [955-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of the court shall issue a check from the TWELVE JOHN DOES Court Registry Investment System account in the amount of $25,000.00 to the Special

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 89 of 119

04/03/1998 04/08/1998 04/21/1998
04/21/1998

Officer for deposit in the Special Officer's checking account; and that the Special Officer shall receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement. (N) (ks) (Entered: 04/03/1998)
610 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to enter proposed order (JMF) (Entered: 04/06/1998)
RESPONSE by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv02136, plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NORMAN MINOR in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff LAVANCE GREENE-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff RAYMOND QUIGLEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff ALONZO W. BOLDEN-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136 to motion for appointment of counsel [952-1] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES, motion for an evidentiary hearing on remand [952-2] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES (fiat) URBINA, J. (bjsp) (Entered: 04/15/1998)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:79cv-01726 to order directing defendants to file with the Court within 30 days, a supplement to the list of basic facilities-maintenance repairs they filed on 1/20/98; after defendants file the supplement, every 30 days thereafter, they shall submit a report to the Special Officer with copies to plaintiffs' counsel, regarding the status of each repair; within 30 days, defendants are to take appropriate action with their contract food service vendor regarding nutritional assessment and satellite feeding; within 15 days, defendants are to take steps to improve monitoring of their contract with their food service vendor; within 30 days, defendants are to develop and institute an improved procedure for ensuring the timely distribution of basic hygiene, clothing, bed linens, and grooming items to inmates at the Maximum facility; within 60 days, defendants are to take such steps as are necessary to prioritize, track, and procure basic housekeeping and sanitation supplies in quantities sufficient to ensure that the Central and Maximum facilities are habitable, sanitary and safe; within 45 days, defendants shall report on what steps they are taking to procure adequate stores of basic food and personal hygiene items on the Canteen and whether sufficient stocks of such items are available; within 30 days, defendants are to take such actions as are necessary to procure medical services and dental supplies sufficient to render essential medical and dental care to the inmates at the Central facility; within 60 days, defendants are to file a status report with the Court describing the steps they have taken to comply with this Order; status hearing is set for 4/30/98 at 10:30. [942-1] in 1:80-cv-02136, 1:79-cv-01726, order [574-2] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 (st) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to order directing defendants to file with the Court within 30 days, a supplement to the list of basic facilities-maintenance repairs they filed on 1/20/98; after defendants file the supplement, every 30 days thereafter, they shall

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 90 of 119

04/21/1998 04/24/1998

submit a report to the Special Officer with copies to plaintiffs' counsel, regarding the status of each repair; within 30 days, defendants are to take appropriate action with their contract food service vendor regarding nutritional assessment and satellite feeding; within 15 days, defendants are to take steps to improve monitoring of their contract with their food service vendor; within 30 days, defendants are to develop and institute an improved procedure for ensuring the timely distribution of basic hygiene, clothing, bed linens, and grooming items to inmates at the Maximum facility; within 60 days, defendants are to take such steps as are necessary to prioritize, track, and procure basic housekeeping and sanitation supplies in quantities sufficient to ensure that the Central and Maximum facilities are habitable, sanitary and safe; within 45 days, defendants shall report on what steps they are taking to procure adequate stores of basic food and personal hygiene items on the Canteen and whether sufficient stocks of such items are available; within 30 days, defendants are to take such actions as are necessary to procure medical services and dental supplies sufficient to render essential medical and dental care to the inmates at the Central facility; within 60 days, defendants are to file a status report with the Court describing the steps they have taken to comply with this Order; status hearing is set for 4/30/98 at 10:30. [942-1] (st) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:79cv-01726 to order directing defendants to file with the Court within 30 days, a supplement to the list of basic facilities-maintenance repairs they filed on 1/20/98; after defendants file the supplement, every 30 days thereafter, they shall submit a report to the Special Officer with copies to plaintiffs' counsel, regarding the status of each repair; within 30 days, defendants are to take appropriate action with their contract food service vendor regarding nutritional assessment and satellite feeding; within 15 days, defendants are to take steps to improve monitoring of their contract with their food service vendor; within 30 days, defendants are to develop and institute an improved procedure for ensuring the timely distribution of basic hygiene, clothing, bed linens, and grooming items to inmates at the Maximum facility; within 60 days, defendants are to take such steps as are necessary to prioritize, track, and procure basic housekeeping and sanitation supplies in quantities sufficient to ensure that the Central and Maximum facilities are habitable, sanitary and safe; within 45 days, defendants shall report on what steps they are taking to procure adequate stores of basic food and personal hygiene items on the Canteen and whether sufficient stocks of such items are available; within 30 days, defendants are to take such actions as are necessary to procure medical services and dental supplies sufficient to render essential medical and dental care to the inmates at the Central facility; within 60 days, defendants are to file a status report with the Court describing the steps they have taken to comply with this Order; status hearing is set for 4/30/98 at 10:30. [942-1] in 1:80-cv-02136, 1:79-cv-01726, order [574-2] in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136 (st) (Entered: 04/24/1998)
RESPONSE by defendant ATTY GEN. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant ARTHUR GRAVES in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant SALANDA V.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 91 of 119

05/07/1998 05/07/1998
05/11/1998 05/12/1998 05/19/1998

WHITFIELD in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION D. STRICKLAND in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DELBERT C. JACKSON in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to motion for appointment of counsel [952-1] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES ; (fiat) URBINA, J. (bjsp) (Entered: 04/27/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
611 MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NORMAN MINOR in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff LAVANCE GREENE-BEY in 1:80cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff RAYMOND QUIGLEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff ALONZO W. BOLDEN-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff JOHN DOE in 1:79-cv01726, plaintiff RALPH L. CLARK in 1:81-cv-02072, plaintiff ROBERT LEON WILSON in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff CARL WILLIAMS in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff CALVIN ROOKARD in 1:86cv-02128, plaintiff WALTER ROBINSON in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff AHMED PASHA in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff FRED OWENS in 1:86-cv02128, plaintiff THOMAS OLIVER in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff MICHAEL IVEY in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff JEFFREY HOWARD in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff CARL HENDERSON in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff JOHN HARRIS in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff JAMES HARRINGTON in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff RONNIE GOODMAN in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff ALLEN GLAZER in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff JAMES DAVIS in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff MICHAEL CLAY in 1:86cv-02128, plaintiff WILLIAM ALSTON-EL in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff INMATES OF OCCOQUAN in 1:86-cv-02128 for leave to file supplement to plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing on remand (bjsp) (Entered: 05/11/1998)
ORDER by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina : granting motion for leave to file supplement to plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing on remand [961-1] by plaintiff ; plaintiff may file the amended motion on or before 5/18/98. (N) (blj) (Entered: 05/11/1998)
RESPONSE by defendant ARTHUR GRAVES in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant SALANDA V. WHITFIELD in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION D. STRICKLAND in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DELBERT C. JACKSON in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to motion for appointment of counsel [952-1] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES, motion for an evidentiary hearing on remand [952-2] by NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL, TWELVE JOHN DOES . ; exhibits (1) (bjsp) (Entered: 05/13/1998)
MOTION filed by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 for appointment of

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 92 of 119

06/01/1998 06/03/1998 06/05/1998 06/12/1998
06/15/1998
06/15/1998

counsel , and for an evidentiary hearing on remand ; exhibits (2) (tw) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant ATTY GEN. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant ARTHUR GRAVES in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant SALANDA V. WHITFIELD in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION D. STRICKLAND in 1:80-cv02136, defendant DELBERT C. JACKSON in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 6/15/98 within which to repond to supplemental motion of Nathaniel McQueen et al for appointment of counsel (bjsp) (Entered: 06/02/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 06/09/1998)
612 ORDER by Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr. for Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [592-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $62,717.28 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Sandalow, Mr. Maupin and KPMG, Peat Marwick; directing defendant DC pay $62, 717.28 to the Clerk of the court in order to replenish the Crestar Saving account due 6/26/98. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 06/10/1998)
(ENTERED IN ERROR) ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting the motion of the Special Officer to expend fine funds; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System account in the amount of $28,000.00 to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider for deposit in the Special Officer's checking account; the Special Officer shall make full disbursement of this sum ($28,000.00) to Lorton Art Program, Inc., for the general operating expenses of the Program; the Special Officer shall receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement. (N) (mlp) Modified on 06/23/1998 (Entered: 06/15/1998)
RESPONSE by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NORMAN MINOR in 1:80cv-02136, plaintiff LAVANCE GREENE-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff RAYMOND QUIGLEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff ALONZO W. BOLDEN-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to defendants' motion for an enlargement of time to reply to plaintiffs' supplemental motion for appointment of counsel and for evidentiary hearing. (tw) (Entered: 06/16/1998)
MOTION filed by defendant ATTY GEN. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant ARTHUR GRAVES in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant SALANDA V. WHITFIELD in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant MARION D. STRICKLAND in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DELBERT C. JACKSON in 1:80-cv-02136,

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 93 of 119

06/15/1998
06/17/1998 06/26/1998 07/02/1998 07/07/1998
07/09/1998 07/30/1998

defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:80-cv-02136, defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to extend time to 6/29/98 to respond to supplemental motion of NATHANIEL MCQUEEN, et al for appointment of counsel. (tw) (Entered: 06/16/1998)
RESPONSE by plaintiff TWO JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NATHANIEL MCQUEEN EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff NORMAN MINOR in 1:80cv-02136, plaintiff LAVANCE GREENE-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff WALTER BROOKS-EL in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff RAYMOND QUIGLEY in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff ALONZO W. BOLDEN-BEY in 1:80-cv-02136 in opposition to defendants' motion for an enlargement of time to reply to plaintiffs supplemental motion for appointment counsel and for evidentiary hearing. (tw) (Entered: 06/16/1998)
ORDER by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina : granting motion to extend time to 6/29/98 to respond to supplemental motion of NATHANIEL MCQUEEN, et al for appointment of counsel. [974-1] by defendant response to motion(s) due by 6/29/98 ; Evidentiary hearing set for 6/29/98; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/24/1998)
RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by defendant ATTY GEN. in 1:80-cv02136 to motion for appointment of counsel [964-1] by TWELVE JOHN DOES, TWO JOHN DOES (st) (Entered: 06/29/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (8) (JMF) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
613 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [587-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726, granting motion for compensation [583-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-2136; and 1:86-2128 directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $52,049.61 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Sandalow, Dr. Belitsky, and Mr. Maupin; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Saving account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $52,049.61 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Saving account by the 20th of July, 1998. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/07/1998)
REPLY by plaintiff in 1:80-cv-02136 to objection [977-1] by ATTY GEN.; Exhibits (6) . (lkn) (Entered: 07/10/1998)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to expend funds and for compensation of office manager [980-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check payable to Special Officer Schneider in the amount of $15,095.37 drawn from the Crestar Savings account; directing the Special Officer to deposit these monies and draw from them in order to make regular payroll payments to

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 94 of 119

07/31/1998 08/03/1998 08/04/1998
08/05/1998

her secretary/officer manager; directing the defendants to issue a check payable to the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $15,095.38 within 45 days; directing the Clerk of the Court to deposit the check into the Crestar Savings account and immediately issue a check in the amount of $15,095.38 payable to Special Officer Schneider; directing Special Officer Schneider to deposit these monies in to her operating account and draw from them in order to make regular payroll payments to her secretary/office manager. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/30/1998)
615 MOTION filed by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees (JMF) (Entered: 08/04/1998)
616 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for disbursment of contempt fine funds and for return of contempt fine funds to the court registry ; attachments (3) (JMF) (Entered: 08/04/1998)
614 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting unopposed motion of Special Officer for disbursement of contempt fine funds and for return of contempt fine funds to the court registry; directing the Clerk of the Court to promptly issue a check in the amount of $29,480.68, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Court Registry Investment System account established with contempt fine funds; Special Officer Schneider shall ensure that these funds are used to directly pay for the equipment and supplies that are the subject of the proposals included in the appendix to Special Officer Lopes' 8/3/98 memorandum in support of her motion; Special Officer Schneider is authorized to return to the court registry the sum of $784.00 which constitutes unexpended contempt fines held in the Special Officer's checking account pursuant to this Court 1/15/97 Order; Special Officer Schneider is authorized to return to the court registry the sum of $620.50 which constitutes unexpended contempt fines held in the Special Officer's checking account pursuant to this Court's 2/23/98 Order; the Clerk of the Court shall obtain these deposits from Special Officer Schneiderand return them to the CRIS account previously established with contempt fine funds deposited by defendants; defendants shall report periodically, and in writing, to Speical Officer Lopes on the status of the expenditures made pursuant to this Order; all funds that are not expended for the items listed in defendants' proposals shall be returned promptly to the registry of the court. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/04/1998)
617 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds and for return of contempt fine funds to the court registry [616-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check in the amount of $29,480.68, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) account established with contempt fine funds; Special Officer Schneider shall ensure that these funds are used to directly pay for the equipment and supplies that are the subject of the proposals included in the appendix to Special Officer Lopes' 8/3/98 Memo; Special Officer Schneider is authorized to return to the court registry the sum of

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 95 of 119

08/07/1998 08/11/1998
08/11/1998
08/11/1998 08/12/1998 09/01/1998 09/02/1998 09/03/1998

$784.00 which constitutes unexpended contempt fines held in the Special Officer's checking account pursuant to this Court 1/15/97 Order; Special Office Schneider is authorized to return to the Court Registry the sum of $620.50 which constitutes unexpended contempt finds held in the Special Officer's checking account pursuant to this Court's 2/23/98 Order; the Clerk of the Court shall obtain these deposits from Special Officer Schneider and return them to the CRIS account previously established with contempt fine funds deposited by defendants; defendants shall report periodically, and in writing, to Special Officer Lopes on the status of the expenditures made pursuant to this Order; all funds that are not expended for the items listed in defendants' proposals shall be returned promptly to the Registry of the Court. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/05/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 08/10/1998)
618 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge June L. Green for Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [596-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $52,685.03 as compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Sandalow, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Maupin; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $52,685.03 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 8/25/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
619 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting joint request to an award of attorneys' fees and costs for the period from 11/1/97 through 7/20/98; D.C. shall pay the National Prison Project the sum of $27,488.15 in full settlement of fees and costs for said period of time; defendants reserve their right to challenge future fee claims in this or other cases on any basis including the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
620 NOTICE OF FILING RE: letter regarding transfer of funds from operating account to the court's finance office for desposit in court's registry investment system account by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:86-cv-02128; attachments (tb) (Entered: 08/12/1998)
DEPOSIT into the Court's registry in the amount of $1,404.50 pursuant to order dated 08/05/98. (JMF) (Entered: 08/13/1998)
621 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86cv-02128, defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 to enter proposed order (tb) (Entered: 09/02/1998)
622 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to enter order [621-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER modifying Court's Orders of 11/20/97 and 4/6/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/02/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 09/09/1998)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 96 of 119

09/08/1998 10/07/1998
11/04/1998 11/06/1998 12/09/1998 12/09/1998 12/11/1998
12/22/1998

623 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting 9/3/98 motion for compensation, directing Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $38,455.70 for compensation; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. is to pay $38,455.70 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 9/23/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/08/1998)
624 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion to expend funds and for compensation of office manager [980-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $54,905.77 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Sandalow, Mr. Maupin and KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $54,905.77 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 10/22/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (jf) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
625 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [602-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $40,495.45; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Saving account; D.C. shall pay $40,495.45 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
626 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting 12/7/98 motion for compensation; directing Clerk of Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $39,726.72 for services and expenses; check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. is to pay $39,726.72 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 12/23/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to enter proposed Order arising from the 10/05/98 status hearing (lkn) (Entered: 12/10/1998)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: finding that continued monitoring of the District's progress in specific areas is required ; status hearing on procurement issues set for 10:00 1/20/99; defendants are to report to the Special Officer and plaintiffs' counsel by 12/28/98 about specific matters outlined in this Order; defts. will continue to submit reports regarding the status of construction projects to the Special Officer and plaintiffs' counsel every 30 days as previously ordered. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/11/1998)
627 MOTION filed by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 97 of 119

12/23/1998 12/31/1998 01/05/1999 01/07/1999 01/11/1999
01/27/1999 02/01/1999 02/02/1999
02/02/1999 02/05/1999

to substitute, nunc pro tunc, the attached correctional officer deployment plan and to lower the complement ; EXHIBIT (deployment plan) (jf) (Entered: 12/29/1998)
629 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to substitute, nunc pro tunc, the attached correctional deployment plan and to lower the complement [627-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR. (N) (jaw) (Entered: 01/05/1999)
628 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' in 1:86-cv-02128 to motion to substitute, nunc pro tunc, the attached correctional officer deployment plan and to lower the complement [627-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR. (jf) (Entered: 01/04/1999)
648 ERRATA by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR. in 1:86-cv-02128 of correctional deployment plan and to lower the complement; nucn pro tunc 12/22/98. (jf) (Entered: 06/25/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation (jf) (Entered: 01/14/1999)
630 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $56,400.99 for compensation; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous order of the Court; D.C. shall pay $56,400.99 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 1/26/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff MARCOS VEGA in 1:79-cv01726 by Michael S. Labson (lkn) (Entered: 01/28/1999)
631 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; attachments (jf) (Entered: 02/02/1999)
632 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [631-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay $7,629.55 to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider and drawn from the Court Registry Investment System; Special Officer Schneider shall ensure these funds are used to pay for the supplies and equipment that are the subject of the proposals included in the attachmnet to Special Officer Lopes' 2/1/99 motion; defts. are to report periodically to Special Officer Lopes on the status of these expenditures. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/02/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (jf) (Entered: 02/03/1999)
633 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting Special Officer Karen M. Schneider's motion filed 2/2/99 for compensation for services and expenses; directing the Clerk of Court to pay Ms. Schneider the sum of $34,563.11; the check shall be drawn from

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 98 of 119

02/12/1999 02/16/1999
03/03/1999 03/04/1999
03/10/1999 03/15/1999 03/16/1999
03/16/1999

the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $34,563.11 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 2/19/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/05/1999)
634 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for disbursement of contempt fine funds (jf) (Entered: 02/18/1999)
635 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [634-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; Clerk to issue a check for $1,662.00, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, drawn from the Court Registry Investment System account; Special Officer Schneider is to ensure that these funds are delivered to Warden Patricia Jackson; Warden Jackson is to use these funds to meet the inmate payroll costs described in 2/2/99 proposal submitted to Special Officer Lopes; defts. shall report monthly to Special Officer Lopes on the status of inmate payroll and provide her with a final report and accounting of these funds; all funds that are not used for the inmate payroll shall be returned to the Court Registry. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/26/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (8) (jf) (Entered: 03/03/1999)
636 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and by Judge June L. Green for Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation filed on 3/3/99; Clerk of the Court is to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $51,455.80 as compensation for services and expenses; the check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $51,455.80 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 3/22/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/05/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: regarding monitoring progress of defts. in the areas that were the subject of the Court's 5/26/98 and 12/11/98 Orders , status hearing set for 10:00 6/16/99 in 1:79-cv-01726, in 1:80cv-02136. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
637 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to enter proposed order (jf) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
638 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to enter proposed order [637-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; in re: defts.' motion to reduce Court ordered staffing as reflected in the closure plan for zones II and III and the consent of the plaintiffs and the Special Officer, dormitories within zones II and III are closed, the Court ordered staffing for the Occoquan Facility shall be reduced as reflected in the closure plan; thereafter, defts. shall comply with the staffing reflected in the closure plan Warden of Occoquan Facility shall provide plaintiffs and the Special Officer with weekly updates regarding the status of the closure plan; establishing medical treatments inmates are entitled to. (N) (mlp) Modified on 06/03/1999 (Entered: 03/16/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion to exercise contract authority [994-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; contract psychiatrist(s)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 99 of 119

03/24/1999
03/26/1999 03/30/1999
03/31/1999 04/02/1999 04/06/1999
04/08/1999

shall submit bills for services to Special Officer Schneider who shall forward them to D.C. Dept. of Corrections; within 2 weeks of receipt of same, D.C. shall deposit a check in the amount of the bills, payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court; this check shall be deposited in the Registry of the Court for disbursement to Special Officer Schneider; Clerk shall issue a check in the amount of the bills payable to Special Officer Schneider, who in turn, shall ensure that these funds are disbursed to the contract psychiatrist(s). (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend fine funds in the amount $40,000.00 [996-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; Clerk of Court is to issue a check from the Court Registry Investment System account in this case in the amount of $40,000.00 payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider for deposit in the Special Officer's checking account; Special Officer Schneider shall make full disbursement of this sum to Visitors' Services Center in order to subsidize the general operating expenses of the Center; Special Officer Schneider shall receive periodic progress reports regarding this disbursement. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/24/1999)
639 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendants in 1:86-cv-02128 for order to address staffing shortage (jf) (Entered: 03/30/1999)
640 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for order to address staffing shortage [639-1] by MARION S. BARRY JR., JAMES F. PALMER; authorizing Court-appointed Receiver for Medical and Mental Health Services at the D.C. Detention Facility to contract for a full time equivalent dentist to be assigned by defts. to the Occoquan Facility and to be supervised and monitored by defts.' health services staff; costs for this full time equivalent dentist will be borne by defts. who will reimburse the Receiver for the amount expended to contract for this service. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/30/1999)
642 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv-02128 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; attachments (1) (jf) (Entered: 04/07/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (jf) (Entered: 04/06/1999)
641 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant for Judge June L. Green : that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $42,232.77, which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Lopes, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Sandalow and Mr. Maupin; that this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; that the District of Columbia shall pay $42,232.77, to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by the 21st day of April, 1999. (N) (lkn) (Entered: 04/06/1999)
643 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [642-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; Clerk of Court shall

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 100 of 119

04/22/1999 04/27/1999
05/04/1999 05/06/1999 05/10/1999
05/18/1999 06/02/1999

issue a check in the amount of $15,250.00 payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Court Registry Investment System account; Special Officer Schneider shall ensure that these funds are delivered to Warden Patricia Jackson; Warden Jackson will use $10,250.00 of funds to purchase and distribute to the Occoquan inmates, the hygiene kit supplies; $5,000.00 of these funds shall be used to off-set the costs of the staff closure event that is described in the funding proposal included in the Appendix to Special Officer Lopes' motion for disbursement; Warden Jackson is to report regularly to Special Officer Lopes on the status of these disbursements. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 04/08/1999)
645 MOTION filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128 to enter proposed order (jf) (Entered: 04/28/1999)
644 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: upon consideration of consent motion filed by defts. to reduce Court ordered staffing as reflected in their health services closure plan and the phase III closure plan for correctional and non-uniform staff: the dormitories identifed in the phase III closure plan are closed, the Court ordered staffing for the Occoquan Facility shall be reduced as reflected in that plan; thereafter, defts. shall comply with the staffing reflected in attached closure plan; the Court ordered health services staff during phases II and III of the Occoquan closure shall be reduced as reflected in the attached staffing and schedules for phases II and III; Warden of Occoquan Facility shall provide plaintiffs and the Special Officer with weekly updates regarding the status of the closure plan; the defts. shall assure each prisoner who is transferred from Occoquan specific medical care as outlined in this Order ; attachments. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to enter an order excluding from the current population cap inmates housed in the modular facility or in the double-bunked portion of unit six [999-1] by plaintiff, defendant. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 05/05/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (8) (jf) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
646 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant for Judge June L. Green and by Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation; Clerk to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $59,180.00 for services and expenses, this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court, D.C. is to pay $59,180.00 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 5/25/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
NOTICE OF FILING RE: changes agreed by parties and the Special Officer to the Dental Plan by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136; attachment (tb) (Entered: 05/19/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (7) (jf) (Entered: 06/03/1999)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 101 of 119

06/03/1999 06/03/1999
06/16/1999 06/29/1999 06/29/1999 07/06/1999
07/07/1999 07/07/1999
07/21/1999

SCHEDULING NOTICE: hearing set for 10:30 7/15/99 before Judge June L. Green in Courtroom 7, 2nd Floor. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 06/03/1999)
647 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [620-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; Clerk of the Court is to pay Special Officer Schneider the sum of $41,830.61 which represents compensation for services and expenses; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Cort; D.C. shall pay $41,830.61 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 6/17/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 06/03/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to expend $28,000.00 from the Lorton Fine Fund in order to subsidize the continued operation of the Lorton Art Program, Inc. [1004-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; Special Officer shall receive periodice progress reports regarding this disbursement. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 06/17/1999)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Judy Brown (Miller Reporting) (lkn) (Entered: 06/29/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting pltfs.' oral motion for further relief concerning the procurement of medical services and pharmaceutical supplies for the Central Facility; directing defts. to file a report by 7/6/99; a further status hearing on medical procurement issues will be requested if defts.' report does not adequately resolve the issues noted in this Order. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 06/29/1999)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to order granting pltfs.' oral motion for further relief concerning the procurement of medical services and pharmaceutical supplies for the Central Facility; directing defts. to file a report by 7/6/99; a further status hearing on medical procurement issues will be requested if defts.' report does not adequately resolve the issues noted in this Order. [622-1], order [622-2] (lkn) (Entered: 07/07/1999)
SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing reset for 2:00 7/21/99 before Judge June L. Green in Courtroom 7, 2nd Floor. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/07/1999)
ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation; directing Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $36,731.99 for compensation for services and expenses; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. is to pay $36,731.99 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 7/22/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/08/1999)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green: defendants and Special Officer of the Court agree that the orders entered in this action are terminated except to the extent necessary for disbursement of the fines deopsited in the Court Registry pursuant to orders entered in this case.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 102 of 119

07/21/1999 08/03/1999 08/03/1999 08/03/1999 08/09/1999 08/17/1999

Reporter: Janice A. Salas, Miller Reporting Co. (mlp) (Entered: 07/23/1999)
649 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: terminating orders entered in this case except to the extent necessary for disbursement of the fines deposited in the Court Registry pursuant to orders entered in this matter; Special Officer Lopes is to report and issue recommendations concerning the disbursement of these fines by 9/30/99, and submit her final accounting report 60 days thereafter; this Order shall not affect any claim for fees and expenses on behalf of pltfs. or Special Officer Lopes. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/23/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: requiring continued monitoring of the District's progress in areas referenced in this Order; defts. shall confer with and inform pltfs. and the Special Officer about defts.' actions with regard to each of the areas testified to at the 6/29/99 hearing to ensure the procurement of essential supplies and services and to ensure compliance with the Court's orders ; status hearing set for 10:30 11/10/99 in 1:79-cv01726, in 1:80-cv-02136. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/03/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting Special Officer's motion to expend funds for compensation of Office Manager; directing Clerk of the Court to issue a check payable to Special Officer Schneider in the amount of $30,000.00 drawn from the Crestar Savings account; Special Officer shall deposit these monies into her operating account and draw from them in order to make regular payroll payments to her secretary/office manager. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [627-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726, granting motion to expend funds for compensation of Office Manager [1010-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $29,598.98 which represents compensation for services and expenses; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $29,598.98 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 8/19/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to vacate the August 03,1999 order to expend funds for compensation of Office Manager [1012-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, granting motion to substitute the attached order referencing the correct account [1012-2] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a check payable to Special Officer Schneider in the amount of $30,000.00 drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System account; Special Officer shall deposit these monies into her operating account and draw from them in order to make regular payroll payments to her secretary/officer manager. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/11/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [1014-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; Clerk of the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 103 of 119

08/30/1999 09/02/1999 09/07/1999
09/29/1999 09/30/1999 10/05/1999 10/06/1999
10/27/1999 10/28/1999

Court shall issue a check in the amount of $14,693.99, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System account; Special Officer Schneider shall ensure that these funds are used to pay for the supplies and equipment included in the appendix to the 8/16/99 motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds; defts. shall report periodicially, in writing to the Special Officer on the status of these expenditures. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/18/1999)
DEPOSIT of $9,375.00 into Court registry per Order of March 16, 1999. (lkn) (Entered: 08/31/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (jf) (Entered: 09/13/1999)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [629-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER ; Ordered that the Clerk of the Cour pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $31,827.22 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Lopes, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Sandalow; it is further ordered, that the check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account. (N) (jf) (Entered: 09/14/1999)
650 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86cv-02128, defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time to 10/29/99 for special officer to file report (jf) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
651 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 10/29/99 for special officer to file report [650-1] by ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, JAMES F. PALMER; Special Officer Lopes shall file her final accounting report 60 days thereafter. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (jf) (Entered: 10/06/1999)
652 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [631-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing Clerk of Court to pay Special Officer the sum of $44,769.98 as compensation for services and expenses; this check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previoius orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $44,769.98 to the Clerk of Court to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 10/22/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 10/07/1999)
653 MOTION (consent) filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86cv-02128 to extend time to 11/19/99 to file report (mlp) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
654 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting consent motion to extend time to 11/19/99 to file report [653-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; final accounting report is due 60 days thereafter. (N) (mlp) Modified on

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 104 of 119

11/02/1999
11/24/1999 11/29/1999 11/30/1999 11/30/1999

10/28/1999 (Entered: 10/28/1999)
ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [633-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Schneider the sum of $33,768.04 which represents compensation; check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $33,768.04 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 11/23/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
655 MOTION (CONSENT)filed by defendant in 1:86-cv-02128, plaintiff in 1:86-cv-02128 to extend time,nunc pro tunc, for Special Officer Lopes to file report :EXHIBIT (Joint recommendations report) (lkn) Modified on 11/26/1999 (Entered: 11/26/1999)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court pursuant to order dated 10/06/99 in the amount of $33,768.04 (jf) (Entered: 11/30/1999)
656 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time,nunc pro tunc, for Special Officer Lopes to file [655-1] by plaintiffs; Special Officer Lopes to file report and recommendation by 11/23/99 (N) (jaw) (Entered: 11/30/1999)
657 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for consideration of joint recommendation for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; directing the Clerk of the Court to issue checks drawn from the Court Registry Investment System account established with contempt fine funds to the following persons: $34,912.00 to Family Literacy Program for Incarcerated Fathers in the DC Department of Corrections, $9,674.00 to DC Cure, $25,000.00 to Hope House, $15,000.00 to DC Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., $10,000.00 to Family and Medical Counseling Service, Inc., $25,000.00 to EFFORTS, $15,000.00 to ACLU National Prison Project, $2,000.00 to Sgt. William Moseley, Lorton Maximum Security Facility, $40,000.00 to DC Department of Corrections to subsidize the cost of bus service for family members to visit DC prisoners incarcerated in Sussex, VA & Youngstown, OH, $19,500.00 to DC Department of Corrections to subsidize enhancement of the physical plant,$45,000.00 to DC Department of Corrections to subsidize the salary of a parole coordinator, $10,000.00 performance bonus to the Occoquan management team; directing that the Family Literacy Program, DC Cure, Hope House, DC Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., Family and Medical Counseling Services, Inc., ACLU National Prison Project, EFFORTS, and the DC Department of Corrections to use the funds exclusively for the purposes set forth in their respective proposals filed with the Court on 11/24/99; directing that the Family Literacy Program, DC Cure, Hope House, DC Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., Family and Medical Counseling Services, Inc., ACLU National Prison Project, EFFORTS, and DC Department of Corrections to provide an interim report on expenditure of these funds to Special Officer Schneider by 6/15/00 and a final report by 12/3/00 with exception of DC Prisoners'Legal Services, Project, Inc. to provide an interim report by

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 105 of 119

11/30/1999 12/02/1999 12/07/1999
12/07/1999
12/13/1999 12/14/1999 12/15/1999 12/16/1999 01/04/2000 01/05/2000

7/15/00 and final report by 12/31/01; directing that any residual funds in the CRIS account in this case shall be issued to DC Department of Corrections; and that all funds that are not used for the purposed specified in this order shall be returned to the Court Registry. (N) (jaw) (Entered: 12/06/1999)
666 NOTICE OF FILING by special master GRACE M. LOPES in 1:86-cv02128 of joint recommendations and parties for disbursement of contempt fine funds (jf) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (jf) (Entered: 12/05/1999)
658 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting consent motion to modify the Court's Order of 11/30/99, to provide that a check for the money referenced in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Order be issued, not to the Dept. of Corrections, but to Special Officer Karen Schneider, who will thereafter deposit said checks in her operating account and disburse the money upon proper application for funds by the Dept. of Corrections, consistent with the terms of the 11/30/99 Order. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/08/1999)
659 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [635-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Special Officer Schneider the sum of $33,148.35 which represents compensation; check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $33,148.35 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 12/21/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/08/1999)
660 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendants and plaintiffs in 1:86-cv02128, plaintiffs and defendants in 1:86-cv-02128 and special master, defendants and plaintiffs in 1:86-cv-02128 to modify the Court's order of 11/30/99 (FIAT) GREEN, J. (bjsp) (Entered: 12/15/1999)
663 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by (tb) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
661 MOTION filed by defendant JAMES F. PALMER in 1:86-cv-02128, defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS in 1:86-cv-02128 for order allowing adoption of consent order regarding attorney's fees (bjsp) (Entered: 12/16/1999)
662 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: according to the agreement reached by the parties, D.C. shall pay the National Prison Project the sum of $16,058.06 in complete settlement of all of pltfs.' remaining claim for fees and costs associated with this civil action. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (tb) (Entered: 01/05/2000)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green and by Judge June L. Green for Judge

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 106 of 119

01/06/2000 01/18/2000 01/21/2000
01/24/2000 01/24/2000 01/28/2000
02/02/2000 02/07/2000 02/28/2000 03/03/2000 03/03/2000 03/23/2000 03/29/2000

William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1022-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136; directing Clerk of Court to pay Special Officer Schneider $29,500.40 for compensation for services and expenses; check is to be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; D.C. shall pay $29,500.40 to Clerk of the Court in order to replenish Crestar Savings account by 1/20/00. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
DEPOSIT of 11,657.00 and 33,148.35 by special officer; attachments (tb) (Entered: 01/11/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for consolidation of accounts and disbursement of contempt fine funds ; attachments (tb) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
RESPONSE by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to order directing defts to confer with and inform pltfs. and the Special Officer about defts' action with regard to each of the areas testified to at the hearing held 12/14/99 [641-1], order [641-2]; attachment (1) (tb) (Entered: 01/22/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to set compensation rate for assistant (tb) (Entered: 01/27/2000)
DEPOSIT of $29,500.40 in the Registry of the Court pursuant to order of 01/05/00 (tb) (Entered: 02/02/2000)
664 FINAL ACCOUNTING OF CONTEMPT FINE FUNDS by special master GRACE M. LOPES and special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:86-cv-02128 ; attachments (bjsp) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; attachments (tb) (Entered: 02/03/2000)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green and William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1029-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER (N) (jeb) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
DEPOSIT of $36,048.21 into the Registry of Court pursuant to court order of 02/22/00 by the District of Columbia (tb) (Entered: 03/01/2000)
DEPOSIT of 8,125.00 into the Registry of the court pursuant to court's order of 03/16/00 (tb) (Entered: 03/06/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (2) (tb) (Entered: 03/06/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to expend fine funds ; exhibit (1) (tb) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of Court in the amount of 33,793.69 pursuant to court's order of 03/21/00 by District of Columbia (tb) (Entered: 03/30/2000)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 107 of 119

04/03/2000 04/06/2000 04/14/2000 05/05/2000 05/31/2000 06/05/2000 06/22/2000 06/27/2000 06/29/2000
07/06/2000
07/06/2000 07/27/2000

MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (5) (tb) (Entered: 04/04/2000)
665 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [1035-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (jeb) (Entered: 04/06/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of Court in the amount of 55,250.00 pursuant to court's order of 03/09/00 by the District of Columbia (tb) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
667 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [647-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79cv-01726 (N) (jeb) Modified on 05/05/2000 (Entered: 05/05/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of $31,544.01 pursuant to order dated May 5, 2000. (tth) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; Exhibits (4) (tth) (Entered: 06/08/2000)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Susan Harris, Miller Reporting (jeb) (Entered: 06/22/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; appendixes (2) (dot) (Entered: 06/29/2000)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [1040-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of Court shall issue a check in the amount of $70,000 payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court registry Investment System. (See Order for details) (N) (ks) (Entered: 06/30/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726, special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 for compensation for services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle ; Exhibits (4) (tth) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of 32,477.15 pursuant to order to June6, 2000 (tb) (Entered: 07/13/2000)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for expend funds for compensation of office manager [1044-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136, the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check to Special Officer Schneider in the amount of $17,000 from the court Registry. The Special Officer shall deposit these monies and draw from them in order to make employer's contributions and regular payroll payments for her office manager. The defendants shall issue a check payable to the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $17,000.00 within 45 days. The Clerk of the Court shall deposit the check into the Crestar Savings account and immediately issue a check in the amount of $17,000.00 payable to Special Officer Schneider. Special Officer Schneider shall deposit these

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 108 of 119

07/31/2000 08/01/2000
08/03/2000 08/04/2000 08/04/2000 08/24/2000 08/29/2000 08/29/2000 09/06/2000 09/07/2000
09/14/2000 10/03/2000

monies into her operating account and draw them in order to make employer's contributions and regular payroll payments for her officer manager. (N) (dam) (Entered: 07/27/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amoun 38,004.09 pursuant to court's order of July 24, 2000 (tb) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
MOTION (CONENT) filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, defendant USA in 1:79-cv-01726, special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726, plaintiff MARCOS VEGA in 1:79-cv01726 for order concerning basic facilities repairs (dam) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (tb) (Entered: 08/04/2000)
SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL for defendant in 1:80-cv-02136, substituting Robert C. Utiger for Martin Grossman (dam) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL for defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726, substituting Robert C. Utiger for attorney Richard Stuart Love for DC in 1:79-cv-01726, attorney Paul A. Quander Jr. and Martin Grossman for DC in 1:79-cv-01726 (dam) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
DEPOSIT in the amount of 10,000,00 into the Registy pursuant to court's order 03/16/99; attachment (tb) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry in the amount of $17,000.00 pursuant to court's order of 07/26/00 (tb) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
DEPOSIT in the Registry in the amount of $28,829.33 pursuant to court's order of 08/08/00 (tb) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (6) (tb) (Entered: 09/09/2000)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [654-1] by MARCOS VEGA, KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, USA, DC; that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $42,358.67 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Julianelle and Dr. Greifinger; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; and that the District of Columbia shall pay $42,358.67 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 9/22/00. (Original Order filed in CA 80-2136) (N) (ks) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
DEPOSIT by District of Columbia into the Registry of the Court the amount of $9,125.00. (ks) (Entered: 09/15/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation (tb) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 109 of 119

10/03/2000 10/04/2000
10/04/2000
10/06/2000 10/11/2000 10/17/2000 10/20/2000 10/20/2000 10/20/2000 11/03/2000 11/06/2000
12/01/2000

MEMORANDUM RE: accounting of contempt fine funds by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 (tb) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : That the Special Officer shall issue a check, in the amount of $1,848.00, to the Clerk, U.S. District Court; and that the Court's financial administrator shall deposit the funds into the Twelve John Does Court registry investment System (CRIS) account (802136A). (N) (ks) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
ORDER (Copy) by Judge William B. Bryant and William B. Bryant for Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation [1050-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $57,645.03 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Julianelle and Mr. Becker; and that the District of Columbia shall pay $57,645.03 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 10/20/00. (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136, plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to enter proposed order (tb) (Entered: 10/07/2000)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing defendants to file a status report with the court; and status hearing set for 11:00 11/14/00 in 1:79cv-01726, in 1:80-cv-02136 ; (N) (ks) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
NOTICE OF FILING RE: memorandum from James Anthony to counsel dated 08/02/00 by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136; attachment (tb) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
DEPOSIT by the District of Columbia in the amount of 11, 875.00 into the Registry of the Court (tb) (Entered: 10/23/2000)
DEPOSIT by the District of Columbia in the amount of 9,375.00 into the Registry of the Court (tb) Modified on 10/24/2000 (Entered: 10/24/2000)
DEPOSIT by the District of Columbia in the amount of $42,358.67 (tb) (Entered: 10/24/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (tb) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1059-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $43,472.36 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle; and that the District of Columbia shall pay $43,472.36 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 11/22/00. (Original filed in CA 80-2136) (N) (ks) (Entered: 11/09/2000)
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by plaintiff JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136,

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 110 of 119

12/05/2000 12/06/2000 12/07/2000
12/13/2000 12/14/2000
12/15/2000 01/04/2001
01/10/2001 01/10/2001 01/31/2001 02/01/2001

plaintiff TWELVE JOHN DOES in 1:80-cv-02136 to enter proposed order (tb) (Entered: 12/06/2000)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of Court in the amount of 43,472.36 pursuant to court's order (tb) (Entered: 12/06/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (4) (tb) (Entered: 12/11/2000)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1063-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $27,894.70 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle; and that this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the court; and that DC shall pay $27,894.70 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 12/22/00. (N) (ks) (Entered: 12/19/2000)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; exhibits (2) (cjp) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
668 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting the Special Officer's motion for disbursement of contemt fine funds; the Clerk of Court shall issue a check, in the amount of $34,547.87 payable to Special Officer karen M. Schneider and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System (N) (adc) (Entered: 12/14/2000)
DEPOSIT $10,875.00 pursuant to order filed 3/16/99. (td) (Entered: 12/22/2000)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation for the services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle [1067-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; that the Clerk of Court pay Special Office Karen Schneider the sum of $28,762.39 for services and expenses; the check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; that the District of Columbia shall pay 28,762.49 to the Clerk of Court by 01/22/01. (N) (tb) (Entered: 01/08/2001)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of 11, 000.00 pursuant to court order of 03/16/99 by the District of Columbia (tb) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
DEPOSIT into the Registry of the Court in the amount of 37,269.70 pursuant to court's order of 12/07/00 by the District of Columbia (tb) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; Appendices (5) (tth) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for disbursement

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 111 of 119

02/01/2001
02/01/2001 02/01/2001 02/14/2001 02/14/2001 03/06/2001
03/06/2001 04/04/2001

of contempt fine funds [1065-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check inthe amount of 99,145.95, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does; the Special Officer shall ensure that these funds are used exclusively for the purposes set forth in 01/31/01 proposals; recipients of these funds shall report periodically in writing to the Special Officer on status of these expenditures; any funds that are not expended shall be returned to the Registry of the Court (N) (tb) (Entered: 02/01/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation for the services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Julianelle [663-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726; the Clerk of Court pay Special Officer Karen Schneider the sum of 29,996.76 representing compensation for services and expenses for Schneider, Wiley, Julianelle and Dr. Shansky; check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; teh District of Columbia shall pay 29,996.76 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account by 02/15/01 (N) (tb) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726, special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 for compensation for the services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley, Ms. Julianelle and Dr. Shansky ; Exhibits (5) (tth) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
669 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of motion seeking judgment and motion to amend complaint by BRUCE L. MENTION (tb) Modified on 06/11/2001 (Entered: 06/11/2001)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC of the amount of $9,375.00 into the registry pursuant to Court's 3/16/99 order (cjp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
DEPOSIT by District of Columbia $9,375.00 to Court's registry. (td) (Entered: 03/01/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant granting special master's motion for compensation for services and expenses rendered by Karen M. Schneider and Ed Wiley III; the Clerk of Court shall pay Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley the sum of 23,542.40; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; and the District of Columbia shall pay 23,52.40 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the savings account : (N) (tb) (Entered: 03/09/2001)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation (tb) (Entered: 03/09/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant that the Clerk of Corut pay Karen M. Schneider the sume of 25,977.67 for compensation and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; the check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; the District of Columbia 25,977.67 to the Clerk of Court ot replenish the Crestar Savings account by 04/18/01 : (N) (tb) (Entered: 04/09/2001)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 112 of 119

04/20/2001 05/01/2001 05/04/2001
06/06/2001 06/07/2001 06/13/2001 06/14/2001
07/09/2001
07/31/2001 08/20/2001

DEPOSIT by defendants of $9,735.00 pursuant to Court's 3/16/99 order (cjp) (Entered: 04/24/2001)
DEPOSIT by defendant of $25,977.67 pursuant to Court's 4/4/01 order (cjp) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant instructing the Clerk of Court to pay Special Officer Karen Schneider the sum of 21, 172.88 for compensation and expenses; check shall be drawn from the Crestar savings account; the District of Columbia shall pay 21, 172.88 to the Clerk of Court to replensih Crestar savings account : (N) (tb) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (tb) (Entered: 06/08/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant that the Clerk shall pay Karen Schneider the sumof 27,179.18; check shall be drawn from Crestar account; the District of Columbia shall pay 27,179.18 to the Clerkof Court to replenish Crestar account : (N) (tb) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; exhibits (3) (tb) (Entered: 06/21/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant directing the Clerk of Court to issue check in the amount of 105,000 payable to Karen Schneider drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System; Special Officer shall dispurse 35,000 to Lorton Art Program; 40,000 to Visitor's Services Center; 30,000 to My Sister's Place; recipients shall report periodically to Special Master on status of expenditures : (N) (tb) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant granting motion for compensation by the Special Officer Schneider; directing the Clerk of Court to pay Special Officer K. Schneider 23,960.77 for compensation of services and expenses; check to be drawn from Crestar Savings account; the District of Columbia shall pay 23,960.77 to the Clerk of Court by 07/23/01 : (N) (tb) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
DEPOSIT by defendant DC in the amount of $23,960.77 pursuant to Court's 7/9/01 order (cjp) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [1080-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, and directing the Clerk to issue a check payable to Special Officer Schneider from the Court registry and with instructions to the Special Officer on deposit of these monies and directing defendants to issue a check payable to the Clerk of Court for deposit into the Crestar Savings account and issue a check payable to Special Officer Schneider for deposit for employer contributions and payroll payments. (N) (rew) (Entered: 08/20/2001)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 113 of 119

09/07/2001
10/03/2001 10/16/2001 10/17/2001
10/25/2001
11/06/2001 11/07/2001 11/20/2001
12/03/2001 12/05/2001

ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant ordering the Clerk to pay Special Office Karen Schneider the sum of 21, 885.91 for compensation for services and expenses; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; the District of Columbia shall pay 21,885.91 to the Clerk by 09/21/01 to replenish the Crestar account : (N) (tb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (cjp) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
DEPOSIT by Special Officer in the amount of $8,500.00 into the registry of the court pursuant to order. (nmr) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1088-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk shall issue a check to Special Officer in the amount of 8,500.00 drawn from the Twelves John Does; the defendants shall issue a check payable to the Clerk withing forty-five (45) days; (SEE ORDER MORE DETAILS) (N) (tb) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for order granting the disbursement of contempt fine funds to be used to purchase recreational items for the inmates at Central Facility and subsidize a variety of programs that will assist District of Columbia inmates at Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities ; exhibit (4) (bjsp) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
DEPOSIT by defendant of $21,644.39 pursuant to Court's 10/3/01 order (cjp) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant ordering the Clerk to pay Special Officer Schneider the sum of 24,918.20 for expenses and services; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; the District of Columbia shall pay 24,918.20 to the Clerk to replenish Crestar Savings account by November 21, 2001. : (N) (tb) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for order granting the disbursement of contempt fine funds to be used to purchase recreational items for the inmates at Central Facility and subsidize a variety of programs that will assist District of Columbia inmates at Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities [1090-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk of Court shall issue a check in the amount of 35,099.00 to the Special Officer drawn from the Twelve John Does (CRIS) account; the recipients shall report to the Special Officer on status of expenditures (N) (tb) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; affidavit (1); attachments (cjp) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1093-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk of Court shall pay the special officer the sum of 24,549.73, this check shall be drawn from the

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 114 of 119

01/03/2002 01/07/2002
02/01/2002 02/04/2002 02/06/2002
02/19/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/06/2002
03/06/2002

Crestar savings accout; the District of Columbia shall pay the Clerk the sum of 24, 549.73 to replenish savings account (N) (tb) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (cjp) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman for Judge William B. Bryant granting motion for compensation filed on 01/03/02; the Clerk of Court to pay the Special Master the sum of 21,568.34; check shall be drawn from Crestar Savings account the District of Columbia shall replenish the Crestar account in the sum of 21,568.34 by 01/21/02 : (N) (tb) Modified on 01/07/2002 (Entered: 01/07/2002)
DEPOSIT of $21,568.34 in the registry fund of the Court. (td) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (2) (td) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: granting motion for compensation [1097-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $24,607.19 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; that this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; that the District of Columbia shall pay $24,607.19 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by the 20th day of February, 2002. (N) (dam) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
DEPOSIT $24,607.19 into registry of the court. (td) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 fo disbusement of contempt fine fundsr ; attachments (2) (td) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (td) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [1096-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check in the amount of $68,670.00, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System ((CRIS) account; Special Officer Schneider shall deliver a check in the same amount to the Director of Hope House; the Director of Hope House shall report periodically in writing to the Special Officer on the status of these expenditures; any funds that are not expended for the purposes specified in this Order shall be returned to the Registry of the Court. (N) (dam) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation for the services, and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Mr. Wiley, Ms.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 115 of 119

03/19/2002 04/04/2002 04/05/2002 04/11/2002
04/25/2002 04/26/2002
05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/03/2002

Julianelle and Dr. Shansky [665-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER, KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv-01726, 1:80-cv-02136; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $23,233.49 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; that the District of Columbia shall pay $23,233.49 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by the 19th of March, 2002. (N) (dam) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
DEPOSIT of $23,233.49 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for cmpensation ; exhibit (1) (bjsp) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
DEPOSIT of $23,233.49 into the Court's Registry. (td) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [670-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $23,187.17 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; that the District of Columbia shall pay $23,187.17 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenisb the Crestar Savings by the 24th day of April to 2002. (N) (dam) (Entered: 04/11/2002)
MOTION filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 for adoption of consent order regarding attorneys' fees. (td) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
ORDER (CONSENT) by Judge William B. Bryant: that the District of Columbia shall pay Covington & Burling the sum of two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000) in settlement of all of plaintiffs' remaining claims for fees and costs associated with monitoring compliance with the Orders entered in both of the above-referenced civil actions; if the settlement amount is not paid within 120 days of entry of this Consent Order it shall, thereafter, bear interest running from the date 120 days after entry of this Consent Order at the rate prescribed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1961. (N) (dam) (Entered: 04/26/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 compensation ; exhibits (3) (td) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for compensation (dam) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [674-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $24,776.90 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; the check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 116 of 119

05/06/2002 05/06/2002 05/29/2002 06/05/2002 06/05/2002 06/06/2002
06/21/2002 06/24/2002
06/27/2002 07/03/2002

shall pay $24,776.90 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 5/17/02. (N) (dam) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
MOTION (consent) filed by defendant DC in 1:79-cv-01726 to dismiss this civil action. (td) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
MOTION (consent) filed by defendant DC in 1:80-cv-02136 to vacate orders entered herein relate to the conditions of confinement at an institution operated by the DC Department of Corrections. (td) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
DEPOSIT of $47,964.04 into registry of the Court pursuant ot order filed 4/11/02. (td) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to compel ; exhibits (3) (tb) (Entered: 06/06/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (tb) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1105-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER; ordering the Clerk of Court to pay Karen Schneider the sume of $28,759.65; check to be drawn from Crestar account; the District of Columbia shall pay $5,526.16 to the Clerk to replenish Crestar account; this amount is reduce due to defendant' overpayment on 04/15/02 (N) (tb) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:79-cv01726 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; appendix (2) (mpt) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: that the Clerk of the Court shall issue a check, in the amount of $80,000.00 payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) account; that Special Officer Schneider shall disburse $40,000.00 to Lorton Art Program, Inc., for the general operating expenses of the Program; that Special Officer Schneider shall disburse $40,000.00 to the Visitors' Services Center for the general operating expenses of the Program; that the recipients shall report periodically in writing to the Special Officer on the status of these expenditures. (N) (dam) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
DEPOSIT by District of Columbia in the sum of $5,526.16 into the Registry of the Court (bcs) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $24,376.51 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $24,376.51 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 7/17/02. (N) (dam) (Entered: 07/03/2002)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 117 of 119

07/03/2002 08/05/2002 08/06/2002 08/07/2002
08/07/2002 09/06/2002 09/09/2002 09/17/2002
10/04/2002 10/22/2002
11/12/2002

MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for order for compensation ; exhibits (3) (td) (Entered: 07/05/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for special officer for compensation. (td) (Entered: 08/06/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for expend funds for compensation of office manager (mpt) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant: that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $29,519.18 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; that this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $29,519.18 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by the 8/20/02. (N) (dam) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
DEPOSIT of $24,376.51 into the registry of the Court. (td) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursment of contempt fine funds ; appendix (1) (mpt) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
670 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation of Karen Schneider and Ed Wiley III, directing that account be replenished by the District of Columbia by 9/23/02 (N) (lin) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
671 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting the Special Officer's motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds. The Clerk of the Court shall issue a check, in the amount of $40,000, payable to Special Officer Karen M. Schneider, and drawn from the Twelve John Does Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) account. Special Officer Schneider shall disburse $40,000 to Georgetown University Law Center for the operating expenses of the D.C. Family Literacy and Street Law programs. The recipient shall report periodically in writing to the Special Officer on the status of these expenditures. (N) (dot) (Entered: 09/17/2002)
DEPOSIT of $36,524.04 to court's registry. (td) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
672 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : that the Clerk of the Court pay Special Officer karen Schneider the sum of $30,812.18 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account established by previous orders of the Court; that the District of Columbia shall pay $30,812.18 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 11/5/02 (N) (adc) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
673 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : that the Clerk of the Court pay

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 118 of 119

11/14/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 01/06/2003 03/20/2003
04/07/2003 04/08/2003
05/02/2003 05/02/2003 05/02/2003 05/07/2003 05/13/2003

Special Officer Karen Schneider the sum of $30,792.24 which represents compensation for the services and expenses; the District of Columbia shall pay $30,792.24 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 11/22/02 (N) (adc) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
DEPOSIT by DC of $30,812.18 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
DEPOSIT of $30,792.24 into registry of the court. (td) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
DEPOSIT of $29,518.18 into registry of the court. (td) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 of special officer for compensation ; exhibits (3) (td) Modified on 01/08/2003 (Entered: 01/07/2003)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $28,696.03 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; the District of Columbia shall pay $28,696.03 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 4/3/03 (N) (adc) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
DEPOSIT by the District of Columbia of $27,704.89 into Court's registry. (td) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Special Officer Karen M. Schneider the sum of $33,331.40 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Wiley; this check shall be drawn from the Crestar Savings account; the District of Columbia shall pay $33,331.40 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar Savings account by 4/22/03 (N) (adc) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for compensation ; exhibits (3) (bcs) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER: filed by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 accounting of Occoquan contempt fine funds.; exhibits (4) (bcs) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 to return fine funds to the District Court's account , and to consolidate the District Court's fine fund accounts ; exhibits (4) (bcs) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
674 ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [1122-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv-02136 (N) (lin) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
DEPOSIT of $33,331.40 into Court's registry. (td) (Entered: 05/14/2003)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

District of Columbia live database - Docket Report

Page 119 of 119

05/16/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/23/2003 05/29/2003
06/02/2003
06/04/2003
06/04/2003 06/26/2003

DEPOSIT of $20,414.82 into the court's registry. (td) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
DEPOSIT of $3,449.95 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 05/26/2003)
DEPOSIT of $43,443.70 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 05/26/2003)
DEPOSIT of $6,688.56 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 05/26/2003)
MOTION filed by special master KAREN M. SCHNEIDER in 1:80-cv02136 for disbursement of contempt fine funds ; exhibits (5) (td) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for disbursement of contempt fine funds [1130-1] by KAREN M. SCHNEIDER. Special Officer Schneider shall disburse the checks to the recipients; after the referenced checks clear, the Suntrust Account shall be closed (N) (adc) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion to approve accounting; Special Officer Schneider is authorized to transfer to the Court's Suntrust bank account the sum of $3,726.02 (N) (adc) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation; District of Columbia shall pay $23,599.74 to the Clerk of the Court to be deposited in the Suntrust Account by 6/20/03; the Clerk of the Court shall pay Special Officer Karen Schneider the sum of $23,599.74 (N) (adc) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
ORDER by Judge William B. Bryant : granting the motion to approve the accounting; Special Officer Schneider's accounting of $20,000 account is approved (N) (adc) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
DEPOSIT of $23,599.74 into court's registry. (td) (Entered: 07/07/2003)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

09/16/2005 13:25:19

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

1:86-cv-02128-JLGSS
2.40

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126027536209527-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

 
 650 F.Supp. 619 (1986)
INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Marion BARRY, Mayor, et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 86-2128.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
December 22, 1986.
Alvin J. Bronstein, Edward I. Koren, Alexa P. Freeman, Steven Ney, National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.
Metcalfe C. King, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., for defendants.
620 *620 OPINION
JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge.
This action is brought by a class of inmates confined at the Occoquan I, II, and III Facilities of the Lorton Correctional Complex. The Court, on August 13, 1986, certified the class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as "all persons, present and future, confined to the Occoquan Facilities located on the Lorton reservation operated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections."
Plaintiffs have filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs contend that an excessive inmate population; deficiencies in environmental health and safety; food services, fire safety, medical and dental services, and mental health care, alone or in combination, violate their rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
A trial to the Court was followed by extensive post-trial briefing. Plaintiffs presented testimony by five expert and three inmate witnesses. Defendants offered the testimony of five experts and three lay witnesses. Based upon the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, judgment is awarded in plaintiffs' favor.
I. Findings of Fact
The Occoquan Facilities have a total of 19 housing units. Occoquan I and II each have seven housing units, while Occoquan III has five housing units. These living quarters, constructed in 1925, are brick buildings with wooden roofs. Transcript ("Tr.") at 1105. The buildings, or dormitories, for the most part are single-story buildings. Each housing unit features a day room in the front, a separation with toilet, shower, and laundry areas, and large squad bay dormitories. The buildings are identified by letter, number, or both. Dormitories J and K are two-story buildings, and Dormitory 5 is in the basement of the gymnasium. Tr. at 30.
Other facilities include the gymnasium, culinary unit, a small chapel, an outdoor recreation field, and administration and program offices. The Occoquan Facilities, which are classified as medium security institutions, are, of course, ringed with security fencing.
The population trend at Occoquan indicates that the population has been increasing steadily for the past year, except for the emergency transfer of hundreds of inmates following the riot on July 10, 1986, and the transfer in October 1986, of 200 inmates to the new Modular Facility at the Lorton Complex. Tr. at 741; Plaintiffs' Exhibits 8, 9. On October 21, 1985, the population of the three Occoquan Facilities was 1,397. One year later, October 27, 1986, the population had risen to 1,600, so that it was not far below the level of 1,756 that existed at the time of

the July 1986 riot. Tr. at 88. On November 24, 1986, the population at the three Occoquan Facilities had crept up to 1,637. See Daily Population Reports filed with United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Campbell v. McGruder, No. 1462-71 (D.D. C.).
A. Environmental Conditions
1. Housing
Both parties' public health experts concurred that the revised American Public Health Association ("APHA") standard, which allots 95 square feet per inmate, is acceptable as a minimum standard in dormitory situations. Tr. at 473-74, 1270-72. The 95 square-foot figure includes a prescribed 60 square feet per inmate of living space and 35 square feet per inmate for day room space. The APHA standards were written by environmental health and safety professionals and are supported by epidemiological evidence. Tr. at 1213, 1274; see also Plaintiffs' Exhibit 31.
The accepted method of calculating living space is prescribed by the American Correctional Association ("ACA"). 621 The ACA method of measurement of living space instructs that the calculation of total living *621 space of a
housing unit excludes the day room, toilet and shower rooms, as well as traffic corridors. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 30, 1983 Supplement at 2-4129.
Applying the APHA 95 square foot per inmate standard, using the ACA method of space calculation, the Occoquan Facilities do not provide adequate living space for inmates. Tr. at 476, 1271; see also Plaintiffs' Exhibits 48 at 40-41. In some places, beds are but seven to nine inches apart. Tr. at 476-77; see also Plaintiffs' Exhibit 48 at 40-43.
Confining excessive numbers of people in limited spaces significantly increases the risk of transmission of airborne diseases, such as tuberculosis. Tr. at 1273. The inadequate and sometimes nonoperational ventilation system in the Occoquan dormitories greatly exacerbates this serious health risk. Tr. at 444-48, 513-14, 749, 1223-27, 1253; see also Plaintiffs' Exhibits 14ii; 14jj; 45 at 35; 48 at 34-35.
Plaintiffs' and defendants' medical experts also noted that inadequate medical screening of the population entering Occoquan's dormitories compounds further the risk of transmission of airborne communicable diseases. Tr. at 195-203, 1074-78; see also infra at 29. Inadequate ventilation aggravates this "seeding" of the population and increases the risk of the spread of airborne communicable diseases. Tr. at 195-96, 448-51.
As one might well expect, greater numbers confined in limited spaces result in greater noise levels, as well. There was uncontradicted expert testimony that excessive noise levels were prevalent in the living and day room areas of the dormitories. Tr. at 456, 1124-26; see also Plaintiffs' Exhibit 48 at 37. Plaintiffs' environmental expert, Ward Duel, found that noise levels in the dormitories often exceeded the ACA daytime standard of 70 decibels. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 30 at 2-4130. In Mr. Duel's judgment the noise levels in the Occoquan dormitories approach industrial standards used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Tr. at 457; see also Tr. at 36, 113; Plaintiffs' Exhibits 6 at 4; 50 at 17-18. Existing authorities indicate that sustained excessive noise levels increase stress levels and pose a significant risk to inmates' physical and mental health. Tr. at 458; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 31 at 83.
Expert testimony revealed that the lighting is inadequate throughout the dormitories. Defendants' expert environmentalist, using the APHA 30-foot candle standard, found extensive deficiencies. Tr. at 1277-79; see also Plaintiffs' Exhibits 31 at 71-72; 48 at 38-39. Maintenance of adequate lighting minimizes the risk of accidents, is essential to the performance of work tasks, reading and recreational activities. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 31 at 71.
General sanitation in the dormitories was found to be below acceptable environmental standards. Tr. at 35, 112, 1161-88, 1190-91. Occoquan dormitory windows are without screens resulting in a serious fly infestation problem, particularly in toilet and shower areas. Tr. at 463-64. This fly infestation is aggravated by a shortage of disinfectant that inmates can use to sanitize the toilet and shower areas. Tr. at 465.

Inmates sleep on mattresses that are not cleaned or sanitized between users, nor are mattress covers supplied. Tr. at 459, 1260. This poses a public health danger whereby respiratory or enteric diseases can be transmitted to inmates who are required to sleep on such soiled mattresses. Tr. at 459, 515-16, 1132. Besides soiled, dirty mattresses, torn and damaged mattresses were also found in the dormitories. Tr. at 459-60. Torn mattresses can provide a harborage for disease-carrying insects, such as mites, fleas, ticks, and lice. Tr. at 1130. There was testimony, however, indicating that the Department of Corrections is planning to procure new mattresses. Tr. at 1132; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 47.
Three dormitories merit special attention. Dormitories J-1 and J-2 were warehouses that were converted hastily to inmate housing. Tr. at 30. According to Mr. David Decatur, the Administrator of Occoquan I and II, J-1 has a 622 maximum capacity of 70 to 75 inmates and for J-2, 55 to 60 inmates. *622 Tr. at 748-49. Nonetheless, J-2 has housed as many as 120 inmates. Tr. at 750. The poor ventilation in J-1 and J-2 is made all the worse by the acrid fumes of a nearby coal pile and the close quarters the inmates must share. Tr. at 40-42, 59-60, 64. Significant fly infestation was evidenced in J-2 by the pest strips that were solid black with an accumulation of flies. Tr. at 42.
Conditions in Dormitory 5 are unacceptable for housing inmates, according to Mr. Frank Phillips, the former Administrator of Occoquan III. Tr. at 46, 840. Dormitory 5, located in the basement of the gymnasium, was also converted hastily from a warehouse to a housing unit. Tr. at 30, 50. Indeed, there was but one day between the decision to open it and its occupancy. Tr. at 839. Dormitory 5 houses 80 inmates, doubled-bunked, and has no day room. Tr. at 45-56. Dormitory 5 is clearly overcrowded, cramped, and poorly ventilated. Tr. at 48, 289, 1162, 1175.
2. Food Service
While both parties' environmental experts noted problems in the kitchen area, such as leaky steamers (Tr. at 420-21), refrigrator doors that did not close properly (Tr. at 419-20, 1101), and missing hood filters (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 48 at 8), neither expert felt that the conditions in the kitchen posed any imminent threat of harm to the inmates. Tr. at 499-500, 1116; but see Tr. at 1221. The Court, however, does not share defendants' view that all is well with the Occoquan food service.
The APHA has established minimum space requirements for institutional food service facilities. Tr. at 434, 440. The APHA standards are accepted as a well-founded means for evaluating correctional facilities. Tr. at 1213-14.
The APHA standards mandate seven to nine square feet of kitchen space per inmate, including storage, receiving, dish-washing, and toilet facilities. The kitchen measures approximately 4,875 square feet. This amount of space is adequate for a maximum of 696 inmates under the APHA standard.
Further, the terms of the contract between defendants and the food service operator, Canteen Corporation, oblige the contractor to provide food for "1,400 residents three (3) meals per day" and to possess the "[c]apability to increase [such] requirements by 200 residents within 30 days notice." Plaintiffs' Exhibit 31 at 3. The contract term is from July 14, 1986, to July 13, 1987. Id. at 1. The daily census figures for the Occoquan Facilities from September 15, 1986, through October 1, 1986, indicate that defendants were sending more inmates to the dining room than the food service operator was obligated to serve. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 9 at 9.
The reality of inadequate kitchen space is evidenced by dry and cold food storage areas that are filled beyond capacity. Tr. at 435-37, 1219. As a result, cases of food and other materials are damaged, identifying food containers and cleaning these areas is extremely difficult, and, in the freezer units, food does not cool quickly enough to prevent the growth of bacteria. Tr. at 434-37, 1219; Plaintiffs' Exhibits 14i; 48 at 19-20.
There was also credible testimony that there existed insufficient space in the refrigerated areas to thaw frozen meat in a safe manner. Tr. at 436-37. Thawing meat is defined as a potentially hazardous product by the Food and Drug Administration because if it is not kept sufficiently cool during the thawing process, it provides a medium for the growth of illness-causing organisms. The testimony of defendants' expert environmentalist, who happens to be employed by the District of Columbia government (Tr. at 1091-92), on the issue of properly thawing meat was, at best, confusing. Tr. 1218-19. Defendants' expert equivocated as to whether the food

coolers were "overcrowded," but did admit that they were filled to capacity while maintaining that there was still room to thaw properly meats in cooler no. 2. Tr. at 1219.
623 *623 Last, while it appears that defendants have recently instituted an aggressive vermin control program, defendants' expert environmentalist acknowledged the existence of a prior infestation. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 58; Tr. at 1215-17. Both environmental experts testified about the presence of flies in the culinary unit. This problem was traced to missing windows and window screens. Tr. at 1257-58.
The testimony about missing window screens and broken freezer gaskets revealed the lack of any preventive maintenance and inspection program in the kitchen or in the housing units. Tr. at 469-71; 495-96, 1263. The absence of such programs has serious adverse health and safety implications that are only compounded by greater numbers of inmates using these facilities. Tr. at 1262-64.
3. Classification
Classification of inmates is essential for prison security. One critical function of classification is the efficient identification of violent, aggressive inmates and those in need of psychiatric care so that they can be separated from the rest of the population. See, e.g., Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F.Supp. 956 (D.R.I.1977). The classification system at Occoquan appears to be dangerously overtaxed by the crush of inmates in need of classification.
Occoquan receives misdemeanants; convicted felons serving less than 10 years; convicted felons sentenced to more than 10 years who are awaiting evaluation by the reception and diagnostic center for transfer elsewhere; youths who are awaiting evaluation and study under the District of Columbia Youth Corrections Act; and youths who have been sentenced as youthful offenders who are awaiting placement at the Youth Center. In addition there are parole violators who are sent from the District of Columbia Jail ("D.C. Jail"). Tr. at 31, 741. There are 10 Classification and Parole ("C and P") officers assigned to Occoquan I and II, plus a chief C and P officer. At the time the population at the Occoquan Facilities was 1,750, these officers each had about 100 cases. Tr. at 72. Occoquan III has its own C and P staff.
Due to the increasing inmate population and the reliance upon dormitories for housing all classifications of inmates, the Occoquan Facilities have been housing maximum security inmates in open bay dormitories together with general population inmates. Many of these inmates are being held at Occoquan until space becomes available at the D.C. Jail, the Maximum Security Facility, or the Central Facility (all of which are subject to courtordered population lids). Tr. at 37, 751; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6 at 1. As a matter of fact, among the inmates found responsible for the July 10, 1986, riot were 60 Maximum Security inmates who were backed up at Occoquan. Tr. at 38, 126.
A properly functioning classification system is all the more essential in a medium security facility that utilizes dormitories for housing inmates. Tr. at 1194. The ACA standards discourage the use of dormitories in existing institutions, and dormitories are not permitted in new medium security institutions. Dormitory housing should be utilized, if at all, only for minimum security prisoners who have been classified for group living. Tr. at 49; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 30 at 2-4131.
4. Programs
Idleness among inmates results in a variety of problems, including heightened tension, frustration, and violence. Tr. at 748, 1173-74. The lack of adequate programs can also have an adverse impact on inmates' chances for parole. Tr. at 37, 39-40. There was no disagreement among the expert penologists that inmates should be engaged in some productive enterprise, properly supervised. Tr. at 93, 1171-72. Nonetheless, enforced idleness presents a major problem at Occoquan. Tr. at 37, 290, 394.
The testimony indicated that Occoquan lacks sufficient program capacity to provide meaningful program 624 opportunities for inmates. Tr. at 82, 748. There are approximately 235 inmates enrolled in the academic *624
program at Occoquan I and II, and 105 in the vocational program, out of some 1,200 inmates. There exist few work assignments and many inmates remain idle. Tr. at 290-91, 335, 1161, 1188. Indeed, it appears that of the

jobs available, many are of a "make work" nature rather than genuine full time jobs. Tr. at 80-81. Finally, the youthful offenders housed in Dormitory "N" are not allowed to participate in any programmed activities. Tr. at 400CC.
Both parties agreed that Occoquan needs to develop a prison industries program and provide more space for programmed activities. Tr. at 743-44, 1192. The Court, however, is distressed to learn that defendants do not know what the plans are, if any exist, for the program building now under construction in the Occoquan courtyard. Tr. at 744.
5. Inmate Supervision
Correctional officers do not supervise properly the sleeping areas of the dormitories. Correctional officers do not make patrols on a frequent and regular basis, nor are officers stationed in the rear of each dormitory so as to facilitate supervision of the living area when inmates are present. Tr. at 80, 1163, 1167-68.
Further hampering the correctional officers' ability to supervise the living areas of the dormitories, are the obstructed lines of sight existing in many of the dormitories in Occoquan I and II and in all the dormitories at Occoquan III. Tr. at 36, 1162. Double bunks, tall lockers, and the presence of inmates' clothing hanging from bunks and clotheslines combine to prevent the correctional officers from observing the activity in the dormitory. Plaintiffs' Exhibits 13(o), 13(q). Indeed, defendants' expert penologist recommended that double bunking be eliminated as it is not sound correctional practice. Tr. at 1162. The ACA standards prohibit the use of double bunks in dormitory housing. Tr. at 149; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 52 at 2-4131.
Some inmates are allowed, in some instances, to exercise control and authority over other inmates. For example, some inmates are allowed to control access by other inmates to use of the telephone. Tr. at 394. Both parties' expert penologists concurred that inmates should not be permitted to exercise authority over their fellow inmates as it can lead to bribery, sexual favors, and violence. Tr. at 96, 1204-05.
In the past year there have been at least 40 serious assaults at Occoquan I and II, including five with shanks and three with pipes. Tr. at 729; Defendants' Exhibit 60. These incidents involved serious physical injury. Tr. at 1177. Defendants' Exhibit 60, charting "assaults" from October 1985 to October 1986, does not include fights and other episodes of violence that are listed on incident reports, but not classified as "assaults." Tr. at 730. Thus, Defendants' Exhibit 60 does not include some episodes of violence that are listed in Plaintiffs' Exhibit 12, a summary of violent incidents abstracted from assault and incident reports. For example, the following incidents reported in Plaintiffs' Exhibit 12 are not included in Defendants' Exhibit 60: on January 3, 1986, an inmate was stabbed in the arm by unidentified inmates wearing ski masks; on January 5, 1986, an inmate was assaulted by several prisoners with a pipe; on March 9, and June 11, 1986, other inmates were assaulted with pipes.
The testimony of three inmate witnesses was offered. One, a 17-year-old youthful offender, recounted the repeated sexual assaults he had suffered, and another told of being bludgeoned while he slept. Tr. at 400-R-400Z, 386-389. A third inmate testified that he was stabbed in the chest while in the bathroom in Dormitory K-1. Tr. at 558-64; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32(d). The victim was hospitalized for three days. In each instance, the inmates reported that correctional officers were nowhere in sight.
All this leads the Court to conclude that the level of violence at Occoquan is significantly greater than defendants' statistics reflect. Compare Tr. at 1178-79, 1207-10. (Defendants' expert penologist's view that assault rate at 625 Occoquan "unremarkable" not well supported.) In addition, many inmates *625 are reluctant to report threats or incidents of violence for fear of being retaliated against for "snitching," or the fear that they will not be adequately protected in protective custody. Tr. at 127, 147, 400-GG.
6. Segregation
Dormitory Q ("Q block") is the only cell-block for Occoquan I and II. It contains 38 cells. Tr. at 30. Inmates of various classifications are mixed together in Q block 0907 those on punitive and administrative segregation, inmates under protective custody, intake inmates, and inmates with mental health problems. Tr. at 77. It is not a sound

correctional practice to house protective custody inmates in the same cellblock, under identical conditions and subject to the same regimen as inmates held there for disciplinary purposes. Tr. at 77, 1185.
While there have been some recent improvements made to the physical plant in Q block, inmates there are denied participation in any programs. Q block inmates, some of whom are kept there for over 30 days (Tr. at 400AA), have no access to outdoor recreation. The exercise Q block residents receive is limited to a walk in the corridor outside their cell, for about one-half hour, three times per week. Tr. at 78-79, 397, 400-AA, 736.
Both parties' experts were in complete agreement that inmates held in protective custody and administrative segregation should be permitted daily exercise outside of Q block, as well as access to program activities. Tr. at 79, 371, 1185, 1205-06. Further, the psychologist at Occoquan noted that Q block conditions are inducing psychoses in inmates who suffered no apparent mental health problem before being placed in Q block. Tr. at 379.
B. Fire Safety
1. The Expert Testimony
Mr. Thomas Jaeger, plaintiffs' fire safety expert, is a fire safety engineer who specializes in the field of institutional occupancies, including detentional and correctional facilities. Preliminary Injunction Transcript ("PT") at 42. Mr. Jaeger is a member of the National Fire Protection Association ("NLPA"), Life Safety Code Committee, that devised the minimum requirements for detention and correctional facilities. ("Life Safety code"). PT at 43-46.
Defendants offered Mr. Paul Silver as their expert in fire safety. The Court finds Mr. Silver's testimony much less helpful than that of Mr. Jaeger. Mr. Silver admitted that he did not conduct a thorough inspection of Occoquan and that he had difficulty recalling details about his tour because he spent such a short time there. Tr. at 923, 956. He lost the notes he made of his first tour and did not take any during his second tour. Tr. at 921, 948, 951, 956. Mr. Silver did not review records (Tr. at 994), local fire codes (Tr. at 995), how exits were opened at each location (Tr. at 995), evacuation plans (Tr. at 998-99), nor training techniques for correctional officers (Tr. at 999). In contrast, Mr. Jaeger's inspection was a much more thorough and well documented one. Tr. at 579-80; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 45.
In addition, it appears that Mr. Silver neglected to verify much of what he was told about the functioning of various fire safety systems (e.g., smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, emergency lights, etc.) in place at Occoquan Tr. at 937, 995-998, 1000. At the same time, Mr. Silver conceded that verifying the proper functioning of such systems is of substantial concern at Occoquan. Tr. at 1001-02; see also Tr. at 1302-04 (Mr. Silver recently awarded a contract in connection with the design of a new prison to be constructed by the District of Columbia).
2. The Applicable Standards
The District of Columbia Building Code is applied to the construction of new structures and does not address specifically correctional facilities. Tr. at 630-31. The Life Safety code, on the other hand, is recognized as the only 626 fire code that addresses specifically fire safety in correctional institutions. PT at 49-50; Tr. at 973. *626 This code constitutes the minimum standards for fire safety in a correctional setting. Id.; see also Tr. at 609 (Occoquan would not be fire safe even if all deficiencies noted by the District of Columbia Fire Marshal were corrected.) Some 20 to 25 states have adopted this code for use in their prison systems, including Maryland and Virginia. Tr. at 624.
The Life Safety code provides that new building standards apply to structures that are modified, renovated, or when occupancy is changed. Tr. at 607. The "new building" standards require a more thorough upgrading of fire safety systems. Thus, according to the Life Safety code, new building standards apply to many of the facilities at Occoquan that have had their occupancies changed. For instance, Dormitory A was formerly the visitor center for Occoquan I and II (Tr. at 603); Dormitories J-1 and J-2 were used as warehouses (PT at 53); and Dormitory 5 was the basement of the gymnasium (Tr. at 607). Dormitories F, O, and Q have undergone major renovations since being damaged by the July 1986 fire. Tr. 592, 597, 608, 678. None of these facilities satisfies existing

building codes, let alone the more enlightened building standards under the Life Safety code. PT at 53; Tr. at 604, 607-08.
3. Fire Alarms and Smoke Detectors
Mr. Jaeger found the fire alarm systems in the dormitories and Q block to be deficient. Many are inoperable and none are supervised or provide automatic retransmission to the Control Centers. PT at 50, 64, 73, 76, 83; Tr. at 581-82, 593-95, 597-98, 603-05. While automatic retransmission of fire alarms to the Control Center is recommended, it is not a requirement. Noting the other deficiencies in supervision and fire safety at Occoquan, an automatic transmission system may be well advised. Tr. at 587-89, 642.
Smoke detectors are vital for early detection of a fire, particularly critical in a correctional setting where evacuation is often delayed due to competing security needs. See Tr. at 617-18. The smoke detectors at Occoquan are inadequate under the Life Safety code because they are not supervised and their alarms are local, ringing only at the site. Tr. at 592. In addition, many of the smoke detectors are inoperable, with some either dangling by a wire, taped over, heat damaged, or shut off. PT at 50, 64, 68-69, 73, 76, 82; Tr. at 581-82, 592, 594, 596-97, 603, 605; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 13(n). Further, it appears that the poor condition of these smoke detectors has been tolerated for a period of time. Tr. at 466, 548-49; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 48 at 46.
4. Fire Extinguishers and Electrical Problems
Typically, the facilities at Occoquan are supplied with only a pressurized water type of fire extinguisher, which would be inadequate to extinguish an electrical fire. PT at 50; Tr. at 581-82, 591, 602-03, 960. In the one dormitory that is equipped with an extinguisher for electrical fires, the date of its last inspection is 1962. Tr. at 605. In addition, many of the fire extinguishers at Occoquan are not in their proper locations, many are undocumented as to the date last serviced, and others have tags indicating that they are overdue for servicing. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 48 at 50.
A number of dangerous electrical problems exist that increase the risk of fire. Tr. at 455-56; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 48 at 47-48. In Dormitories K-1 and K-2, there are found electrical appliances, such as water coolers, with exposed wiring. Tr. at 596. A fan used in Dormitory A is particularly hazardous, as its outlet connection lacks prongs, so that bare wires must be inserted into an electrical outlet in order to turn it on. Tr. at 604. There are also places where electrical wiring is not covered properly. Tr. at 937-38. Last, none of the facilities has adequate emergency lighting. PT at 52. Though Occoquan apparently is equipped with emergency generators. Tr. at 645-46, 818.
5. Evacuation Plans
None of the facilities has adequate evacuation plans. PT at 52; Tr. at 587, 610. Satisfactory evacuation 627 procedures are vital *627 in a correctional setting because inmates are not capable of self-preservation in the
event of a fire, i.e., they rely on the correctional officers' assistance. Thus, defendants' failure to provide adequate evacuation plans and train the Occoquan staff in the relevant procedures poses a real possibility for chaos in the event of an emergency. Tr. at 615.
Specifically, the existing evacuation plans for Occoquan fail to provide sufficient direction to correctional officers as to the priorities they should attend to during an emergency. They are not instructed whether first to contact the Control Center, evacuate the inmates, or attempt to extinguish the fire. Tr. at 610. Separate plans are not provided for the different buildings. Tr. at 611-13. For example, Q block should be provided with a separate evacuation plan because it is a different kind of building from the dormitories. Tr. at 612.
The present evacuation plans also contain numerous inconsistencies. For instance, officers in the dormitories are directed to notify the Fairfax County Fire Department in case of fire, but according to officials at Occoquan, the Control Center should be notified before Fairfax County. Tr. at 611. The plans provide that proper fire extinguishers should be used for class A, B, and C fires, but the dorms are not so equipped. Tr. at 614. The plans

do not call for a second officer outside Dormitories K-1 and K-2 to unlock the rear exit in order to evacuate the building. When Mr. Jaeger was on an inspection tour, he asked the officer inside Dormitory K to unlock the rear exit door. The officer discovered that the door was also locked from the outside. Tr. at 615. The officer did not discover this until she had tried five different keys before locating the key to unlock the inside door. Id.
There also exist several problems with exiting in case of a fire. Dormitories J-1, J-2, and 5 lack remote, or alternative exits. PT at 64, 70-71, 75-76. Dormitories K-1, K-2, 1, 2, 3, and 4 lack sufficient protection of the stairway between the two floors. Tr. 595, 605. Many exits were blocked by furniture and standing fans (Tr. at 33, 38, 603-04), some exits lead into other buildings, not to the outside (Tr. at 603-04, 611), while other exit doors do not swing in the direction of egress (PT at 70, 73, 85; Tr. at 585).
An even more serious evacuation problem exists in Q block. To evacuate Q block requires unlocking individually 45 doors, using 6 different keys. Tr. at 732-33. While the Life Safety code requires that complete evacuation be completed in three minutes, it took eight to ten minutes to evacuate inmates from Q block during a fire on July 10, 1986. Id.; see also PT at 87. Q block is not equipped with either of the two systems that the Life Safety code calls for in cellblocks. Q block does not have remote locking doors which could be opened simultaneously in an emergency, nor a smoke partition midway in the building which could help contain a fire. Tr. at 586, 599, 947, 979. In addition, Q block lacks an adequate smoke exhaust system and no alternative system is contemplated. Tr. at 599-600, 620-21, 947, 980.
C. Medical Services
Both parties' medical services experts agreed that deficiencies in the medical care delivery system at Occoquan exist which are likely to cause harm to the inmates. Tr. at 165-66, 1059, 1085. These deficiencies are systemic in nature, concerning staffing, facilities, and procedures. Tr. at 161-278, 1031-85. The experts also concurred that the APHA and the ACA standards for health care in correctional institutions represent the accepted minimums in this area. Tr. at 156, 1060; Plaintiffs' Exhibits 30, 31.
1. Sick Call
Due to the increase in population at Occoquan, formalized sick call was reduced from five days per week per dormitory to three days per week per dormitory. Plaintiffs' Exhibits 21 at 8-9. Additional access to medical care 628 can be had only with the permission of a correctional officer. Tr. at 870, 912. According to the experts, however, *628 Occoquan ought to conduct formalized sick call screening for each dormitory at least five times per week, anything less being insufficient. Tr. at 167, 173-75, 1065-66.
2. Staffing
Up until mid-October 1986, there was only one primary care, full-time physician assigned to Occoquan I, II, and III. By the time of trial, an additional physician joined the staff on a part-time basis. Tr. at 847, 913-15. Other staff available for the day shift at Occoquan includes three medical technician assistants ("MTA") and three physician assistants ("PA"). Tr. at 913-14.
MTA's have no formal medical training. Generally, they have only on-the-job training received while serving in the Armed Forces. PA's do receive some formal medical training and must work under the close supervision of a physician. MTA's are allowed to perform individual diagnoses and assessments, despite the fact that such a practice is considered improper as they lack the qualifications and training to do so. Tr. at 173-74, 912, 1066-67. In addition, only one of the PA's at Occoquan is certified by an acceptable authority, even though both experts indicated that state or national certification is recommended. Tr. at 177, 1067. There is no medical staff at Occoquan during the midnight shift. Tr. at 875, 890. Both experts indicated that for a population of 1,500, three to five properly certified PA's and two to three full-time physicians are needed on site. Tr. at 175-76, 218, 268, 1048, 1052, 1068, 1071-72. The experts also made clear that 24-hour, on-site medical coverage is needed for adequate care. Tr. at 218, 1060.

3. Emergency Care
Not only do many correctional officers lack training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation ("CPR"), but certain medical staff lack training in this vital skill, as well. Tr. at 903; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 23 at 21. Not surprisingly, the medical experts consider CPR training for medical personnel and correctional officers to be crucial. Tr. at 210-11, 1060-61.
When plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Braslow, first visited Occoquan in August 1986, he found no properly equipped ambulance and only inadequate emergency equipment on-site. Tr. at 210; see also Tr. at 902; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 at 15. According to uncontroverted expert medical testimony, there should be at Occoquan adequate emergency equipment, including a well-provisioned ambulance. Tr. at 218, 1060. These steps are all the more important given the absence of medical personnel at Occoquan on the midnight shift, requiring the transport of ill or injured inmates to other facilities. Tr. at 875-77. There is still some question as to whether defendants have addressed adequately this problem. Compare Tr. at 874 and Plaintiffs' Exhibit 23 at 23.
Other testimony was offered indicating the systemic nature of the problems with emergency care at Occoquan. For instance, it was told how an inmate who blacked out and struck his head on the back of a bunk waited 45 minutes for a stretcher to arrive, so that he could be evacuated. Tr. at 396. Dr. Braslow testified that another inmate was forced to wait over one hour before being transferred to Central Facility for emergency care after suffering a head injury. The inmate then required evaluation at District of Columbia General Hospital. Tr. at 212.
4. Chronic Care and Records
There is no organized, formal system for follow-up care of inmates at Occoquan, in areas including medication refills, evaluation of chronic-care inmates, and return appointments. Tr. at 180-81, 1049, 1065. By way of example, Dr. Braslow noted the inadequate management of some diabetic inmates, failure to renew timely an inmate's seizure medication, and failure to follow up on another inmate in need of suture removal, which was required to treat multiple stab wounds. Tr. at 182-85.
Another area of concern is the significant delays in transferring inmates' medical records to Occoquan following 629 their *629 processing at the D.C. Jail. Delays are also common in transferring inmates' medical records from D.C.
General Hospital to Occoquan following consultation with specialists. Occasionally, records are never transferred. Tr. at 187, 853, 1031, 1036, 1079; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 at 10. Based on his review of certain medical records, Dr. Braslow testified about various instances of inmates who failed to receive important medication or follow-up treatment attributable to these delays and/or failure of medical staff to review the records upon receipt at Occoquan. Tr. at 187-93, 197; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11.
The need to ensure the efficient and timely transfer of medical records with the respective inmate so as to provide adequate medical care is obvious to the layman, let alone the medical expert. Tr. at 188, 1036, 1072-73. Defendants' medical expert believes that additional records and clerical personnel are needed to alleviate this problem. Tr. at 1034-35.
5. Screening
All inmates entering the District of Columbia's correctional system are processed at the D.C. Jail. There, each inmate allegedly receives a complete physical examination, including screening for contagious diseases, specifically tuberculosis ("TB") and syphilis. Uncontroverted testimony indicated, however, that properly documented intake TB testing and syphilis testing ("serology") are not done routinely for Occoquan inmates. Tr. at 197-204, 1073-76; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 at 13. The medical experts also agreed that if a medical interaction or encounter is not documented in a medical record, one must conclude that the test or evaluation was not done. Tr. at 203, 303, 1073-74.

Dr. Braslow testified that one could expect to find positive serology tests with some frequency in a population such as at Occoquan. Tr. at 204; see also Tr. at 855 (10 percent to 20 percent of the Occoquan population). A similar percentage at the Occoquan population could be expected to test positively for TB. Tr. at 269-70, 1074-75. To be sure, instances of infected inmates whose conditions were not documented or followed properly were adduced at trial. Tr. at 199-206; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 at 13-14.
6. Specialty Clinics
Inordinately long and significant delays are common in scheduling inmates for visits to specialty clinics, especially neurology and orthopaedic clinics. Tr. at 207-08, 874, 907, 1043, 1046; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 at 15-16. Dr. Braslow testified about one inmate who, on June 25, 1986, had been referred to the surgery clinic to be seen as soon as possible, but still had not been seen as of October 2, 1986. Tr. at 208.
7. Medications
At least as recently as the date on which the complaint in this action was filed, MTA's had been dispensing prescription medications to inmates despite the fact that they are not licensed properly or certified to do so. Tr. at 213, 907, 1063; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 22 at 13. In addition, the medication orders issued by PA's were not countersigned routinely by a physician, even though such a practice is required. Tr. at 213, 1063-64; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 at 14-15.
No system exists whereby inmates are followed to ensure necessary prescription renewals, and the record documentation of medication administration is incomplete. Tr. at 212, 1064-65; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 23 at 12. There also exists a persistent inability to ensure that diabetic inmates receive their insulin in a timely fashion so that it is therapeutically effective. Inmates must be transported to the Central Facility in handcuffs and chains to receive their insulin on weekends. Tr. at 303-04, 306.
8. Dental Care
There are currently two dentists and one dental assistant available to treat the Occoquan population. Tr. at 913-14. According to the chief dental officer at Occoquan, Dr. Allen, the dental clinic is too small and the staff is 630 insufficient to handle the current *630 population's needs. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 19 at 13-14, 30-31, 41-42, 47. Dr. Allen and others note that the current population level at Occoquan is having a negative impact on dental care. Tr. at 214-15, 1064-65; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 19 at 25-26. That lengthy delays in obtaining dental care are common is buttressed by the numerous administrative complaints filed by inmates complaining of the pain they are suffering due to these delays. Plaintiffs' Exhibits 11; 22 at 6, 8.
D. Mental Health Services
1. Screening
Mental health screening of all inmates should be performed by a trained mental health professional and appropriate psychological tests administered in order to identify those in need of psychological care. Tr. 363-64. The experts agreed that the screening process conducted at the D.C. Jail is not successful in identifying all those suffering with serious mental disturbances. This is not surprising given that no formal mental health screening performed by trained mental health professionals is conducted there. Tr. at 341, 916; see also Campbell v. McGruder, No. 1462-71, slip. op. at 27 (D.D.C. July 15, 1985). At the same time, in place at Occoquan is only an informal system for screening inmates for psychological problems. Tr. at 353; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6 at 1. This system, or lack thereof, is entirely inadequate. Tr. at 294-96, 363, 372.

2. Mental Health Staff
There are widely acknowledged deficiencies among the mental health staff at Occoquan. Tr. at 284, 301, 366, 380. These deficiencies are evidenced by a "burned-out" staff, overwhelmed by their work load. Tr. at 301, 366.
Such an impaired staff has an adverse impact on the quality of care. Tr. at 370. The psychiatrist is available only two hours per week. This limits each patient to about seven minutes with the psychiatrist, an amount of time within which it is "simply impossible" to evaluate one's mental state. Tr. at 36, 352. There is a pressing need for additional mental health personnel, particularly given the numbers of inmates who are mentally disturbed. Tr. at 301, 303, 346, 356, 361.
3. Q Block
In addition to housing inmates on administrative and punitive segregation, Q block is used also to house mentally ill inmates until they can be examined by a psychiatrist and transferred to a proper treatment facility. Tr. at 298-99, 345. Both mental health experts agreed that Q block is an inappropriate place to house inmates suffering from serious mental health problems. Tr. at 299, 370. Indeed, placing such inmates in Q block will surely aggravate their condition. Tr. at 299.
Inmates in need of hospitalization for treatment of mental health conditions are not being transferred to St. Elizabeths Hospital (the District of Columbia's mental health institution) in some cases within 48 hours. While this is the reality, defendants' mental health expert testified that in no case should an inmate with a psychiatric problem be confined in Q block for more than 24 hours. Tr. at 370. There are also delays in nonemergency transferring of mentally disturbed inmates out of Q block. It may take more than one month for transfer to St. Elizabeths Hospital in such instances. Tr. at 353, 375.
4. Medications and Records
Certain mentally ill inmates at Occoquan are not receiving their prescribed medications. Tr. at 297. This represents a significant problem in that failure to maintain prescribed medication levels may aggravate dangerously the patient's psychotic state. Tr. at 298, 367. The effectiveness of the already stretched Occoquan mental health services is further taxed by the unavailability of various medical records, similar to the problem noted supra at 28-29.
E. Cumulative Impact
631 The conditions at Occoquan, not to mention the experts on both sides and the Occoquan *631 administrators, cry out for a population limit. PT at 29; Tr. at 91, 838, 841, 1200-01; Plaintiffs' Exhibits 17 at 36-37; 18 at 4-5, 75, 80-81. In June 1986, the District of Columbia's special consultant for correctional affairs, Ms. Kathryn Monaco, observed that:
[T]he serious overcrowding the District now faces in those facilities not covered by court order poses a much more dangerous threat. In Occoquan I and II, inmates are crowded into dormitories with little or no chance for privacy, causing a great deal of tension with the result that normal prison management difficulties are compounded.... Experiences in prisons across the country demonstrates [sic] that overcrowding like that now existing at Occoquan I and II, which so sever [ely] inhibits any quality of life, results in violence. Unless remedied, this situation will result in a disturbance that will be costly in terms of human life and property.
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6 at 3-4. Unfortunately, the July 1986 riot at Occoquan proved Ms. Monaco all too correct.

As indicated supra at 3, the Occoquan population is again approaching the level that existed at the time of the July 1986 riot. As demonstrated supra, passim, virtually every facet of the Occoquan system is at or beyond the breaking point. It is apparent that even with significantly fewer inmates, the physical plant and the various services and programs at Occoquan are, at best, substandard. This situation, taken cumulatively, presents a clear and present danger to the health and safety of plaintiffs. See, e.g., Tr. at 292-94, 301, 312, 322-30, 357, 380-81, 1223-26.
II. Conclusions of Law
A. Equitable Relief Is Appropriate
Defendants suggest that recently implemented plans designed to alleviate many of the above-noted conditions should render the Court's intervention unnecessary. The Court wishes sincerely that were the case. The Court's experiences with the Department of Corrections, however, make "skeptical" the operative word.
First, the Court should only refrain from issuing a remedy where defendants satisfy the "heavy burden" of demonstrating that (1) the alleged improvements have "completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation," County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 1383, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979), and that (2) it is "absolutely clear" absent an injunction "that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 487, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 1260, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980). The Supreme Court explained the rationale of this stringent test in City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 288-89 and n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 1074 and n. 10, 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982):
It is well settled that a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.
....
Mere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot a case; if it did, the courts would be compelled to leave "[t]he defendant ... free to return to his old ways." United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632[, 73 S.Ct. 894, 897, 97 L.Ed. 1303] (1953).
See also United States v. Oregon Medical Society, 343 U.S. 326, 333, 72 S.Ct. 690, 695, 96 L.Ed. 978 (1952) (courts must be wary "of efforts to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and reform, especially when abandonment seems timed to anticipate suit and there is probability of resumption"); Owens-El v. Robinson, 442 F.Supp. 1368, 1374 (W.D.Pa.1978) (a prison conditions case "should be decided on the basis of the facts as they existed when the suit was filed ...").
B. The Eighth Amendment Standard
Although the eighth amendment was perceived originally as a ban against whippings, floggings, and other forms of excessive punishment, it is a dynamic provision that draws its meaning from "the evolving standards of 632 decency that mark the *632 progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958); see generally Granucci, "Nor Cruel and Unusual Punishment Inflicted": The Original Meaning, 57 Calif.L.Rev. 839 (1969). The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is not limited to specific acts directed at select individuals, but is equally applicable to general prison conditions that are violative of these "evolving standards of decency." See also Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 685, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 2570, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) ("Confinement in a prison ... is a form of punishment subject to scrutiny under Eighth Amendment standards.")
The eighth amendment prohibits conditions of confinement that: (1) "involve wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain"; (2) are "grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime warranting imprisonment"; or (3) "alone or in combination may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452

U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). In determining the "contemporary standards of decency," the courts are urged to rely on "`objective factors to the maximum possible extent.'" Id. at 346, 101 S.Ct. at 2399 (quoting Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 274-75, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1139, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980)).
C. The Eighth Amendment Violations
1. Overcrowding and the Totality of the Conditions
Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. at 687, 98 S.Ct. at 2571, instructs that conditions of confinement should be "taken as a whole" to assess the aggregate impact on the imprisoned. See also Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399 (prison conditions "alone or in combination, may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities."). "This realistic approach derives from the understanding that life within a correctional facility is not life within a vacuum, and a stress on one aspect will result, through interrelation and interaction with other conditions within the institution, in an intensified cumulative impact on the inmates." Comment, Constitutional Law0907 Eighth Amendment0907 Double Celling of Long-term Inmates 0907Cruel and Unusual Punishment 0907Rhodes v. Chapman, 28 N.Y.L. Sch.L.Rev. 519, 526 n. 49 (1983); see also Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F.Supp. 269, 323 (D.N.H.1977) ("The touchstone is the effect upon the imprisoned.").
Every facet of the operation at Occoquan is characterized by systemic deficiencies. While any one component, i.e., harmful noise levels, food services, etc., may not fall below the prescribed eighth amendment standard, the cumulation of the various deficiencies aggravated and exacerbated by an ever-increasing number of inmates creates a constitutionally unacceptable situation. Such was the case in Johnson v. Levine, 450 F.Supp. 648, 654-57 (D.Md.), aff'd as modified per curiam, 588 F.2d 1378, 1380-81 (4th Cir.1978), where the district court held that inmate idleness, harmful noise levels, strains on the food system, sanitation and prison security were "directly related to overcrowding" and when "weighed in their totality, these conditions ... result[ed] in deprivation of rights guaranteed ... by the Eighth Amendment."
Occoquan inmates are confined in poorly supervised dormitories; inmates are classified in a haphazard fashion, and the paucity of programs makes idleness the inmates' chief occupation. The dormitories are not clean, much less sanitary; the sustained noise levels are excessive, and the ventilation in these compact quarters is marginal, at best. Fire safety at Occoquan is evidently a casual concern and the food services operation is, by any estimation, severely overburdened. The Court was presented with evidence and heard testimony which indicate that the rate at which inmates suffer physical assaults is significantly higher than defendants' statistics would lead one to believe. Though the psychological damage and heightened level of tension that such conditions exact 633 elude precise quantification, their presence is manifested *633 in acts of physical violence and ever-present fear.
Conditions such as those at Occoquan have provided other courts with ample grounds for finding eighth amendment violations. E.g., Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522; French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir.1985); Campbell v. McGruder, No. 1462-71, slip op. (D.D.C. July 15, 1985); Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F.Supp. 956 (D.R.I.1977). While the Court recognizes that the facts unique to any one prison conditions case make comparisons difficult, it is no less true that the conditions at Occoquan, exacerbated by overcrowding, amount to cruel and unusual punishment as measured by "contemporary standard[s] of decency." See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399.
2. The Inadequate Health Care System
"An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met.... Such a failure may actually produce physical `torture or a lingering death', ... or pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve a penological purpose." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (citations omitted) (quoting In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447, 10 S.Ct. 930, 933, 34 L.Ed. 519 (1890)). Indeed, prison officials are obligated to provide all inmates ready access to adequate medical care. Id. at 104-05, 97 S.Ct. at 291. The health care system must meet both "the routine and emergency health care needs" of inmates. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 574 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450

U.S. 1041, 101 S.Ct. 1759, 68 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981) (quoting Battle v. Anderson, 376 F.Supp. 402, 424 (E.D.Okla.1974)).
The Supreme Court in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-06, 97 S.Ct. at 291, held that deliberate indifference to the medical needs of inmates constitutes an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the eighth amendment. In Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96 (2d Cir.1981), the circuit court held that failure to screen adequately newly arrived inmates for communicable diseases was an omission "`sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.'" Id. at 109 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. at 293); see also Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir.1977) (eighth amendment is violated when "systemic deficiencies in staffing, facilities or procedures make unnecessary suffering inevitable.").
The Court makes special note of the poor medical services at Occoquan because of the added burden that the overcrowding places on these already inadequate services, in addition to defendants' cavalier attitude about this unsatisfactory and life threatening state of affairs. While the Court is careful to rely on model correctional standards only insofar as they provide guidance, it is noteworthy, though not surprising, that defendants' medical experts concurred in most instances with plaintiffs' experts in concluding that the state of medical services at Occoquan is quite poor. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 543-44 n. 27, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1876 n. 27, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1978); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 103-04 n. 8, 97 S.Ct. at 290-91 n. 8.
The Court detects an attitude on defendants' part that the medical needs of their inmates are of little concern. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-05, 97 S.Ct. at 290-91. The evidence is plentiful: haphazard record keeping; unlicensed dispensation of prescription medicines; insufficient availability of sick call; insufficient medical staff; confused management; a chronic shortage of dental and pychiatric staff; and a barely functioning emergency care system. The suffering that these deficiencies cause is needless, results in purposeless infliction of pain with no conceivable penological justification, and violates plaintiffs' eighth amendment rights. See Campbell v. McGruder, No. 1462-71, slip op. at 44 (D.D.C. July 15, 1985); see also Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 634 517, 523, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3198, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (prohibiting *634 conditions "incompatible with the objectives of incarceration.").
III. Conclusion
By ruling for plaintiffs, the Court does not intend to make conditions at Occoquan comfortable, because harsh and restrictive conditions are a part of the penalty that offenders must pay for their transgressions against society. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. At the same time, this country is made great by its adherence to humanitarian principles embodied in our Constitution and laws. These principles require magnanimously that we treat people compassionately and fairly, even as we punish them for their crimes. No value can be placed on such rights and principles, and, therefore, they must be guarded well and preserved in all instances. Indeed, "[t]he continuing guarantee of these substantial rights to prison inmates is testimony to a belief that the way a society treats those who have transgressed against it is evidence of the essential character of that society." Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. at 523, 104 S.Ct. at 3198.
The numerous deficiencies at Occoquan, systemic in nature, exacerbated by chronic overcrowding, combine cumulatively to subject plaintiffs to cruel and unusual punishment, thereby violating their eighth amendment rights. While defendants may prefer to return to the days of the rejected "hands-off doctrine," see Note, Constitutional Rights of Prisoners: The Developing Law, 110 U.Pa.L.Rev. 985 (1962), the Court will intervene to ensure that plaintiffs' constitutional rights are observed. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. at 354, 101 S.Ct. at 2403 (Brennan, J., concurring).
The Court's intervention is all the more pressing given that further overcrowding at Occoquan appears to be inevitable. The Occoquan facilities are the only major institutions in the District of Columbia Department of Corrections that are not under a court-ordered population limit, making Occoquan the system safety valve. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6 at 1; see also supra at 12. This situation is to be changed shortly. Furthermore, the Court knows of no plans that the District of Columbia has to alleviate the continuing pressure at Occoquan, except for the opening of a 200-bed modular unit sometime in the coming months, and the construction of a new jail scheduled to open in 1990, at the earliest. Plaintiffs' Exhibits 18 at 10; 33 at 2.

IV. The Remedy
The Supreme Court in Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. at 688, 98 S.Ct. at 2572, affirmed the proposition that once an eighth amendment violation is found, and the federal courts' equitable powers are invoked, the courts' power to remedy ongoing constitutional violations is broad. In Rhodes v. Chapman, 352 U.S. at 351-52, 101 S.Ct. at 2401-02, the Court cautioned, however, that the judicial duty to protect constitutional rights is but one of "oversight responsibility." See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 562, 99 S.Ct. at 1886 (courts should avoid becoming "enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations."). The primary responsibility for achieving the goals of the penal function in the criminal justice system, within constitutional parameters, is best left with the local government and prison officials. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. at 352, 101 S.Ct. at 2402.
Accordingly, the Court will order that by June 1, 1987, the population of Occoquan I, II, and III shall not exceed a total of 1,281 inmates, with specific caps set for each dormitory. This total is based on a formula providing each inmate a total of 95 square feet of floor space for sleeping and day room purposes. If defendants provide all inmates with opportunities for work, vocational education or other meaningful programs to eliminate enforced idleness among the inmates, the Court will entertain a motion to modify the square footage formula to 85 square feet per prisoner. In connection with the establishment of a population cap at Occoquan, the Court will also order defendants to provide the Court with a written report by January 15, 1987, indicating precisely how they propose to comply with the population cap.
635 *635 Second, the Court will order defendants to provide the Court with a written report by January 15, 1987, and every 30 days thereafter, indicating what steps are being taken to address the many deficiencies at Occoquan as noted in this opinion. The Court, of course, encourages defendants to go even further by adopting as their goal compliance with the enlightened standards established by the ACA, the APHA, and the Life Safety code. An order is attached.
ORDER
This case was tried to the Court. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, it is by the Court this 22nd day of December 1986,
ORDERED that judgment is entered in plaintiffs' favor; it is further
ORDERED that any previous orders addressing the population at Occoquan are superseded by this order; it is further
ORDERED that no later than June 1, 1987, the population at Occoquan I, II, and III shall not exceed a total of 1,281 inmates; it is further
ORDERED that no later than June 1, 1987, each dormitory shall not exceed the capacities listed below:

OCCOQUAN I

OCCOQUAN II

Housing Unit Capacity Housing Unit Capacity

Dorm C

68

Dorm A

61

Dorm D

68

Dorm K-1

71

Dorm F

58

Dorm K-2

71

Dorm G

68

Dorm L

68

Dorm I

41

Dorm M

68

Dorm J-1

52

Dorm N

68

Dorm J-2

60

Dorm O

60

Q Block

18

Q Block

18

___

___

433

485

OCCOQUAN III

Housing Unit

Capacity

Dorm 1

82

Dorm 2

82

Dorm 3

82

Dorm 4

82

Dorm 5

35

___

363

it is further

ORDERED that no later than January 15, 1987, defendants shall submit to the Court a written report indicating how they propose to comply with the above population limits; it is further

ORDERED that no later than January 15, 1987, and every 30 days thereafter, defendants shall submit to the Court a written report indicating their plans for addressing the deficiencies at Occoquan as noted in the accompanying opinion, at minimum; and it is further

ORDERED that this case is dismissed.

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 844 F.2d 828 (1988)
INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, et al., v.
Marion S. BARRY, Mayor, et al., Appellants (Two Cases).
Nos. 87-5055, 87-5295.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued January 14, 1988. Decided April 12, 1988.
Edward E. Schwab, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Frederick D. Cooke, Jr., Acting Corp. Counsel and Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants.
Jere Krakoff, with whom Edward I. Koren, Amherst, N.Y., and Alexa P. Freeman, were on the brief, for appellees. Alvin J. Bronstein, Peter J. Nickles, Alan A. Pemberton and John F. Seymour, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances, for appellees.
Before STARR and SILBERMAN, Circuit Judges and HAROLD H. GREENE, Judge.[*]
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge STARR.
Dissenting Opinion filed by District Judge HAROLD H. GREENE.
829 *829 STARR, Circuit Judge:
This case ushers us into the sensitive and difficult arena of prison-conditions litigation. In the wake of a prison riot, a number of inmates at the District of Columbia's facilities in Occoquan, Virginia, brought suit in federal district court, challenging their conditions of confinement as violative of the Eighth Amendment. The District Court sustained the challenge and entered a remedy imposing a population cap on the Occoquan facilities. For the reasons that follow, we are constrained to conclude that the District Court's analysis as to liability and its conclusions with respect to remedy failed to comport with governing Supreme Court precedent.
I
A
Seventeen inmates of Occoquan filed this class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982), alleging that conditions at the prison violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The inmates promptly sought class certification and a preliminary injunction imposing a limit on the number of prisoners who could be housed at Occoquan. Nine days later, the District Court heard arguments and, at day's end, granted plaintiffs' motions for class certification and preliminary injunction.[1]
After further skirmishing, the District Court granted the District's motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction and, during pendency of the stay, conducted a ten-day trial on the merits of plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claims. On December 22, 1986, the District Court filed its opinion and accompanying order entering judgment in plaintiffs' favor. The principal feature of the order was its imposition of a population cap on each of the nineteen housing units within the Occoquan facility and its requirement that the District of Columbia reduce the total number of prisoners to no more than 1,281 by June 1, 1987.[2] The District was also directed to submit written reports no later than January 15, 1987 indicating its plans for complying with the population limits and for remedying the

extensive "deficiencies" enumerated in the court's opinion. Finally, the court required the District to submit followup reports at 30-day intervals.
After further proceedings, including an eventually failed attempt to join the Attorney General in the proceedings, see Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C.Cir.1988), the District Court in July 1987 issued an order disallowing further stays of the population caps pending appeal. In the meantime, inmate population levels had continued to grow to approximately 1,950 prisoners.[3] The court directed that the inmate population be reduced by no less than 100 inmates per month until the court-mandated limit of 1,281 inmates was reached.
B
The District Court's opinion is reported at 650 F.Supp. 619 (D.D.C.1986). We are nonetheless constrained to canvass the District Court's findings of fact extensively, inasmuch as those findings, as well as the court's analytical approach to the case, are essential to understanding and resolving the issues on appeal.
The District Court's findings were set forth in five parts: (1) environmental conditions (broadly defined); (2) fire 830 safety; (3) *830 medical services; (4) mental health services; and (5) the cumulative impact of the conditions
found "deficient."
1
The District Court analyzed "environmental conditions" by examining six specific areas: housing, food service, classification of inmates, programs for inmates, inmate supervision, and punitive segregation.
Housing. In its discussion of housing, the District Court pointed to a number of "deficiencies." It began by observing that both parties' public health experts agreed that the American Public Health Association ("APHA") standard, which prescribes 95 square feet per inmate, is "acceptable as a minimum standard."[4]Id. at 620. Applying the APHA standard, the court concluded that "the Occoquan Facilities do not provide adequate living space for inmates." Id. at 621. Noise levels in the dormitories were found to be "excessive" (under standards promulgated by the American Correctional Association ("ACA") and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and lighting to be "inadequate" (using a 30-foot-candle minimum, the APHA's recommended standard, as a benchmark). Id. at 621.[5]
General sanitation conditions in the dormitories were below "acceptable" environmental standards. Id. Here, the court pointed to several specific problems: (a) dormitory windows lacked screens, resulting in a fly infestation problem aggravated by a shortage of disinfectant for use in toilet and shower areas; (b) failure to clean or sanitize mattresses used by inmates between users and failure to supply mattress covers; and (c) torn and damaged mattresses.
The cumulative effect of these conditions, the court found, created serious health risks for inmates. The court pointed to testimony that "[c]onfining excessive numbers of people in limited spaces significantly increases the risk of transmission of airborne diseases." Id. Moreover, "sustained excessive noise levels increase stress levels and pose a significant risk to inmates' physical and mental health." Id. Inadequate lighting could lead to accidents and inhibit work, reading, and recreational activities. Damaged and soiled mattresses could become a vehicle for transmission of disease. These risks were compounded by "inadequate" ventilation in the dormitories and "inadequate" medical screening of inmates entering the prison.[6]See infra p. 833.
Conditions in three dormitories were viewed as particularly troublesome. Dormitories J-1, J-2, and 5 were warehouses hastily converted into housing. Dormitory 5 was situated in the basement of the Occoquan gymnasium. All three facilities suffered from the inadequacies observed above, but these facilities, the District Court found, were particularly cramped and poorly ventilated. Poor ventilation at the J-1 and J-2 dormitories was exacerbated by acrid fumes from a nearby coal pile.

Food Services. The court observed that "neither [side's] expert felt that the conditions in the kitchen posed any imminent threat of harm to the inmates." Id. at 622. Nevertheless, the court faulted Occoquan's food facilities because they failed to conform to APHA standards with respect to kitchen space. Although APHA recommends seven to nine square feet of kitchen space per inmate, Occoquan's facilities were, under that standard, adequate 831 for *831 only 696 inmates (rather than the 1637 then in residence, id. at 620).
The District Court additionally made a number of highly specific observations. First, it expressed concern about the adequacy of the contractual arrangements with an outside food service vendor to provide meals.[7] Second, the court found that food storage areas were "filled beyond capacity" with "insufficient space in the refrigerated areas to thaw frozen meat in a safe manner." Id. at 622. Third, the court observed that although prison authorities had recently undertaken an "aggressive vermin control program," they nonetheless "acknowledged the existence of a prior infestation." Id. at 623. Finally, the court found fault with the lack of a preventative maintenance program for the kitchen facilities, as evidenced by missing window screens and broken freezer gaskets. The want of such a program, the court concluded, "has serious adverse health and safety implications that are only compounded by greater numbers of inmates using these facilities." Id.[8]
Inmate Classification. The District Court was also critical of Occoquan's inmate classification system. The court cited ACA standards and other testimony discouraging the use of dormitory housing save for minimum security prisoners classified for group living. As a result of court-ordered population caps on other District of Columbia prison facilities, Occoquan was forced to house maximum security inmates together with the general prison population that included misdemeanants. In the court's view, it was important that violent inmates and those in need of psychiatric care be identified, so that they could be segregated from the remainder of the prison population. The court believed Occoquan's staff inadequate to the task and observed that the classification system at Occoquan appeared "dangerously over-taxed." Id.
Programs. The District Court decried Occoquan's lack of adequate activities and programs for inmates. Penologists, the court noted, uniformly agree that "inmates should be engaged in some productive enterprise, properly supervised." Id. Furthermore, "[b]oth parties agreed that Occoquan needs to develop a prison industries program and provide more space for programmed activities." Id. at 624.[9] Occoquan failed to provide "meaningful program opportunities." Id. at 623. As a result, "enforced idleness presents a major problem" that could potentially lead to "heightened tension, frustration, and violence." Id.
Security and Supervision. The District Court was critical of the level of supervision exercised by prison personnel in the sleeping areas of the dormitories. Patrols were infrequent and irregular; correctional officers were not strategically stationed. Occoquan departed from "sound correctional practice," id. at 624, by practicing double bunking in some dormitories. This practice resulted in obstructed lines of sight for supervisory personnel. In addition, inmates were sometimes allowed to exercise authority over other inmates, a practice disapproved by experts on both sides.
Without specifically saying so, the District Court appeared to find a causal link between security practices and the level of violence in the prison. The court observed that defendants' own statistics showed that over the past year at least 40 serious assaults had occurred, including five with shanks and three with pipes. Three inmates testified about specific incidents of violence in which they had been targets. Because less serious fistfights did not fall 832 within the ambit of "assaults," the court concluded that "the level of violence at *832 Occoquan is significantly greater than defendants' statistics reflect." Id. The court cited no evidence comparing the incidence of violence at Occoquan to that at other institutions and made no findings of a comparative nature.[10] Nevertheless, the court found "not well supported" expert testimony to the effect that the assault rate was "unremarkable." See id.; Tr. at 1178-79.
Segregation of Q Block. Also found wanting was the use of Occoquan's only cell-block, Dormitory Q, as a holding area for inmates of different classifications who prison officials determined for a variety of reasons should be kept apart from the prison's general population. The cell-block houses inmates placed there for disciplinary reasons, those under protective custody, inmates first entering the Occoquan complex, and inmates with mental health

problems. Although the inmates are separated by cells, the court found the practice of mixing these prisoners together a departure from "sound correctional practice." Id. at 625.
The lack of programs and exercise for inmates assigned to Dormitory Q likewise troubled the court. Inmates in that facility were permitted very little exercise 0907 a thrice-weekly walk in the corridor outside their respective cells, for about a half hour. Psychological testimony was cited for the proposition that these conditions lead to "psychoses in inmates who suffered no apparent mental health problem before being placed in Q block." Id. The District Court deemed it significant that "[b]oth parties' experts were in complete agreement" that inmates held in protective custody and for disciplinary reasons at Dormitory Q "should be permitted" daily exercise and access to prison programs. Id.
2
Fire safety at Occoquan was found "inadequate" in a number of respects. The court was of the view that "[the Life Safety Code] constitutes the minimum standards for fire safety in a correctional setting." Id. at 626.[11] Many of Occoquan's facilities 0907 particularly those that had undergone recent renovation and were therefore subject to more stringent code provisions applicable to new buildings 0907 failed to pass muster under existing codes, "let alone the more enlightened building standards under the Life Safety Code." Id.
The District Court credited testimony by plaintiffs' expert that the fire alarm systems were "deficient." Id. Many of the alarms and smoke detectors were not in working order; none provided automatic retransmission to sound the alarm in the prison Control Center as well as at the site of the alarm. The court counseled that installation of an automatic retransmission system "may well be advised." Id.
Most fire extinguishers were water-type, which the court found "inadequate to extinguish an electrical fire." Id. Many were not situated in their proper locations and were overdue for servicing. Electrical wiring was exposed in many places, exacerbating the risk of fire. Also found troubling was the lack of "adequate" emergency lighting in Occoquan's dormitories, id., and the failure to provide "adequate" evacuation plans and training for prison staff. Id. at 627.[12]
833 *833 3
The third broad category examined by the District Court was Occoquan's provision of medical services. The court began by observing that experts on both sides "agreed that deficiencies [in Occoquan's medical care] exist." Id. The experts concurred that "the APHA and the ACA standards for health care ... represent the accepted minimums in this area." Id. Against this backdrop, the court addressed eight separate aspects of medical care: sick call, staff, emergency care, chronic care and records, screening, specialty clinics, medications, and dental care.
The District Court found "insufficient" the prison's practice of providing formalized sick call 0907 opportunities for prisoners to get routine medical attention 0907 only three times per week. Id. at 628. Expert testimony was cited to the effect that Occoquan "ought to conduct formalized sick call ... at least five times per week." Id.
By the time of trial, Occoquan's medical staff consisted of one full-time and one part-time physician, three physician assistants ("PA"), and three medical technician assistants ("MTA"). PA's have limited formal medical training; MTA's typically have only on-the-job training received while serving in the Armed Forces. MTA's were allowed to perform individual diagnoses, despite the fact that "such a practice is considered improper." Id. Only one of the PA's had formal certification, despite the fact that "state or national certification is recommended." Id.
The medical staff was inadequate to the job at hand, the court concluded, noting agreement among experts that for a prison population of approximately 1,500 inmates, Occoquan "needed" two or three full-time physicians and three to five "properly certified" PA's. Id. Also found lacking was the want of medical coverage during the midnight shift.

A number of aspects of emergency medical care troubled the court. Dissatisfaction was expressed with the lack of training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation ("CPR") among both correctional officers and medical personnel. The prison ambulance was not "properly equipped." In general, Occoquan had "only inadequate emergency equipment." Id.
The District Court cited testimony about specific instances of delay in the administration of medical care to inmates as illustrating the "systemic nature of the problem with emergency care at Occoquan." Id. One inmate had to wait 45 minutes for a stretcher to arrive after striking his head against the back of a bunk; another was forced to wait over an hour before being transferred to Central Facility for emergency care.
The court criticized the lack of formal procedures to ensure that adequate follow-up care would be given to sick or injured inmates. The court cited examples of failure to renew an inmate's seizure medication in timely fashion and to follow up on an inmate who required suture removal. The trial judge expressed concern over significant delays in obtaining medical records for inmates following their intake processing at the D.C. Jail or treatment at the D.C. General Hospital. Testimony by defendants' medical expert was cited to the effect that "additional records and clerical personnel are needed" to alleviate the problem. Id. at 629.
The court noted that proper documentation of screening tests for communicable diseases 0907 conducted on all prisoners entering the D.C. correctional system at the D.C. Jail 0907 often failed to accompany inmates' transfers to Occoquan. This was of particular significance because a population such as that at Occoquan could be expected to test positive for such diseases "with some frequency." Id. Indeed, the District Court cited testimony concerning "specific instances of infected inmates whose conditions were not documented or followed properly." Id.
The court below also found that "[i]nordinately long and significant delays" confront inmates who need to visit specialty clinics. Id. The trial judge recounted the experience of one inmate who had been referred to the surgery 834 clinic to be seen "as soon as possible," but was still waiting *834 for an appointment over three months later. Id.
Medications, the court observed, are often distributed by MTA's, although they are not certified to do so, and prescriptions signed by PA's were not routinely countersigned by a physician, "even though such a practice is required." Id. No procedures were in place to ensure that prescription renewals were made and that documentation of prescription processing was complete. Also, prison authorities had difficulty ensuring that diabetic inmates received insulin injections in a timely manner.
Finally as to medical services, the court was critical of dental care at Occoquan. The court credited testimony that the current staff of two dentists and one dental assistant was "insufficient to handle the current population's needs." Id. at 629-30. The trial judge commented that testimony concerning lengthy delays was "buttressed by the numerous administrative complaints filed by inmates complaining of the pain they are suffering due to these delays." Id. at 630.
4
Four areas of the mental health services provided by Occoquan troubled the District Court. First, the informal system of screening inmates for psychological problems was deemed "entirely inadequate" because it was not conducted by "trained mental health professional[s]" and did not include "appropriate psychological tests." Id. Second, the court pointed to "widely acknowledged deficiencies" with respect to the mental health staff at Occoquan, "evidenced by a `burned out' staff, overwhelmed by their work load." Id. The court noted a "pressing need for additional mental health personnel." Id. Third, based on testimony from mental health experts on both sides, the court found that "Q block is an inappropriate place to house inmates suffering from serious mental health problems." Id. Inmates in need of hospitalization for mental health treatment were not being transferred in a timely fashion. Finally, some mentally ill inmates at Occoquan were not receiving medications prescribed for them. Moreover, according to the court, the unavailability of various medical records posed a problem for the facility.

5
The District Court concluded its detailed factual recitation with a discussion of the cumulative impact of its findings. The trial judge believed that "conditions at Occoquan, not to mention the experts on both sides and the Occoquan administrators, cry out for a population cap." Id. at 630-31. The court was of the view that "virtually every facet of the Occoquan system is at or beyond the breaking point." Id. at 631. The District Court concluded with the following observation:
It is apparent that even with significantly fewer inmates, the physical plant and the various services and programs at Occoquan are, at best, substandard. This situation, taken cumulatively, presents a clear and present danger to the health and safety of plaintiffs.
Id.
Having set forth its findings of fact, the District Court summarized its conclusions of law as follows:
Every facet of the operation at Occoquan is characterized by systemic deficiencies. While any one component, i.e., harmful noise levels, food services, etc., may not fall below the prescribed eighth amendment standard, the cumulation of the various deficiencies aggravated and exacerbated by an ever-increasing number of inmates creates a constitutionally unacceptable situation.
Id. at 632.[13]
Relying on its broad equitable powers once a constitutional violation is found, the court then ordered the 835 population limits referred to previously. See supra p. 3. It *835 did not fashion a specific remedy tailored to
specific findings of constitutional violations.[14]
II
The framework for analysis in this case was established by the Supreme Court in Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). There, the Court faced for the first time the meaning of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the setting of a challenge to conditions of confinement. Although cases prior to Rhodes had made clear that prison conditions were subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny, id. at 345, 101 S.Ct. at 2398, the Court had not theretofore been squarely confronted with a challenge requiring articulation of "the principles relevant to assessing claims that conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment." Id. Rhodes was thus a ground-breaking decision. It was manifestly more than a narrow decision establishing the limited principle that double celling per se does not work a violation of the Eighth Amendment. To be sure, Rhodes held just that, but the Court took the occasion to articulate more broadly the principles to guide the lower courts in coming to grips with this difficult area of constitutional litigation.
The themes of Rhodes are clear. The judiciary is to be cautious in the sensitive terrain of the Eighth Amendment. In writing for the majority, Justice Powell made the point in the following way:
This Court must proceed cautiously in making an Eighth Amendment judgment because, unless we reverse it, "[a] decision that a given punishment is impermissible under the Eighth Amendment cannot be reversed short of a constitutional amendment," and thus "[r]evisions cannot be made in the light of further experience."
Id., 452 U.S. at 351, 101 S.Ct. at 2401 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 176, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2926, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)). The Court was not blind to the harsh reality of prison conditions in America; but that reality did not mean that judicial caution was to be thrown to the winds. "[T]he problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and more to the point, they are not readily susceptible to resolution by decree." Id. 452 U.S. at 351 n. 16, 101 S.Ct. at 2401 n. 16 (quoting Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-05, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1807, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1976)).

Writing in 1981, five years after Martinez, the Rhodes Court indicated its keen awareness of the exacerbation of problems afflicting prison systems across the country. "Since our decision in Martinez, the problems of prison population and administration have been exacerbated by the increase of serious crime and the effect of inflation on the resources of States and communities." Id. This observation touched upon a broader principle that the Court has often emphasized; ultimately, the administration of prisons implicates broader concerns over judicial competence to decree sweeping modifications in prison conditions. That is, in addition to Rhodes-mandated caution about carving correctional desiderata into constitutional stone, the Court has instructed the lower courts that "the operation of our correctional facilities is peculiarly the province of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government, not the Judicial." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 548, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1879, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). See also Procunier v. Martinez, supra, 416 U.S. at 405, 94 S.Ct. at 1807.
836 Rhodes thus rearticulated the recurring theme of judicial caution in the area of *836 institutional conditions litigation. Certain basic elements of prison life are, Justice Powell reminded us, matters entrusted to correctional officials, not judges. The Court stated it simply: "[A] prison's internal security is peculiarly a matter normally left to the discretion of prison administrators." 452 U.S. at 349 n. 14. 101 S.Ct. at 2400 n. 14. Formidable authority was summoned to buttress that proposition, including Bell v. Wolfish, supra, 441 U.S. at 551, 99 S.Ct. at 1880-81; Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119, 132-33, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 2541-42, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 827, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2806, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974).
Rhodes thus stands as a reminder to lower courts to adhere to basic principles. And those principles clearly signal caution as we proceed into the inner workings of a prison, armed with the demands of the Eighth Amendment. As Justice Brennan aptly stated in concurring in Rhodes, "[c]ourts must and do recognize the primacy of the legislative and executive authorities in the administration of prisons." 452 U.S. at 362, 101 S.Ct. at 2407.
But there is more to Rhodes than a reminder of enduring principles. The Rhodes Court also set forth a framework for analysis of Eighth Amendment challenges. Drawing from its prior cases, the Court emphasized the Amendment's prohibition of "punishments which, although not physically barbarous, `involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.'" Id. at 346, 101 S.Ct. at 2399 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. at 173, 96 S.Ct. at 2925). The Court indicated that Eighth Amendment judgments are not to be governed by the peculiar views of individual trial judges. The courts are, rather, to search for objective factors to guide constitutional analysis. The exercise is, to be sure, not mechanical in nature; "`the Constitution contemplates that in the end [a court's] own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of a given punishment.'" Id. 452 U.S. at 346, 101 S.Ct. at 2399 (quoting Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 592, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 2866, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977)). But judges are to be guided by principles, not impressions; and the ultimate constitutional principle articulated by Rhodes was this: "Conditions must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, nor may they be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime warranting punishment." Id. 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399.
In fleshing out this principle, the Court in Rhodes articulated (in the context of the conditions prevailing at the Ohio prison at issue) the proposition that not all deprivations rise to constitutional significance. Indeed, certain sorts of "deprivations," such as limited work and educational opportunities, do not even fall within the broad compass of "punishments" within the meaning of the Constitution. Id. at 348, 101 S.Ct. at 2400. Instead, the "deprivations" that trigger Eighth Amendment scrutiny are deprivations of essential human needs. Specifically, the conditions the Rhodes majority thought significant were these: "deprivations of essential food, medical care, or sanitation." Id. And to that list of basic needs, the Court added concern over physical safety. Id. When measured against this demanding yardstick, the allegation of overcrowding did not even come close to establishing a constitutional violation. Even though this condition was not, by virtue of prison capacity, temporary in nature, the Court was unmoved:
These general considerations fall far short in themselves of proving cruel and unusual punishment, for there is no evidence that double celling under these circumstances either inflicts unnecessary or wanton pain or is grossly disproportionate to the severity of crimes warranting imprisonment.

Id.
The Court brushed aside the asserted significance of expert testimony, which had formed an integral part of the two lower courts' agreement that conditions in the Ohio facility did not meet the Eighth Amendment's demands. The Rhodes court flatly discounted expert opinion. Of greatest import under the Constitution is the public's 837 attitude toward a given sanction *837 or condition. Justice Powell wrote for his colleagues in the following way:
Indeed, generalized opinions of experts cannot weigh as heavily in determining contemporary standards of decency as "the public attitude toward a given sanction."
Id. at 348-49 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. at 2400 n. 13 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2925, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)). The basis of the expert testimony adduced at trial had been, not surprisingly, the standards of professional organizations. Rhodes reaffirmed the Court's view in this respect, laid down two years earlier in Bell v. Wolfish: "[T]he recommendations of these various [professional] groups ... simply do not establish the constitutional minima; rather, they establish goals recommended by the organization in question." 441 U.S. at 544 n. 27, 99 S.Ct. at 1876 n. 27. Once again rejecting professional standards as doing service for constitutional benchmarks, the Rhodes Court observed that the conditions in question, although falling below professional standards, did not violate "decency." The cells were heated, ventilated, and equipped with hot and cold running water, and a sanitary toilet.
The demand for objective facts going to essential human needs is, we believe, the clear message of Rhodes. It will not do to assert that there are "deficiencies" in the prison. Nor will it do to invoke the standards of professional organizations as showing failings of purportedly constitutional significance. In this setting, it is decency 0907 elementary decency 0907 not professionalism that the Eighth Amendment is all about.
This basic insight was, we think, instructively captured by our colleagues in the Eighth Circuit recently. Sitting en banc, the court had occasion to review the findings of a district court which had concluded that conditions in a South Dakota prison facility fell below constitutional norms. Cody v. Hillard, 830 F.2d 912 (8th Cir.1987) (en banc) , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 1078, 98 L.Ed.2d 237 (1988). After canvassing the District Court's findings and finding them wanting, the en banc court had this to say:
The conditions described in this record cannot be said "to inflict pain or amount to punishment," nor can prison administrators making "sincere efforts" be said not to be acting in "good faith." The present case is light years removed from the torture, cruel deprivation, and sadistic punishment with which the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is concerned.
Id. at 915.
It is, in short, these latter sorts of conditions that the Eighth Amendment will not tolerate. It is cruel conditions, defined by reference to community norms, to which the Constitution speaks; neither "deficient" conditions nor conditions that violate "professional standards" rise to the lofty heights of constitutional significance. Indeed, the obvious danger of employing professional standards as benchmarks is that they ineluctably take the judicial eye off of core constitutional concerns and tend to lead the judiciary into the forbidden domain of prison reform. And the line between discerning and remedying constitutional violations, on the one hand, and mandating reforms to improve the quality of life behind prison walls, on the other, is of pivotal importance to judicial legitimacy in a democratic society.
In its search for principled lines, the Cody court's succinct formulation of core Eighth Amendment concerns is, in our view, entirely harmonious with Rhodes itself. We have already canvassed the majority opinion authored by Justice Powell, with its emphasis on deprivations of essential human needs. This conclusion was reached, we cannot but observe, in the face of a vigorous dissent by Justice Marshall who, invoking the specific findings of the trial court, pointed to expert testimony that the conditions prevailing at the Ohio prison would cause "serious mental, emotional, and physical deterioration." 452 U.S. at 371, 101 S.Ct. at 2411-12 (Marshall, J., dissenting). 838 The dissent was emphatic; Justice Marshall emphasized that the trial judge, whose judgment had been affirmed *838 by the Sixth Circuit, had concluded that the Ohio conditions necessarily involved "physical and mental injury." Id. at 374, 101 S.Ct. at 2413. Particularly in the face of Justice Marshall's vigorous dissent, it is clear

beyond cavil that Rhodes was not about abstract principles or per se rules; it was about whether the indisputably undesirable conditions in the Ohio facility passed constitutional muster.

Among the eight Justices who rejected the lower courts' conclusion that constitutional infirmities infected the facility in question was Justice Brennan. His concurring opinion, joined by two colleagues, is likewise instructive in getting at the core of the Eighth Amendment's meaning in the context of prison conditions litigation. There, Justice Brennan spoke of "`soul-chilling inhumanity of conditions.'" 452 U.S. at 354, 101 S.Ct. at 2403 (quoting Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F.Supp. 676, 684 (D.Mass.1973)). The cases Justice Brennan discussed in reviewing the judicial literature were of the very sort identified by the Eighth Circuit in Cody. These were cases involving conditions of unspeakable inhumanity. Here, by way of example, is a portion of Justice Brennan's description, drawing in turn from an opinion of then-Chief Judge Frank Johnson about one such system:

The institutions were "horrendously overcrowded to the point where some inmates were forced to sleep on mattresses spread on floors in hallways and next to urinals." The physical facilities were "delapidat[ed]" and "filthy," the cells infested with roaches, files, mosquitoes and other vermin. Sanitation facilities were limited and in ill repair, emitting an "overpowering odor"; in one instance over 200 men were forced to share one toilet. Inmates were not provided with toothpaste, toothbrush, shampoo, shaving cream, razors, combs, or other such necessities.... A United States health officer described the prisons as "wholly unfit for human habitation according to virtually every criterion used for evaluation by public health inspectors." Perhaps the worst of all was the "rampant violence" within the prison. Weaker inmates were "repeatedly victimized" by the stronger, robbery, rape, extortion, theft, and assault were "everyday occurrences among the general inmate population."

Id. 452 U.S. at 355, 101 S.Ct. at 2403-04 (citations omitted).

This sort of prison system was not unique. In Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978), the Court noted unchallenged findings by the lower court that the Arkansas prison system subjected inmates to conditions amounting to "`a dark and evil world completely alien to the free world.'" Id. at 681, 98 S.Ct. at 2569 (quoting Holt v. Sarver, 309 F.Supp. 362, 381 (E.D.Ark.1970) (Holt II)). This was not hyperbole by judges carried away with the harsh realities of prison life. The following description by Justice Stevens, writing for the Court in Hutto, powerfully conveys the sinister reality of the Arkansas system:

[T]he institution at the center of this litigation[] required its 1,000 inmates to work in the fields 10 hours a day, six days a week, using mule-drawn tools and tending crops by hand. The inmates were sometimes required to run to and from the fields, with a guard in an automobile or on horseback driving them on. They worked in all sorts of weather, so long as the temperature was above freezing, sometimes in unsuitably light clothing or without shoes.

. . . . .

Inmates were lashed with a wooden-handled leather strap five feet long and four inches wide.

. . . . .

The "Tucker telephone," a hand-cranked device, was used to administer electrical shocks to various sensitive parts of an inmate's body.

. . . . .

Most of the guards were simply inmates who had been issued guns. Although it had 1,000

prisoners, [the prison] employed only eight guards who were not themselves convicts. Only two

839

nonconvict guards kept watch over the *839 1,000 men at night. While the "trusties" maintained an

appearance of order, they took a high toll from the other prisoners. Inmates could obtain access to

medical treatment only if they bribed the trusty in charge of sick call. As the District Court found, it

was "within the power of a trusty guard to murder another inmate with practical impunity...."

Id. 437 U.S. at 681-82 & nn. 3-6, 98 S.Ct. at 2569 & nn. 3-6 (citations omitted).
It was against this wretched backdrop that the Rhodes Court articulated the twin evils of "wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain" and conditions "grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime." The Court cited two examples as illustrative of conditions condemned by the Eighth Amendment: the deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs, such as that at issue in the case of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); and the conditions, which we just recounted, prevailing in the prison system of Arkansas which provided the backdrop of Hutto v. Finney, supra. ("[T]he conditions of confinement in two Arkansas prisons constituted cruel and unusual punishment because they resulted in unquestioned and serious deprivations of basic human needs." Rhodes, supra, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399). On the heels of citing these two examples, the Rhodes Court employed language which is said to signal its embrace of a "totality of the circumstances" test, the theory of the plaintiffs' case now before us.
Conditions other than those in Gamble and Hutto, alone or in combination, may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.
Id.
But to say that the Rhodes Court sanctioned a "totality of the circumstances" approach (as evidenced by Justice Brennan's characterization in his concurrence, 452 U.S. at 363 n. 10, 101 S.Ct. at 2398 n. 10; see also Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. at 687, 98 S.Ct. at 2571-72) is to recount only half of the Court's formulation; it is the second part that provides content and specificity to the test 0907 deprivations of "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities."
In light of this standard (or, at least, mandated approach to constitutional analysis), we need not tarry long in indicating why the District Court's analysis in the present case misses the mark. Time and again, the District Court pointed to "deficiencies" in conditions prevailing at the Occoquan facilities. Time and again, the court referred to the standards promulgated by various professional organizations or "agreement" among the experts concerning "sound correctional practice." This approach, as we read the court's opinion, provided the foundation for its conclusion that liability was established under the "totality of the circumstances." But what we see, unfortunately, wanting in the analysis is a determination that these "deficiencies" and shortfalls 0907 alone or in combination 0907 rose to the level of deprivations of the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Those necessities 0907 food, shelter, health care, and personal security 0907 must be analysed with specificity to determine whether essential mainstays of life have been denied to the inmates of Occoquan. If the necessities are provided, then the Eighth Amendment has been satisfied (apart of course from any claim, not asserted here, that the conditions are disproportionately severe in view of the various offenses for which the inmates stand convicted).
By virtue of the District Court's misconception of the applicable constitutional standard, its liability analysis is fatally infected with error. Its approach, with all respect, simply cannot be squared with Rhodes. Reading the court's opinion, with its elaborate recitation of expert testimony at trial concerning "sound correctional practice," we are unable to discern whether the conditions as described rose to the level of deprivations of constitutional moment. That the conditions were undesirable and indeed harsh does not, as should by now be evident, aid constitutional analysis. The Eighth Amendment gets at the basic necessities of life; it does not go to the 840 undesirability *840 of conditions to which inmates are subjected.[15]
We do not, however, go so far as to conclude that the District Court could not have found on this record conditions falling within the zone of legitimate constitutional concern. Several areas discussed by the court give us pause and may be of such seriousness as to warrant further analysis under the appropriate constitutional standards as elucidated by the Supreme Court's holdings in such cases as Estelle, Hutto, and Rhodes.[16]
But we can make no such determination on the record before us without, in effect, performing the District Court's task. And, crucially, the record is already stale. The District has represented to us that it has already addressed and remedied many (if not all) of the specific "deficiencies" enumerated by the trial court. Indeed, at oral argument counsel for the District represented that the local government's concern in the appellate stage of this

litigation was solely with the population cap; in fact, counsel indicated that the District was keenly interested in correcting (and had corrected) conditions found unacceptable by the District Court.[17]
As we will more fully develop in Part III of this opinion, if there still exist conditions violative of constitutional commands, then the task of the court is to remedy the offending conditions. But in our view, the District Court 841 succumbed to the very error *841 discerned by the Eighth Circuit in the South Dakota litigation, namely that a variety of deficiencies in the prisons in question warranted a global remedy (an end to double-celling), rather than a remedy mandating specific corrections of specific problems:
The District Court detailed such problems ... as unsanitary practices in storing and preparing food, the use of untrained inmates to provide medical services to other inmates, inadequate ventilation and plumbing and substandard electrical wiring and other fire hazards. Whatever the merit of these findings, there has been no showing, and the District Court has made no finding, that the elimination of double-celling will alleviate these problems to any perceptible degree. An appropriate remedy would relate to correction of the constitutionally deficient conditions that have been found to exist, if any there be, rather than to the elimination of double-celling.
Cody v. Hillard, 830 F.2d at 914 (emphasis added).
III
This, finally, brings the remedial aspect of the District Court's order into sharp relief. It has long been held that the equitable power of the federal courts will be brought to bear to insure that constitutional wrongs will be effectively redressed. But the breadth and flexibility inherent in equity have limits. Certain bedrock and frequently reaffirmed limiting principles are to guide the trial courts in their employment of equity's power.
A
First and foremost, once a right is established the remedy chosen must be tailored to fit the violation. The Supreme Court has made the point this way: "The controlling principle consistently expounded in our holdings is that the scope of the remedy is determined by the nature and extent of the constitutional violation." Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 744, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3127, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974) (Milliken I). Equitable remedies in constitutional cases must therefore seek to redress the "condition alleged to offend the Constitution." Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977) (Milliken II). Second, the remedy chosen must in fact be remedial in nature. That is, the remedy must seek to cure the constitutional violation, to place victims of unconstitutional conduct in "`the position they would have occupied in the absence of such conduct.'" Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 280, 97 S.Ct. at 2757 (quoting Milliken I, 418 U.S. at 746, 94 S.Ct. at 3128). Finally, district courts are to "take into account the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs, consistent with the Constitution." Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 281, 97 S.Ct. at 2757.
These principles, expounded in the main in school desegregation cases, are fully applicable in cases in which prison conditions are found to constitute cruel and unusual punishment.[18] In the prison context, therefore, district court judges must identify the conditions which, either alone or taken together, violate the Constitution; that being done, the remedial task is to correct those conditions to bring the prison as a whole within constitutional strictures.
But in carrying out their remedial task, courts are not to be in the business of running prisons. The cases make it plain that questions of prison administration are to be left to the discretion of prison administrators. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2400-01, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981); Cody v. Hillard, supra. Thus it is that the Supreme Court has admonished the lower courts to be mindful that "`[local] authorities have the primary 842 responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving,'" Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 281, *842 97 S.Ct. at 2757 (quoting Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 756, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955)), the problems that inevitably arise in the process of ensuring full compliance with the Constitution's demands. If, however, "`[local] authorities fail in their affirmative obligations ... judicial authority may be invoked.'" Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 281, 97 S.Ct. at

2757 (quoting Swann, 402 U.S. at 15, 91 S.Ct. at 1276). Only at this point 0907 after local authorities have been found wanting at the remedial stage 0907 has the Court emphasized the breadth and flexibility of the district courts' equitable power. See Swann, 402 U.S. at 15, 91 S.Ct. at 1276; Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 281, 97 S.Ct. at 2757.
That the Supreme Court understands the equitable discretion of district courts to be at its zenith after prison authorities have abdicated their remedial responsibilities was made clear in Hutto v. Finney, supra, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522. In that case, the Court approved as within a district court's equitable power the imposition of a far-reaching and highly intrusive remedy; a significant factor in the Court's approbation of such sweeping remedial action was the long history of the litigation and the continued failure of the prison officials to bring about compliance with earlier, less intrusive orders. In upholding the lower court's action, the Supreme Court stated:
In fashioning a remedy, the District Court had ample authority to go beyond earlier orders.... The District Court had given the [prison authorities] repeated opportunities to remedy the cruel and unusual conditions in the isolation cells. If [the authorities] had fully complied with the court's earlier orders, the present [stringent remedy] might well have been unnecessary. But taking the long and unhappy history of the litigation into account, the court was justified in entering a comprehensive order to insure against the risk of inadequate compliance.
Id., 437 U.S. at 687, 98 S.Ct. at 2572.[19]
B
Measured against these fundamental principles, we are constrained to conclude that the District Court's remedial order is misguided. After setting forth a variety of "deficiencies," the District Court stated broadly, "[t]he conditions at Occoquan ... cry out for a population limit." 650 F.Supp. at 630-31. The court imposed as its remedy a population limit, based on a formula to guarantee each prisoner 95 square feet of living space.[20] The court explicitly listed the maximum number of prisoners it would allow the District of Columbia to house in each dormitory at Occoquan.
The District Court did not hold that overcrowding at Occoquan offended the Eighth Amendment, Rather, it repeatedly observed that overcrowding exacerbated the effects of numerous deficiencies, which taken together, violated the Constitution. As we indicated before, an approach commensurate with Supreme Court precedent would have sought to identify the conditions causing the constitutional violation and order those conditions remedied. The District Court's power, it bears repeating, was to bring the prison into compliance with the Constitution; the court was powerless to seek to make Occoquan a "better place" or to bring it within "sound penological practices."
In our view, immediate resort to a population cap was much too blunt an instrument in view of the court's specific findings of "deficiencies" which the District of Columbia was ordered to correct (and which, the District maintains, have indeed since been corrected, see supra n. 17). This is especially so because a population limit, or put 843 another way, a minimum square footage requirement, directly implicates decisions *843 with which the political process is charged. Such fundamental decisions as how many prisons to build and how large to build them 0907 basic decisions regarding the allocation of public resources 0907 are simply outside the domain of federal courts.[21] Indeed, it would have been difficult for the District Court to fashion a remedy that more fundamentally implicates the tensions between the prerogatives of local authorities and the demands of the Constitution.
Our reading of the Supreme Court's teachings in Swann, Milliken I, Milliken II, and Hutto v. Finney reinforces our conclusion that the remedy here swept too broadly. In those cases, the Court uniformly held that the scope of constitutional violations determines the scope of constitutional remedies, and that the equitable powers of the federal courts are at their broadest only after state officials default in their obligation to remedy constitutional wrongs. Thus, it will not do mechanically to invoke the talisman of "broad equitable discretion" as the basis for demanding that the District of Columbia either build more prisons or let convicted prisoners go free. In our view,

counsel for the District put it aptly at oral argument when he characterized the choice of a population limit at Occoquan as "a last resort remedy as a first step."[22]
IV
Our dissenting colleague's thoughtful and careful opinion joins well the issues presented by this important case. Our disagreements are, nonetheless, fundamental. They are, reduced to essentials, twofold. First, our colleague reads the District Court's opinion rather differently than we do. As we have elaborated at some length, the District Court, in our view, fell into grave error by its continuous resort to the standards articulated by professional agencies in evaluating the constitutionality of the conditions at Occoquan. In addition, the court enumerated a considerable variety of "deficiencies" to condemn the entire panoply of prison conditions, rather than scrutinizing specific dormitories or services found to fall short of the constitutional minima. This, we believe for reasons already stated, is incompatible with the Supreme Court-mandated duty to focus with care on the specific circumstances said to occasion the Eighth Amendment violation. We acknowledge that opinions from other courts may point in different directions, but we believe that our colleagues in the Eighth Circuit sitting en banc have arrived at the proper approach to guide our analysis.
Our parting of the ways is equally fundamental with respect to our respective visions of the nature and scope of judicial power. Our colleague reads the judicial literature to give the courts broad power to fashion sweeping remedies to correct identified constitutional violations. There can be no doubt that the literature indeed contains language supporting precisely that broad vision, summoning up the historic image of the chancellor taking whatever steps in his broad discretion seem appropriate to rectify the situation found tainted with illegality. But it 844 scarcely needs to be *844 said that the lawsuit before us is no ordinary suit in equity. In this setting of institutional conditions litigation, courts must, as the Supreme Court has said time and again, craft remedies with extraordinary sensitivity. Here, courts work in an arena that represents a crossroads where the local political branches of government meet the Article III branch and the higher commands of the Constitution. Those expressions of concern, of restraint, mean something quite clear to us. It is, upon analysis, an attitude of respect for and consideration of the extreme difficulties confronting the political branches whose charge it is to make the policy decisions eventuating in the construction and operation of the Nation's prison systems. It also means that we will not be quick to presume that the two other branches will cavalierly succumb to engaging in what the lower courts have been, at times, rather quick to condemn as systemic constitutional violations.
And it is but another dimension of the Supreme Court-mandated attitude of respect and consideration, albeit emphatically not to degenerate into judicial enervation and abdication, that the Court has impressed upon the lower tribunals in emphasizing the need narrowly to tailor the remedy to fit the violation. Rhetoric aside, that fundamental teaching, we believe, is at the core of the Supreme Court's message to the inferior federal courts over the last decades. That core message, to put it simply, trumps the broad rhetoric that our colleague understandably features.
V
Accordingly, we conclude that the clear holdings of the Supreme Court require us to vacate the District Court's order imposing as it does a population limit at Occoquan generally and in each dormitory individually. In the circumstances of this case, the District Court acted beyond its equitable powers.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
HAROLD H. GREENE, District Judge, dissenting:

In my view, the district court correctly found that the inmates of the Occoquan correctional facility have been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I also believe that the court acted within its discretion in imposing the remedy of a population ceiling. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I
The majority has fairly and comprehensively summarized the findings of the district court. However, for a full understanding of the reasons for my belief that the lower court was justified in concluding that the conditions at the Occoquan facility violate the Eighth Amendment, a brief recapitulation of the central findings and the evidence in support thereof is in order.
The Occoquan prison complex is seriously overcrowded; that overcrowding has grown progressively worse; and it is inevitable that Occoquan will continue to show a stifling increase in inmate population. The original capacity of the institution was 1,366, but by March of 1988 the inmate population had already risen by almost 700, to 2,051.
Because of increases in crime, particularly in drug trafficking and in such violent offenses as homicide, and the enactment of several mandatory minimum sentence laws,[1] the number of convicted criminals sentenced to 845 imprisonment in the District of Columbia is constantly rising.[2] These *845 developments are placing substantial pressure on the Department of Corrections to find room for the added convict population. However, the correctional institutions operated by that Department other than Occoquan that could be used for adult medium security inmates are all under population caps imposed by consent decrees.[3] With the decision of this Court to reject the remedy of a population ceiling for Occoquan, that facility will be the only one where additional medium security inmates could hereafter be confined, and the overcrowding is therefore bound to increase further.
Numbers do not tell the entire story, however. The trial evidence showed that the beds in the dormitories at Occoquan are virtually jammed against each other, allowing not only no privacy but precluding even the opportunity for more than the most minimal movement.[4] Several of these dormitories are hastily-converted warehouses;[5] one is a basement converted in a single day to the housing of inmates; and several are located close to a coal pile that gives off acrid fumes. The warden has been quoted as stating that conditions in one of the dormitories were "extremely poor, and [it] should not be used for housing." A. 58. Various experts who viewed and inspected the institution characterized the overcrowding in terms that could leave no doubt of their dismay at what they found.
One such expert (Dr. Frank Rundle) described one of the housing units as being in "a half ground level location ... dark, very few windows, without good ventilation, and extremely crowded. The bunks were double and spaced very close together. The atmosphere was of intense density of people." A. 82-83. Another expert (Eugene Miller, former administrator in the District of Columbia Department of Corrections) talked of "oppressive physical conditions [that were] extant at that time. I think, bluntly, I really didn't see how people could, at that point, justify housing people in those kinds of conditions." A. 64-65.[6]
One of the consequences of the overcrowding and the poor hygienic conditions is a serious risk of widespread disease, including tuberculosis.[7] Yet by even the most relaxed standard, the level of medical services at the Occoquan institution can only be described as deplorable. Because of the increased population, sick call had to be reduced from five days a week to three; technical assistants perform medical diagnoses; prisoners are not screened at the D.C. Jail for syphilis and tuberculosis even though between ten and twenty percent of these prisoners may be expected to test positive for these diseases; there are significant delays in transferring inmates' 846 medical records from the D.C. Jail;[8] prisoners *846 must wait excessive periods of time to arrange for needed visits to surgery, neurology, and orthopedic clinics;[9] and there is no medical coverage at all during the midnight shift.
With respect to mental health and psychiatric staffing, Dr. Claybourne, a staff psychologist, stated that they "had a dreadful, dreadful disproportionate number of staff psychologists" and that "[i]n reference to population, we

can't do it 0907 one man can't do it all." A. 79-80.[10] Indeed, the prison psychiatrist was able to see each patient for only about seven minutes, even for evaluation purposes 0907 a period that the district court, in what may be an understatement, described as "simply impossible." A. 12.
These conditions have led, quite naturally, to a pervasive climate of violence. The precise number of serious assaults in the year preceding the trial cannot be ascertained with accuracy since the figures of the Department of Corrections are plainly incorrect;[11] however, it is clear that the number is very high.
Many of the assaults may be attributed to the fact that, on account of the overcrowding, the number of correctional officers is insufficient adequately to supervise the inmates' sleeping areas. Moreover, because of the overcrowding at the other Lorton institutions, maximum security inmates are housed at Occoquan in open dormitories with the general population of inmates properly assigned to that facility. Finally, it should be noted in regard to the climate of tension and violence that the instant lawsuit was filed in response to, and shortly after, a riot in the course of which one inmate was killed, eighteen inmates and nine guards were injured, and eight dormitories were damaged by fire.
On this basis,[12] even the District of Columbia's own experts concluded that conditions at Occoquan, particularly the overcrowding, were both deplorable and explosive.[13]
847 *847 II
It cannot seriously be suggested, and appellants do not contend, that the factual findings that underlie the district court's conclusions are not supported by the evidence. Appellants do argue, however, that the court below erred by "uniformly ... [judging] the adequacy of the inmate conditions by reference to published standards recommended by various organizations or by the inmates' experts." Br. at 12. The majority likewise faults the district court for relying on standards promulgated by various professional organizations and experts, Maj.Op. at 836-37, 839, citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981).
It is true, of course, that under Rhodes a deprivation of Eighth Amendment rights in prison cases may not stand or fall upon the opinions of experts. However, Rhodes does not hold that expert or professional opinions are not relevant in such cases. On the contrary; the Court stated that the opinions of experts as to appropriate prison conditions would not "suffice" to establish contemporary standards of decency, 452 U.S. at 348 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. at 2400 n. 13, plainly implying that such opinions may be taken into account, with other evidence, in determining the proper standards and their possible violation.
Indeed, professionally formulated standards are the most objective tools available for this purpose.[14]French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir.1985), affirming, 538 F.Supp. 910 (S.D.Ind.1982); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 567 n. 10 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041, 101 S.Ct. 1759, 68 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981); see also Justice Brennan's concurring opinion in Rhodes, supra, 452 U.S. at 356, 101 S.Ct. at 2404.
The majority holds, quite properly, that the courts are to search for objective factors to guide constitutional analysis, as distinguished from "the peculiar views of individual trial judges." Maj.Op. at 836.[15] Yet if the subjective perceptions of individual judges are ruled out as establishing the proper standards, only the studies, criteria, and standards of professional organizations[16] and other experts remain, as a practical matter, to be used for that purpose. If this tool, too, were to be rejected, an Eighth Amendment analysis of prison conditions could be rendered altogether impossible.[17]
In any event, the district court did not rely solely, or even primarily, upon the opinions of experts when determining whether proper standards were violated.[18] With respect to every category of life at the Occoquan facility that it found to be below acceptable norms, the court made explicit findings based upon conditions at Occoquan on evidence adduced at the trial.
For example, while the court noted that the American Public Health Association sets out a standard of 95 square 848 feet of *848 space per inmate, and that this objective was not met at the Occoquan facility,[19] it also found

specifically that "beds are but seven to nine inches apart"; that on account of the confinement of excessive numbers of people in limited spaces, the risk of airborne diseases is greatly increased; and it considered trial exhibits that provided graphic evidence of the cramped quarters in which inmates spend the bulk of their hours. See A. 3, and plaintiff's exhibits at A. 107-117.
Similarly, although there was expert testimony that noise levels in the dormitories often exceeded the American Correctional Association standard, the court found that the noise was excessive on the basis of the more specific testimony that it was "necessary to almost shout to be heard" inside the dormitories, A. 22, and that "it was extremely difficult ... to hold any kind of conversation in what might be termed a normal tone of voice." A. 53. And general sanitation conditions were found to be lacking, not because they were below acceptable environmental standards, but because window screens were torn, promoting fly infestation; mattresses were torn and soiled, and other specific deprivations existed.
In sum, appellants' contention that the district court's findings are subject to reversal because they were improperly based upon expert opinion flies in the face of the record.
III
I fully agree with the majority's conclusion that Rhodes v. Chapman, supra, sets forth the framework for analysis of Eighth Amendment challenges in prison settings. The issue, then, is whether, given the factual record summarized above, appellees demonstrated that the conditions of their confinement violated the requirements of that constitutional provision. Appellants' argument, which the majority largely endorses, proceeds on several levels.
Appellants argue initially that, although there may have been proof of particular deprivations, each such denial does not, by itself, amount to cruel and unusual punishment, and that it was error for the court to aggregate the various problems to measure them in combination against the Eighth Amendment standard. The majority appears at times to agree with that contention, Maj.Op. at 834, 838, 842-43,[20] while at other times it endorses a "totality of the circumstances" approach. Maj.Op. at 839.
It is well established that a court is not reduced to weighing each of the institutional practices and conditions in isolation, but that, in order to determine whether serious deprivations of human needs exist, it may examine the totality of the conditions of confinement. Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 790 F.2d 1220, 1224 (5th Cir.1986); French v. Owens, supra, 777 F.2d at 1252; Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1139 (5th Cir.1982), modified on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266, cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042, 103 S.Ct. 1438, 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983); Madyun v. Thompson, 657 F.2d 868, 874 (7th Cir.1981); Villanueva v. George, 659 F.2d 851, 854 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc). Indeed, the Court said in Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399, that prison conditions "alone or in combination, may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" (emphasis added).
More seriously, the majority appears to read Rhodes as concluding that only the most critical denials of essential 849 food, medical care, sanitation, and physical safety constitute the kind of deprivations of essential *849 human
needs that are protected by the Eighth Amendment. Maj.Op. at 836. As indicated above, the record in this case demonstrates at least some such deprivations.[21]
Moreover, far from establishing a narrow, compartmentalized category of unlawful correctional practices, the Court said in Rhodes that the words "cruel and unusual" should be interpreted "in a flexible and dynamic manner;" that no static test exists to determine whether conditions of confinement are cruel and unusual, citing Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 171, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2924, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); that "the Amendment's reach [has been extended] beyond the barbarous physical punishments at issue in the Court's earliest cases;" and that the Eighth Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. 452 U.S. at 345-47, 101 S.Ct. at 2398-2400.[22] And the Court concluded that conditions "other than those in Gamble[23] [medical care] and Hutto[24] [deprivations of basic human needs] ... may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399.[25]

Beyond that, even though the Supreme Court in Rhodes clearly intended to establish broad guidelines, the statements from the Rhodes opinion relied upon by the majority cannot be entirely divorced from the factual record before the Supreme Court in that case. Rhodes involved directly only a single question 0907 "whether the housing of two inmates in a single cell ... is cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." 452 U.S. at 339, 101 S.Ct. at 2395. Except for the double-celling, the Ohio correctional facility at issue in Rhodes, far from being a substandard, dangerous institution, had gymnasiums, workshops, schoolrooms, dayrooms, two chapels, a hospital ward, commissary, barbershop, recreation field, garden, and a "modern, well-lit" library containing 25,000 volumes, "superior in quality and quantity." The classrooms were likewise "light, airy, and well equipped." In an assessment which the parties and the Supreme Court accepted as accurate, the district court in the Rhodes case described the physical plant of the institution as "unquestionably a top-flight, first-class facility." 452 U.S. at 340-41, 101 S.Ct. at 2396 (emphasis added). No one, not even the appellants, would so characterize the Occoquan facility.
Not only, then, was the Supreme Court in Rhodes confronted with a factual setting radically different from that before this Court here, but it does not appear that the High Court intended that judicial concerns be limited to the most outlandish or barbaric. As the concurring opinions in Rhodes noted, the holding in that case "should in no way be construed as a retreat from careful judicial scrutiny of prison conditions," 452 U.S. at 353, 101 S.Ct. at 2402 (Brennan, J., concurring), and that it would be erroneous to regard the opinion as "a signal to prison 850 administrators that the federal courts now are to adopt a policy of general deference to such administrators *850 and to state legislators," 452 U.S. at 369, 101 S.Ct. at 2411, (Blackmun, J., concurring).
IV
The majority emphasizes, as did the Supreme Court in Rhodes and in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 548, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1879, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), that the operation of correctional facilities is peculiarly the province of the legislative and executive branches, not the judicial. I not only accept the Supreme Court's admonition 0907 as of course I must 0907 but I also agree with it. The operation of a correctional institution, and particularly its internal security 0907 the aspect of prison life emphasized in Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 349 n. 14, 101 S.Ct. at 2400 n. 14 0907 is not only complex and requires training and experience, but it is also important from a disciplinary point of view that there be as little outside interference as possible, including interference by the judiciary.
Yet sight must not be lost of the fact the issues before the Court involve a provision of the Bill of Rights. When construing and applying the Eighth Amendment, the courts are not seeking to intrude into subjects that have traditionally been reserved to the political branches; they are performing one of their own core functions.
The legislative and executive branches are under enormous political pressures. On the one hand, they are expected, particularly in urban areas such as the District of Columbia, to wage an effective war on crime, especially violent crime, a war that realistically must involve the imprisonment, following trial and sentence, of substantial numbers of criminals. On the other hand, the public by and large fiercely resists raising the tax monies required for the construction and operation of the institutions necessary to house these convicted criminals.
Thus, left to their own devices, the legislative and executive branches will quite naturally opt for incarcerating increasing numbers of persons in whatever space can be found in existing institutions, even if that should result in conditions which are violative of Eighth Amendment rights.[26] If the Bill of Rights prohibition against the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment in the correctional setting is to have meaning, therefore, the enforcement of the constitutional standards 0907 as in other contexts where powerless or unpopular segments of the population require constitutional protection, e.g., as in some First Amendment situations 0907 can be supplied only by the courts.[27] It is on this basis that Justice Brennan, concurring in Rhodes, noted that "[u]nder these circumstances, the courts have emerged as a critical force behind efforts to ameliorate inhumane conditions ... [i]nsulated as they are from political pressures...." 452 U.S. at 359, 101 S.Ct. at 2405-06. In my view, we would be less than faithful to the command of the Eighth Amendment if we did not approach our task with these considerations in mind.

For the reasons discussed above, I am of the opinion that the district court's factual determinations regarding violations of the Eighth Amendment are supported by the evidence, and that its legal determinations with respect thereto are correct. What remains to be discussed is whether the court exceeded its authority in deciding to impose a population ceiling on the Occoquan facility as a remedy for the violations it had found.
V
The majority holds that the district court's remedial order is misguided in that, contrary to law, it imposed a population cap to rectify deficiencies in specific areas, such as medical care, sanitation, and inmate security. With respect, I disagree with that conclusion, both on the law and on the facts.
851 The decisions are legion holding that, once a court has found a constitutional *851 violation, "the scope of [its] equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies." Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1276, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971) . The majority relies to the contrary primarily upon the Milliken cases,[28] upon Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978), and upon principles expounded, as the majority sees it, in the school desegregation cases, particularly Swann and Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 755, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955).
As I read the Milliken decisions, they support rather than detract from the exercise of equitable power by the district court in this case. These decisions involved school desegregation problems in the Detroit area. The district court ordered the adoption of desegregation plans extending beyond the boundaries of the city of Detroit, to include also the suburban schools. In Milliken I, the Supreme Court held that it was error to depart from traditional decisions which required the consideration of violations and the adoption of remedies limited to a single school district. It is in that context that the Court made the statement, relied upon by the majority here, that the scope of the remedy is determined by the nature and extent of the constitutional violation. Maj.Op. at 841.
The meaning of that admonition was expanded and clarified in Milliken II. There the Court, speaking as in Milliken I through Chief Justice Burger, upheld compensatory education programs as part of a desegregation plan against the State's claim, said to be compelled by Milliken I, that, since the constitutional violation was the unlawful segregation of students on the basis of race, the court's decree had to be limited to remedying unlawful pupil assignments. 433 U.S. at 281, 97 S.Ct. at 2757-58. The Court squarely rejected that contention. After noting that "federal court-decrees exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at eliminating a condition that ... does not flow from a [constitutional] violation ..." the Court went on to explain that:
... where ... a constitutional violation has been found, the remedy does not `exceed' the violation if the remedy is tailored to cure the condition that offends the Constitution.... [P]upil assignment alone does not automatically remedy the impact of previous, unlawful educational isolation; the consequences linger and can be dealt with only by independent measures.
And the Court concluded by stating that:
The District Court ... was true to the principle laid down in Brown II:
In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the courts will be guided by equitable principles. Traditionally, equity has been characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs. These cases call for the exercise of these traditional attributes of equity power.
433 U.S. 281-88, 97 S.Ct. at 2757-61.
The Milliken decisions thus not only confirm the breadth of the equitable power possessed by the district courts; they explicitly hold that a decree is within the ambit of that power if it addresses and relates to the violation or eliminates a condition that flows from that violation. That is the remedy fashioned by the decree in this case. See p. 853, infra.

In Hutto v. Finney, supra, the Supreme Court upheld a series of far-reaching orders to remedy prison conditions in the Arkansas penal system. One of the reasons given by the Court for approving the injunctions, among several others, was that the lower court had given the correctional authorities repeated opportunities to remedy the cruel and unusual conditions. See Maj.Op. at 841, 842-43. But there is no basis for concluding, either from 852 Hutto or from equity principles generally, that *852 the courts may exercise their power[29] to impose equitable remedies only after local authorities have been found wanting at the remedial stage at least once.[30]
Indeed, in Swann, supra, the Supreme Court said unequivocally that "[o]nce a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad ...," 402 U.S. at 15, 91 S.Ct. at 1276, and there is nothing in the Swann opinion to suggest that equitable remedies are lawful only if the violator has been afforded prior opportunities to rectify the wrong.[31]
As for the school desegregation cases, they cannot, in my view, be relied upon at all to support a restrictive view of equitable authority. As already noted, the Swann Court was effusive in reaffirming the broad powers of the district courts to fashion equitable remedies, especially where past wrongs need repairing. As for the Brown decision, it has generated so many wide-ranging remedial orders in so many circuits, districts, and states affecting thousands of school districts and millions of children all across the land, that I think it is impossible to regard that decision as setting tight limitations on the remedial authority of the courts.
The experience with remedial orders in prison litigation is similar. Population ceilings have been imposed in a number of cases. Thus, in Ruiz v. Estelle, supra, this Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an exhaustive opinion, held, inter alia, that the district court was justified in concluding that the overcrowding involved in that case exercised a malignant effect on all aspects of inmate life; that overcrowding, combined with the relatively small number of guards, resulted in a constant threat to the inmates' personal safety; and that a court-imposed population cap was largely valid and justified.[32] Broad remedial orders are also reflected in decisions of the Sixth Circuit (French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1253 (6th Cir.1985), affirming, 538 F.Supp. 910, 927 (S.D.Ind.1982)); the Seventh Circuit (Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 274 (7th Cir.1983)); the Fourth Circuit ( Johnson v. Levine, 588 F.2d 1378, 1381 (4th Cir.1978)); the Fifth Circuit (Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206, 1214-15 (5th Cir.1977)); the Tenth Circuit (Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388, 403 (10th Cir.1977));[33] and a number of district courts.[34] Justice Brennan's concurrence in Rhodes counted twenty-four State prisons or 853 prison systems that were placed under *853 court order because of the conditions of confinement. 452 U.S. at 353 n. 1, 101 S.Ct. at 2402-03 n. 1. The district court's remedy in the instant case is thus well within the mainstream of the law.
On the facts, too, a population cap is appropriate in the present situation. This is not a case where there is a deficiency in one isolated aspect of prison life, e.g., poor food or inadequate fire protection. Where that is the problem, a court would be abusing its discretion if it attempted to remedy the defect by a population cap. But here we are dealing with a situation that is radically different. The various problems existing at Occoquan, especially the more serious ones of inadequate space, oppressive atmosphere leading to violence, poor hygienic conditions, and poor medical care, are not only all intertwined but they can all be traced to the presence of inmates in numbers far exceeding the facility's capacity.[35] It is presumably on this basis that even David Decatur, administrator of Occoquan I and II, and Frank Phillips, administrator of Occoquan III, expressed the view that a population cap was necessary.
VI
In support of its conclusion that the appropriate solution to the situation at Occoquan is to remedy each of the problem areas rather than to impose a population ceiling, the majority relies in substantial part upon the representation of counsel for the District of Columbia at oral argument in this Court that the District "was keenly interested in correcting (and had corrected) conditions found unacceptable by the District Court." Maj.Op. at 840. [36] Acceptance of that statement as a basis for overriding the district court's exercise of equitable discretion represents a triumph of hope over experience.

It is relevant, I think, to recount here the sad history of promises made by the District of Columbia in regard to conditions in the correctional institutions under its jurisdiction and control. In Campbell v. McGruder, supra, this Court related the long record[37] of lack of compliance with court orders and of false assurances made to the courts by the Department of Corrections or the D.C. Corporation Counsel with respect to the D.C. Jail, as follows:

The District Court was assured that defendants would be in compliance with the 48 square foot

requirement [at the D.C. Jail] by August 15, and that defendants would provide notice to the court

854

should the space requirement again be *854 violated ... On October 14, the court was notified by

defendants' counsel that the Jail was no longer in compliance with the space requirement, and

had been out of compliance since September 16....

On January 12, 1986, appellants advised the court that they were presently in compliance with the space requirement. However, on April 7, 1976, the District Court made an unannounced visit to the Jail, and ... found that `[d]uring most of the period from mid-January to mid-April, more than 200 persons at a time were held in violation of this Court's March 1975 order....' The defendants failed to provide `prompt notice' of this overcrowding to the District Court.

... On November 5 and again on May 24, 1976, the District Court found not only that compliance was feasible, but that [apart from converting a dormitory] the Department and the city have made no substantial efforts to comply with the Order of this Court ... and there is no evidence of any contemplated effort to either reduce the population at the Jail or to provide additional space.

In this case, the district judge offered the following observations after five years of litigation:

... [T]he tedious history of this litigation reflects only occasional and sporadic efforts, usually when a court proceeding has been scheduled, following by almost total inactivity once the matter is no longer before the Court as a crisis situation.

580 F.2d 537-43 (footnotes omitted).[38]

Morgan v. District of Columbia, supra, handed down last year, suggests that little had changed in the nine years since the Campbell decision. Said the Court in Morgan:

Overcrowding has been a persistent, systemic problem in the District's prison facilities and has been the subject of continuous litigation for over fifteen years. The District built the Jail at which appellee Morgan was housed only after considerable prodding from the federal courts to ease the overcrowding problem in the old detention facility, in which conditions were notoriously appalling ... [I]n compliance with ... constitutional requirements ... the court established certain conditions on the use of double-celling with regard to pretrial detainees.... The District failed to take remedial action, and the inmate population continued to swell.... In September, the District court found that the District had deliberately failed to obey its orders concerning overcrowding at the Jail and held the District in civil contempt. See Campbell v. McGruder, C.A. No. 1462-71 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 1983).

824 F.2d 1052-53.[39]

The record of promises made to the courts with respect to the Lorton facilities is similar. To date, more than three and one-half years after the consent decree governing the Lorton Central Facility was entered,[40] the
855 Department has failed to renovate various cell blocks or to provide satisfactory mental health care, as agreed in *855 that decree.[41] The population caps imposed by the consent decree at the Central Facility have been violated since June 30, 1987.[42] In its report to the district court in this case, the District of Columbia asserts
that, as to inadequate dormitory ventilation and general renovation, faulty wiring, and inadequate emergency
lighting, bids for a contract to perform the work were opened October 15, 1987, ten months after the relevant order was entered.[43] Finally, although the Department stated in a recent report to the court that "efforts to fill
[medical staff] positions [at Occoquan are] continuing ... [and that] [a]uthorization for additional positions has

been approved,"[44] this claim, too, must be taken with more than a grain of salt. Judge William Bryant, ruling three years ago in Campbell v. McGruder, supra,[45] noted:
... five years ago we ordered defendants to hire additional medical staff. Campbell v. McGruder, C.A. No. 1462-71, slip op. (D.D.C. June 9, 1980). Defendants now assert their inability to hire or retain qualified professionals. This is to be expected inasmuch as the conditions of employment that flow from overcrowding already overtaxed facilities are completely unattractive to professional employees (emphasis added).
In the face of this astounding record, there is no reason to believe that promises made and broken (and court orders ignored or violated) during a ten or twelve-year period will suddenly be kept merely because counsel in the course of an oral argument repeated these promises once again.
VII
Occoquan does not represent a static situation. As discussed above, the number of inmates is constantly increasing 0907 from 1,397 in October 1985 to 2,051 in March 1988. These increases are even more alarming when considered in the setting of the problems experienced by the District of Columbia correctional system as a whole. As noted, with the exception of the vastly overcrowded modular facility, all the institutions other than Occoquan available for Occoquan-type inmates are under population ceilings imposed by consent decrees as a consequence of various lawsuits.[46]
At the same time, as noted above, crime in the District keeps rising, and so does the number of criminal defendants sentenced to imprisonment, with the consequence that the total number of inmates for whom the Department of Corrections must find space rises by 200 every month. It does not take clairvoyance to predict that, with the population ceilings in place with respect to all other suitable District of Columbia penal facilities, and 856 this Court's rejection of a population ceiling in this case,[47] the Occoquan *856 institution will become the District's correctional institution of both first and last resort, with ever increasing numbers of inmates crammed into the existing space with the existing services.
All this is so although, whatever the problems with a population ceiling, it would still be less intrusive of local correctional administration than injunctions relating to specific conditions, e.g., failure to provide adequate medical care, adequate supervision to prevent or minimize inmate-upon-inmate assaults, repair of screens and mattresses, maintenance of sanitary conditions, and the like. Such detailed injunctions would require constant judicial inspection, interference, and possible contempt citations, to ensure that the sometimes necessarily complex court orders were actually being complied with. A population ceiling, by contrast, can normally be a onetime remedy,[48] requiring relatively little, if any, further interference by the courts with the internal operations of the institution.
Finally, on the issue of a population cap as a remedy versus injunctive relief relating to specific problems, it is noteworthy that the district court itself was conscious of the desirability of removing the population ceiling it had ordered when that could safely be done. On that basis, the court ordered the submission of reports regarding substantive conditions at the institution, and it stated that it would entertain motions to modify the square footage formula when progress was being made.
I believe that, for the reasons discussed above, the district court's order imposing the population ceiling should be sustained. Pursuant to the procedure it has already initiated, the court could then be expected to eliminate or modify the ceiling if and when concrete and genuine improvements are made, particularly in the areas of overcrowding, health, and safety. Not only would this method of proceeding be appropriately mindful of the district court's equitable discretion, but it would be far more likely to be successful than reliance on promises of improvements on a voluntary basis, without an existing court order.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

[*] Of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292(a).
[1] The temporary injunction provided that the inmate population at each of the three Occoquan complexes should not exceed the capacity limits set forth by the consent decrees entered by the District Court in John Doe v. District of Columbia, No. 79-1726 (D.D.C.) and Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, No. 80-2136 (D.D.C.). Those suits involved Eighth Amendment challenges by prisoners to the conditions at the District of Columbia's Maximum Security Institution and Lorton Central facility, respectively.
[2] As of December 27, 1987, the inmate population at Occuquan was 1,678. Affidavit of Hallem H. Williams, Attachment 1 (filed July 21, 1987 with the District Court in support of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction).
[3] See Affidavit of Hallem H. Williams, Attachment 1, supra n. 2.
[4] On cross-examination, defendants' expert, Mr. Gordon, stated that he would "endorse" the APHA standard; he did not state that he believed that standard to represent the constitutional minimum. The court observed that the APHA standards "were written by environmental health and safety professionals" and that they are "supported by epidemiological evidence." 650 F.Supp. at 620.
[5] There was testimony that the excessive noise was caused by unregulated volume settings on the television sets in the dormitories. Tr. 1125-27, 1145, 1152. Defendants' expert witness recommended that prison authorities install volume governors in the sets or change their location. Tr. 1126.
[6] The court cited no testimony that these conditions had in fact led to increased disease among the inmate population.
[7] The vendor was contractually obligated to serve three meals a day to a maximum of only 1,400 inmates, with an option to increase to 1,600 with 30 days notice. There was, however, no testimony that food service had been disrupted or inadequate.
[8] There was, however, no testimony that the lack of regular maintenance had lead to inmate illness or accidents.
[9] The District Court cited testimony of defendants' expert witness, George Camp, who agreed that Occoquan "could use" a prison industries program. Tr. at 1192.
[10] In fact, on several occasions the court sustained plaintiffs' objections to defendants' efforts on crossexamination to elicit comparative testimony. Tr. 123, 721-22.
[11] The court assumed that two sets of standards might be applicable to the facilities at Occoquan: the District of Columbia Building Code, although it does not specifically address correctional facilities, and the "Life Safety Code" 0907 a professional standard developed specifically for detention and correctional facilities by the National Fire Protection Association. Although between 20 to 25 States have adopted the Life Safety Code for application to their prisons, the District of Columbia apparently has not. In any event, plaintiffs advanced no statutory claim based upon code violations.
[12] Specifically, the court found the plans lacking because they failed to specify whom correctional officers were to call first in the event of an emergency; failed to provide separate plans for different buildings; and, in the case of Dormitories K-1 and K-2, failed to call for a second officer to be stationed outside the dormitories to unlock the rear exit to facilitate evacuation.
[13] The court made separate note of medical care at Occoquan, holding that appellants' "cavalier attitude" with respect to the prison's inadequate medical services violated constitutional standards articulated in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). 650 F.Supp. at 633.
[14] The court observed that duties of administering prisons obviously fell to prison authorities themselves, not to courts. This seemed to suggest the court's apparent view, echoed in the dissent, see dis. op. at 855, that a population cap represented a less intrusive remedy than a more detailed order going to specific constitutional

violations. At the same time, however, the court's reliance upon a "totality of the circumstances" analysis, see infra at p. 839, seemingly suggested that, in the trial judge's view, remedying specific areas of concern would not cure the "true" violation, which boiled down to too many prisoners at Occoquan. Our dissenting colleague takes a similar position. Dis. op. at 853.
[15] Our dissenting colleague asserts that the District Court used the term "deficiency" as a shorthand for constitutional violations or deprivations. Dis. op. at 849 n. 21. We respectfully disagree. Read fairly, the District Court's opinion tallies up a series of "deficiencies" below specified norms, usually supplied by professional organizations, and, without further analysis as to whether any of these "deficiencies" amount to constitutional violations, concludes that, in aggregate, they constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. It is precisely this failure to draw the critical distinction between deficiencies and constitutional violations that led the District Court into grave error. Because this error infects the District Court's entire analysis, we cannot agree with the dissent that "the record in this case demonstrates at least some such deprivations." Dis. op. at 847. See infra n. 16.
[16] The trial court was, helpfully, more specific in its constitutional analysis (and truer to the Supreme Court's mandated approach) in regard to medical conditions at Occoquan. See supra n. 13. Because of our disposition of this case, however, we need not pass upon, and express no opinion with respect to, the specific question whether the conditions at Occoquan fell within the Supreme Court's "deliberate indifference" standard enunciated in Estelle v. Gamble, supra. See also infra n. 17 (noting, inter alia, reports of recent improvements in medical care).
[17] Appellants' Report to the [District] Court, filed June 10, 1987, detailed improvements that the District has made in virtually every area of deficiency noted in the District Court's opinion. Among the improvements, over 1300 new fire retardant mattresses had been ordered, window screens had been installed on all dormitory windows theretofore lacking them, and medical staff had been increased from one to three full-time physicians.
The District also reported that it had implemented a number of new procedures. The prison had in place (1) new general housekeeping procedures to ensure sanitary conditions; (2) a routine fire inspection schedule; (3) new evacuation plans and training in implementing them; (4) sick call five days per week; and (5) new procedures for medical record transfers and follow-up medical care for inmates.
In addition, as part of its phased construction program at Occoquan, the District has undertaken renovation of Dormitories J-1, J-2, and 5, which the reader will recall were found particularly inadequate with respect to ventilation, wiring, and emergency lighting. See Report to the [District] Court at 10 (filed January 29, 1987). Our dissenting colleague complains, with respect to the District's work here, that "bids for a contract to perform the work were opened ... ten months after the relevant order was entered." Dis. op. at 855. But having undertaken such major construction work, the District has naturally been required to commission and approve design drawings and compile contract specifications before letting the project out to bid. Although greater speed and efficiency are surely desirable, all of this, it goes without saying, takes time.
As the controversy over these three units illustrates, it is clear from the record that some of the dorms at Occoquan are worse than others; it is for this very reason that a tailored approach to remedies is appropriate. See infra Part III.
The dissent argues that we should totally discount representations by the District of Columbia with respect to improvements at Occoquan. Dis. op. at 853. As should be clear from the litany of improvements noted above, however, what we have before us are not representations of counsel or mere promises of progress. Rather, we rely on reports of actual improvements described in the record.
[18] The Supreme Court has indicated that its statements in school desegregation cases as to the appropriate nature and scope of equitable remedies are fully applicable to Eighth Amendment prison litigation. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687 n. 9, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 2572 n. 9, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) (discussing Milliken II and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971), as applicable to Eighth Amendment case).

[19] Cf. Swann, 402 U.S. at 16, 91 S.Ct. at 1276 ("In default by the school authorities of their obligation to proffer acceptable remedies, a district court has broad power to fashion a remedy that will assure a unitary school system") (emphasis added).
[20] The court chose the 95 square feet figure on the basis of professional standards. See supra p. 829 & n. 2.
[21] This is so absent a showing of a complete abdication of the District's responsibility to remedy ongoing constitutional violations. See supra pp. 841-842.
[22] Plaintiffs defend the District Court's order on the ground that it was necessary to ensure that conditions at Occoquan do not in the future once again become cruel and unusual. Citing Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.1982), modified on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042, 103 S.Ct. 1438, 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983), they argue that the equitable discretion of the district court allows it to "command[] measures that safeguard against recurrence" of the constitutional violation. 679 F.2d at 1155-56. But that duty cannot overwhelm the obligation of the lower courts to craft equitable remedies with sensitivity and care; it certainly does not warrant the imposition of a last resort remedy as an initial remedial step. We thus do not hold today that use of a population cap as a remedy is per se impermissible.
Our dissenting colleague claims that the population cap is an appropriate remedy because all of Occoquan's problems ultimately stem from overcrowding. It bears repeating that, on the record before us, the population cap is an unnecessarily intrusive remedy inasmuch as the constitutional violations, if any there were, could have been corrected by other means. We do not understand the dissent to say otherwise.
[1] See, e.g., D.C.Code § 22-3202(a) (mandatory minimum for crimes of violence while armed); D.C.Code § 33-401 et seq. (mandatory minimum for drug-related crimes).
[2] The Interim Report of the Special Officer appointed by the district court to monitor compliance submitted on June 19, 1987, attests to the magnitude of the problem. In the five months between January 1, 1987 and June 1, 1987, there was a net population increase in all the District of Columbia institutions of 981 inmates, an average of almost 200 inmates per month. The Special Officer projected an increase of 2,400 inmates in 1987 alone.
[3] The only exception is the Modular Facility, but it is itself overcrowded by over fifty percent (627 inmates in an institution with a capacity of 400). See note 46, infra.
[4] According to the testimony, the inmates have virtually no place to put their clothes or other personal property.
[5] Occoquan must be one of the few correctional institutions in existence where prisoners are warehoused in the literal sense of that term.
[6] Mr. Miller went on to say that one of the dormitories "was basically a pit, if one wants to get into it. As you know, about the only ventilation coming into this bloody thing is through the door which is left open into this kind of dusty area, with the coal and everything else on the other side." A. 64-65. Kathryn Monaco, a District of Columbia consultant for correctional affairs, also recalled that "[t]here were noxious fumes in the air [from] the coal pile. It was blowing in...." A. 68a.
Ward Duel, an expert on environmental safety and health matters, described the distances between the beds as "very unsatisfactory" and Occoquan as "overcrowded" even at its then level of 1,500 inmates 0907 over 130 fewer than when the district court made its decision. A. 101.
[7] The district court found that the confinement of excessive numbers of people in limited spaces increases the risk of transmission of airborne diseases, and that this health risk is further heightened by the inadequate and sometimes nonoperational ventilation system, the lack of screens on windows, the resulting fly infestation, and the soiled, torn, dirty, and damaged mattresses which harbor disease-carrying insects such as mites, fleas, ticks, and lice. A. 2-3.

[8] Two inmates had been diagnosed at the D.C. Jail as having AIDS, but the medical records were substantially delayed in being transferred to Occoquan, and the condition of the inmates was therefore unknown when they were assigned dormitory space.
[9] One inmate was referred to a surgery clinic for consultation in June 1986, and he had not yet been seen there in October of that year. Waiting periods of from three to six months are common for the neurology clinic and one to two months for the orthopedic clinic.
[10] Dr. Claybourne referred, among other examples, to a group of Vietnam veterans who were seriously mentally ill and had flashbacks that should have been but were not treated; street people whose inattention to bathing, grooming, and the like made them problems within Occoquan's "tightly packed population"; and a group of prisoners confined for sexual cause who needed treatment if they were to maintain psychological equilibrium. A. 80-81.
[11] The District of Columbia listed forty such assaults, but the true number is undoubtedly far higher than that, for the District's compilation simply omits many additional violent incidents. Among assaults not listed by the appellants that appellees just happened to know about were a stabbing on an inmate by other inmates wearing ski masks; an assault on an inmate by several prisoners with a pipe; two other assaults with pipes; repeated sexual assaults on a youthful prisoner; a prisoner who was bludgeoned while he slept; and another inmate who was stabbed in the chest while he was in the bathroom. The district court found that "the level of violence at Occoquan is significantly greater than defendants' statistics reflect." A. 6.
[12] As the majority notes, Maj.Op. at 829-34, the district court also made findings regarding serious inadequacies in food services, inmate classification and programs, noise levels, segregation, inmate supervision, and fire safety. Not all of these are of course of equal importance, but all of them contributed to the overall conditions at the institution.
[13] The District of Columbia's special consultant for correctional affairs wrote in June 1986:
[I]nmates are crowded into dormitories with little or no chance for privacy, causing a great deal of tension with the result that normal prison management difficulties are compounded. In case of fire or serious emergency, it would be next to impossible to evacuate these dormitories effectively. In dormitories J-1 and J-2, which are converted warehouses, the overcrowding is so serious that it is reasonable to expect some major disturbance in the near future. The noise level in these dormitories exceeded any reasonable limits, and it was necessary to almost shout to be heard. Bunks were so closely packed together that there was only a minimal amount of space between them. There was no ventilation. The door to the outside of the dormitory was open for air, but there was no screen and dust from the outside recreation area and fumes from a nearby stack of coal blew into the dormitory. The dayroom space, or area where the inmates could engage in games and other activities, was extremely limited. Therefore, a large number of inmates were left with no means of activity, and no place to congregate except on their bunks. The cumulative impression is of a very hectic environment that is extremely tense and dangerous. A. 21-22.
[14] While expert formulations obviously do not by themselves supply the appropriate constitutional standard, they do lend assistance to a trial judge who wishes to refrain from relying entirely or at all on his own subjective views regarding the necessarily intangible issue of what are civilized standards in a prison setting.
[15] However, as the Supreme Court said in Rhodes, supra, "in the end [a court's] own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability" of a given punishment. 452 U.S. at 346, 101 S.Ct. at 2399.
[16] Appellants' disparagement of the organizations cited by the court below neglects to consider the impeccable professional credentials of these organizations. For example, the American Correctional Association is the premier organization of prison administrators and penologists in this country, if not the world, and it is not noted for exalting the rights of inmates over those of correctional authorities and the public.

[17] Notwithstanding the majority's strong endorsement of legislative and executive decisionmaking with respect to this subject (Maj.Op. at 835-36), there is no suggestion that, in performing their Eighth Amendment function, the courts should invariably accept as valid the product of that decision-making and decline ever to differ from it.
[18] Several of the experts on which the district court relied did not simply render academic judgments; they visited the Occoquan facility and familiarized themselves with the conditions there.
[19] The 95 square feet measurement includes all space; on the basis of sleeping space alone, 60 square feet are available per inmate. Interestingly, these space requirements, which appellants vigorously challenge in this case, are identical to those to which they agreed in the consent decrees applicable to the other District of Columbia correctional facilities.
Various cases cited by appellants in which courts approved less space than that (e.g., Nelson v. Collins, 659 F.2d 420, 428 (4th Cir.1981) (en banc); Campbell v. Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503, 507-08 (8th Cir.1980)), involved shortterm prisoner stays 0907 one week to 120 days 0907 not inmates serving lengthy sentences.
[20] The majority also remands for consideration of each aspect of prison life separately. Maj.Op. at 839.
[21] The majority finds fault with the district court's conclusions because that court used the term "deficiencies" in describing various conditions at Occoquan. E.g., Maj.Op. at 835-37. But it is clear from the lower court opinion as a whole, in particular the references to Rhodes; Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978), and other cases, that the court was concerned with violations of "contemporary standards of decency" ( see, e.g., A. 14, 15), and that, when it used the word "deficiency" it was as shorthand for constitutional violations or deprivations.
[22] Indeed, the deliberate indifference to an inmate's medical needs is "cruel and unusual punishment because an inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met." 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. This holding presumably applies to other inmate needs which he cannot provide for himself.
[23] Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).
[24] Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978).
[25] Needless to say, convicted criminals are not entitled to country club living; conditions of imprisonment that are restrictive and even harsh are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society. Rhodes, supra, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399.
[26] This is not meant as a criticism of officials from the legislative and executive branches. Most of them are undoubtedly doing the best they can given the strong, conflicting pressures.
[27] Cf. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-56, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2974, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) ("There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country").
[28] Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974) (Milliken I); Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977) (Milliken II).
[29] Only the question of power is at issue; obviously as a matter of discretion a court would be well advised to afford local governmental authorities ample opportunity to rectify violations on their own before judicial coercion comes into play.
[30] In Eighth Amendment constitutional adjudication there does not seem to be any equivalent to the old common law maxim that a dog is entitled to one free bite. See Chandler v. Vaccaro, 167 Cal.App.2d 786, 334 P.2d 998 (1959); Zarek v. Fredericks, 49 F.Supp. 65 (M.D.Pa.1943), aff'd, 138 F.2d 689 (3d Cir.1943).
[31] In any event, even if the majority's view of the law is correct 0907 that is, if the courts may exercise their equitable powers only after the particular defendants had already previously been found wanting in their compliance 0907 that condition is amply funfilled here. Injunctions, decrees, and other orders, even contempt

citations, have been issued against the District of Columbia correctional authorities again and again for a number of years, without any appreciable results. See pp. 853-55, infra.
[32] The Court of Appeals declined to endorse some measures directed at the 33,000-inmate Texas Correctional System, at least for a time, as too costly and irreversible. 679 F.2d at 1148.
[33] Cody v. Hillard, 830 F.2d 912 (8th Cir.1977), is of course to the contrary. However, even at that, this case and that are not on all fours. The court found in Cody that elimination of the double-celling 0907 the principal basis for complaint 0907 would not have alleviated the problems raised on behalf of the inmates (unsanitary practices, substandard electrical wiring, and other hazards) to any perceptible degree. Id. at 914. Not so here; overcrowding is a substantial source of the problems in this case, and if there were fewer inmates at Occoquan, most of the objectionable conditions would be improved since the facilities and services are sufficient for a smaller prison population.
[34] See, e.g., McMurry v. Phelps, 533 F.Supp. 742, 775 (W.D.La.1982); Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F.Supp. 956, 987 (R.I.1977); Costello v. Wainright, 397 F.Supp. 20, 34 (M.D.Fla.1975), vacated on other grounds, 539 F.2d 547 (5th Cir.1976), remanded, 430 U.S. 325, 97 S.Ct. 1191, 51 L.Ed.2d 372 (1977).
[35] Many of the conditions cited by the district court as problematic were so only because of the large number of inmates who are forced to share a facility constructed with smaller population limits in mind. For example, food service was found to be inadequate because dry and cold food storage areas were filled beyond capacity, risking contamination of meats and produce. Were the population reduced to levels for which the kitchen was designed, this problem would disappear. Similarly, it was the increase in population at Occoquan that led to a reduction of formalized sick call from five days per week per dormitory to three days per week. Again, with fewer inmates to treat, available health personnel could properly attend to the entire population.
Other cited conditions are equally population dependent: for example, the classification system at Occoquan was found to be "dangerously overtaxed by the crush of inmates in need of classification." Clearly, overcrowded housing conditions would cease to be a concern under lower inmate population counts, and noise problems would be severely diminished. The threat of violence among the inmates would also likely diminish, as "[e]xperience around the country demonstrates that overcrowding like that now existing at Occoquan I and II, which so severally [sic] inhibits any quality of life, results in violence." First Compliance Report for the D.C. Department of Corrections at A. 22.
[36] Says the majority further, "[a]nd, crucially, the record is already stale. The District has represented to us that it has already addressed and remedied many (if not all) the specific `deficiencies' enumerated by the trial court." Maj.Op. at 840. In a similar vein, the majority indicates that the district court's imposition of a population ceiling was a "last resort remedy [used] as a first step." Maj.Op. at 843.
[37] Although the instant lawsuit began only in 1986, the D.C. Department of Corrections had even then been before the court since 1979 in cases challenging the conditions at the Lorton facilities, see John Doe v. District of Columbia, C.A. No. 79-1726 (maximum security facility); Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, C.A. No. 80-2136 (Lorton central facility), and even longer in cases challenging the conditions at the D.C. Jail. See Campbell v. McGruder, supra.
[38] The Court went on to say (580 F.2d at 541):
[T]he District Court was fully justified in concluding that this case was not moot. As the Supreme Court has stated:
When defendants are shown to have settled into a continuing practice ... courts will not assume that it has been abandoned without clear proof. Local 167 [of International Brotherhood of Teamsters] v. United States, 291 U.S. 293, 298, 54 S.Ct. 396, 398, 78 L.Ed. 804. It is the duty of the courts to beware of efforts to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and reform, especially when abandonment seems timed to anticipate suit, and there is probability of resumption.

[39] See also Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F.Supp. 100 (D.D.C.1975); Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F.Supp. 106 (D.D.C.1975); Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F.Supp. 111 (D.D.C.1976); Inmates v. Jackson, 416 F.Supp. 119, 123 (D.D.C.1976).
[40] The final settlement and consent decree in C.A. No. 79-1726 was entered on March 28, 1984. The lawsuits relating to the Maximum Security and the Central Facility are consolidated at the district court level with the instant case, and they are assigned and have been handled for years by the same judge who made the findings and entered the judgment herein, and who may therefore be deemed to be well familiar with the history recited above.
[41] Report of Special Officer of the Court; Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Contempt and Imposition of Sanctions.
[42] Affidavit of Hallem H. Williams, Jr., on behalf of D.C. Department of Corrections, July 1987.
[43] It is anyone's guess how long the award process will take and when the work will actually begin and be completed.
[44] Defendants' December 10, 1987 Report to the Court, Attachment 2.
[45] Slip opinion (D.D.C. July 15, 1985) at 5.
[46] The District of Columbia Department of Corrections maintains eight adult institutional facilities, seven of them (all but the D.C. Jail) located at Lorton, Virginia. With the exception of the minimum security and the modular facility, all are under court-imposed population ceilings, as follows: D.C. Jail 0907 Campbell v. McGruder, C.A. No. 1462-71 and C.A. No. 75-1668; maximum security 0907 John Doe v. District of Columbia, C.A. No. 79-1726; Lorton central facility 0907 Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, C.A. No. 80-2136; three Occoquan facilities 0907 Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, C.A. No. 82-2128 (this appeal). The maximum security and the Lorton central facility are under population caps entered through consent decrees.
Because the minimum security facility is inappropriate for housing most inmates, its lack of a population cap is largely irrelevant for present purposes. The Lorton modular facility is relatively new, but it is already substantially overused, holding 627 inmates in an institution with a capacity of 400.
[47] The majority's caveat that it does not "hold today that the use of a population cap as a remedy is per se impermissible" (Maj.Op. at 843 n. 22) provides little comfort in view of the overwhelming thrust of the Opinion which rejects such a remedy for all practical purposes.
[48] Even where, as here, the correctional authorities are recalcitrant and repeated enforcement proceedings have proved to be necessary, they are still less complex and less intrusive than the enforcement of highly specific orders relating to discrete conditions.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 850 F.2d 796 (1988)
INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, et al., v.
Marion S. BARRY, Mayor, et al., Appellants (Two Cases).
Nos. 87-5055, 87-5295.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
July 8, 1988.
Elizabeth Alexander, Edward I. Koren, Jere Krakoff and Alexa P. Freeman, Washington, D.C., were on appellees' Suggestion for Rehearing en banc.
Before WALD, Chief Judge, and ROBINSON, MIKVA, EDWARDS, RUTH BADER GINSBURG, STARR, SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY, WILLIAMS, D.H. GINSBURG and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.
Prior report: D.C.Cir., 844 F.2d 828.
ON APPELLEES' SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
ORDER
Appellees' suggestion for rehearing en banc has been circulated to the full Court. The taking of a vote thereon was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the Court in regular active service did not vote in favor of the suggestion. Upon consideration of the foregoing it is
ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that the suggestion is denied.
A dissenting opinion by Chief Judge WALD, joined by Circuit Judges SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III, MIKVA and HARRY T. EDWARDS, is attached.
A dissenting statement of Circuit Judge RUTH BADER GINSBURG, in which Circuit Judge HARRY T. EDWARDS concurs, is also attached.
A concurring statement by Circuit Judge STARR, in which Circuit Judge SILBERMAN concurs, is also attached.
WALD, Chief Judge, with whom Circuit Judges SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III, MIKVA and HARRY T. EDWARDS join, dissenting from denial of suggestion to hear case en banc.
Because I believe this is a case involving "question[s] of exceptional importance," and because the panel opinion is seriously flawed, I would rehear this appeal en banc. See Fed.R.App. P. 35(a). The decision to vacate the district court's order places at risk the health and safety of thousands of prisoners and detainees. Lifting the population lid imposed by the district court on the Occoquan facilities will endanger not only the more than 2,000 inmates presently jammed within its walls, but also the stream of prisoners who will inevitably be transferred to Occoquan from other municipal jails and prisons that still have population caps consented to by the District of Columbia Government. If, as Dostoevsky wrote, "the degree of civilization in a society is revealed by entering its prisons," this record places the District of Columbia in primitive company. Nothing in constitutional law compels us to condone that status.

I.
The gravest flaw in the panel's analysis is its misapplication of the Supreme Court's test for evaluating the constitutional acceptability of prison conditions. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981), does indeed establish, as the panel recites, a threshold test for Eighth Amendment violations that requires an "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," or punishments "grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime," 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. However, Rhodes clearly provides that such a standard can be met by showing intolerable living conditions. Rhodes cites approvingly Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 797 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (denial of medical *797 care can be cruel and unusual), and Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) (conditions of confinement in two Arkansas prisons were cruel and unusual because they resulted in unquestioned and serious deprivations of basic human needs), and then adds:
Conditions other than those in Gamble and Hutto, alone or in combination, may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. Such conditions could be cruel and unusual under the contemporary standard of decency that we [have] recognized.
452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399.
Since Rhodes, courts in other circuits have continued to issue remedial decrees, including population caps, where the totality of conditions put the health and safety of prisoners at risk. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.1982) (imposing population cap in Texas prisons because overcrowding of prison and concomitant shortage of guards posed threat to prisoner safety cognizable under Rhodes); see also Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F.2d 828, 852-53 & n. 34 (D.C.Cir.1988) (Greene, J., dissenting) (citing other cases); see also Gottlieb, The Legacy of Wolfish and Chapman: Some Thoughts about `Big Prison' Litigation in the 1980s in ROBBINS, PRISONERS AND LAW (1987).
The district court here was faithful in following Rhodes' test of "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" when it carefully assessed the totality of conditions at Occoquan and concluded that "this situation, taken cumulatively, presents a clear and present danger to the health and safety of plaintiffs." See 650 F.Supp. 619, 631. And the Occoquan conditions were atrocious. The District's own special consultant described Occoquan in June 1986 as follows:
[I]nmates are crowded into dormitories with little or no chance for privacy, causing a great deal of tension with the result that normal prison management difficulties are compounded. In case of fire or serious emergency, it would be next to impossible to evacuate these dormitories effectively. In dormitories J-1 and J-2, which are converted warehouses, the overcrowding is so serious that it is reasonable to expect some major disturbance in the near future. The noise level in these dormitories exceeded any reasonable limits, and it was necessary to almost shout to be heard. Bunks were so closely packed together that there was only a minimal amount of space between them. There was no ventilation. The door to the outside of the dormitory was open for air, but there was no screen and dust from the outside recreation area and fumes from a nearby stack of coal blew into the dormitory. The dayroom space, or area where the inmates could engage in games and other activities, was extremely limited. Therefore, a large number of inmates were left with no means of activity, and no place to congregate except on their bunks. The cumulative impression is of a very hectic environment that is extremely tense and dangerous.
Appendix ("A.") at 21-22. See also Inmates of Occoquan, 650 F.Supp. 619, 620-32 (D.D.C. 1986) (describing, inter alia, overcrowding, infestation of kitchens and dormitory rooms, readily transmitted airborne diseases, excessive noise levels, unacceptable sanitation conditions, 40 serious assaults and numerous other reports of violent incidents, grossly deficient fire safety, and systematically inadequate medical and psychiatric care). These conditions parallel in significant respects, the "unspeakable inhumanity" found cruel and unusual by Judge Frank Johnson in the Alabama prison system and liberally described in the panel opinion. Inmates of Occoquan, 650 F.Supp. 619, 620-32 (D.D.C.1986). Just as in the case of the prisons described by Judge Johnson, a correctional

official in this case termed Occoquan unfit for human habitation. Compare Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 355, 101 S.Ct. at 2404 ("A United States health officer described the prisons as `wholly unfit for human habitation' according to virtually every criterion used for evaluation by public health inspectors.") with A. at 56, 64-65 (corrections official 798 describes dormitory as "a pit," and says, "I really didn't see how people could justify housing people in those *798 kinds of conditions."). These are conditions which, I respectfully submit, manifestly "deprive inmates of the minimal civilized nature of life's necessities." Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. Neither the panel opinion nor the statement our colleagues issue today reaffirming that opinion adequately explains how the sadly squalid conditions at Occoquan comport with the Supreme Court's teaching that the Constitution guarantees prisoners these minimal necessities.
Although the panel opinion, in reversing the district court's finding of unconstitutionality, states that it is closely following Rhodes, I believe it misses the central messages of that case. At issue in Rhodes was the validity under the Eighth Amendment of the double-celling of inmates in a particular facility. Other prison conditions reflected "generally favorabl[y]" on the institution, which was a modern 3-year-old facility where out-of-cell space was more than adequate, sanitation was satisfactory, violence was not pronounced and tension levels were low. 452 U.S. at 341-43, 101 S.Ct. at 2396-97. The court could find no nexus between the double-celling and other deficiencies, singly or cumulatively, that presented any serious risks to life or limb of the prisoners. 452 U.S. at 348, 101 S.Ct. at 2400. Double-celling by itself was not enough to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. Cody v. Hillard, 830 F.2d 912 (8th Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 1078, 99 L.Ed.2d 237 (1988), noted by the panel, is a similarly discrete holding. See id. at 914 ("there has been no showing ... that elimination of double-celling would alleviate other problems to any perceptible degree"). Nothing in either case would compel the same result here.
At Occoquan 0907 unlike the prisons in Rhodes and Cody 0907 overcrowding, poor ventilation, substandard medical care, lack of fire protection, and inadequate guard surveillance all combined to produce an environment which the district court found "deprived inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." 650 F.Supp. at 632 (quoting Rhodes). This inquiry into the totality of prison circumstances at Occoquan fully comports with Rhodes which stated that such conditions, "alone or in combination," may create an environment inconsistent with the standards of the Eighth Amendment. 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399 (emphasis added). The panel's analysis, which disavows an inquiry into whether the aggregate conditions at Occoquan "deprive[d] inmates of life's necessities," id., and instead examines specific conditions in isolation, de facto encodes a constitutional standard at odds with Rhodes. For that reason alone, en banc consideration is warranted.
II.
The panel opinion also errs by interpreting Rhodes to "flatly discount expert opinion" in prison cases. Maj. op. at 836; see also id. at 839-40. Rhodes does not. In fact, Rhodes endorsed as legitimate the use of expert opinion 0907 not to establish constitutional standards of decency, but to summarize professional knowledge and norms, and to guide the ultimate judicial judgment on what constitutes "elementary decency." See 452 U.S. at 348 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. at 2400 n. 13.
Since Rhodes, courts in other circuits have continued to rely on expert opinion to describe actual prison conditions and to evaluate their impact on prisoners' health and safety. See Gottlieb, supra at 2-21; see also diss. op. at 847.
The district judge in this case, like Judge Johnson in Alabama, properly used expert testimony to evaluate prison conditions. Far from basing its findings of unconstitutionality on Occoquan's failure to follow "good correctional practice" or to satisfy national professional standards, as the panel opinion suggests, the district court cited those expert standards only as "guidelines." Judge Green's judgment of unconstitutionality was firmly rooted in the actual, abhorrent conditions at Occoquan. Unless corrected, the panel opinion will discourage the legitimate use 799 of experts by district courts and counsel and will invite the very evil the majority says it dreads: *799 judgespecific standards for unconstitutionality.

III.
I also believe the panel's action in lifting the population cap imposed by the district court is in error. Where, as here, a nexus between overcrowding and the conditions that produce Eighth Amendment violations has been found, no court 0907 before or after Rhodes 0907 has denied the validity of population control relief. See diss. op. at 852-53 (citing cases from numerous circuits).
Judge Green specifically found that overcrowding at Occoquan was either responsible for, or exacerbated, the prison's inability to provide protection for prisoners vulnerable to serious assault, the unavailability of prompt or effective medical care, the risk of fires and of airborne contagion, and the general unsanitariness of Occoquan facilities. See, e.g., 650 F.Supp. at 634. Those findings are hardly surprising, for overcrowding facilitates contagion and "is the best predicter of assault rates." See Geis, The Effect of Overcrowding in Prisons, 6 CRIME AND JUSTICE 95 (1985); see also McKay, Prison Overcrowding: The Threat of the 1980's in ROBBINS, PRISONERS AND THE LAW, at § 6-10 (1987).
The panel opinion, however, deems the population ceiling "much too blunt an instrument" with which to repair these problems, maj. op. at 842. Accordingly, it lays down a standard of minimal intrusion on executive branch autonomy in remedying unconstitutional conditions caused by overcrowding. In so doing, the majority appears to require that the trial judge wait until prison officials have unreasonably delayed or refused to make specific improvements in services, including new buildings, before moving to cap the population. It thus denies district courts the right to go to the heart of the problem by reducing prison population until the environment is made safe by other means.
Ironically, the population-cap remedy has been deemed by other courts far less intrusive than alternative injunctive steps (i.e., orders to construct new facilities, purchase new equipment or hire additional personnel) because it is readily reversible upon a showing by prison authorities that conditions have improved so as to be consistent with Eighth Amendment norms. See, e.g., Ruiz. A population ceiling is indeed a "last resort" remedy insofar as one would hope that prison administrators would provide constitutionally adequate habitation for those whom society incarcerates. When the political process fails, however, a population ceiling can be a convenient and necessary tool for restoring constitutionally adequate conditions until government authorities respond with initiatives of their own design. See diss. op. at 852-53 (citing cases).
IV.
The panel opinion finally warrants review because of its conclusion that the record upon which Judge Green based her findings and relief is now stale and therefore the relief in question was wrongly provided. Yet this argument was not advanced by the District of Columbia in its brief on appeal. If indeed conditions at Occoquan have improved to the point where they are now constitutionally acceptable, the proper course of action for the District of Columbia would be either to request Judge Green to lift her injunction as no longer necessary, or to seek dismissal by this court of the inmates' claim as moot. The city availed itself of neither option.
The panel, accordingly, charted a third, and I believe constitutionally infirm, course. Because the District of Columbia has asserted that it is trying to rectify the Occoquan situation, Judge Green's order cannot stand. Yet no undisputed evidence suggests that Occoquan conditions are now constitutionally acceptable, nor is it the burden of appellee-inmates to establish on appeal the ongoing inadequacy of prison conditions. Even assuming that conditions at Occoquan have improved since Judge Green's orders, I frankly cannot understand how these subsequent improvements can be used to impeach the initial validity of Judge Green's finding.
800 *800 Experience has shown there will be no miraculous building of new facilities or improvement of staff ratios overnight at Occoquan. Indeed, the dismal record of the District of Columbia's attempts to build to need or to hire adequate medical staff, effectively shatters any such misconception. See diss. op. at 853-55; see also id. at 853 (citing cases relating long record of noncompliance with court orders by District of Columbia corrections officials). I do not believe that prisoners must suffer unconstitutional conditions for as long as it takes the political process

to improve them. That, however, is the harsh reality of today's judgment; I do not think it is the Constitution's command. The case should be reheard en banc. The victims of this decision are not only the District's prisoners but 25 years of prison litigation aimed at enforcing standards of decency, an evolution now brought to an abrupt halt.
RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Circuit Judge, in which HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, concurs, dissenting from denial of suggestion to hear case en banc:
For the reasons well-stated by District Judge Greene in his opinion dissenting from the panel disposition, I would rehear this case en banc. Judge Greene, in accord with the district judge assigned to this case in the first instance, persuasively maintained that the population ceiling is not "too blunt an instrument" as the record stands at this stage, see panel majority at 842; rather, he concluded, it appears necessary and proper, as an interim measure, to defuse at once a situation "both deplorable and explosive," panel dissent at 846, and to impel precise, enduring remedial actions designed and installed by the local correctional administration. Id. at 855; see id. at 850 & n. 26 (legislative and executive branches, in view of strong pressures against taxing the public to pay for adequate facilities, "will quite naturally opt for incarcerating increasing numbers of persons in whatever space can be found in existing institutions, even if that should result in conditions which are violative of Eighth Amendment rights").[*] The questions raised, as Chief Judge Wald's statement attests, are vitally important. Those questions, I agree, warrant further review.
STARR, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of suggestion for rehearing en banc, with whom SILBERMAN, Circuit Judge, concurs:
In the various opinions spawned by this case, there appears to be, for all the divisions, a fundamental point of agreement: the Supreme Court's decision in Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981) controls Eighth Amendment analysis. As we stated in the panel opinion, Rhodes "was manifestly more than a narrow decision establishing the limited principle that double celling per se does not work a violation of the Eighth Amendment." Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F.2d 828, 835 (D.C.Cir.1988).
We thus agree that "Rhodes ... establish[es] ... a threshold test for Eighth Amendment violations that requires an `unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,' or punishments `grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime,' 452 U.S. at 347 [101 S.Ct. at 2399]." Dissenting Statement of Chief Judge Wald at 796. We also agree that "such a standard can be met by showing intolerable living conditions." Id. We further agree that the Rhodes Court gave content and specificity to that standard by requiring that such conditions "deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399.
Our division therefore lies not in what the applicable standards are, but in the fidelity of the District Court to those standards. In the dissent's view, "[t]he district court here was faithful in following [the standards set down in] 801 Rhodes." Dis. at 797. We respectfully disagree. In our *801 view, the District Court's approach evidenced a manifest departure from the Supreme Court's teachings.
Time and again, the District Court relied on testimony from expert witnesses to establish professional standards or criteria against which it measured conditions at Occoquan. Time and again, the court noted "deficiencies" when judged against those norms. But deviations from professional norms do not, in and of themselves, constitute violations of the Eighth Amendment. The lower courts cannot, consistently with the Supreme Court's teaching in Rhodes, simply tally up a series of "deficiencies" and find that, in aggregation, they add up to a violation of the Eighth Amendment. We repeat: the conditions must be such that they deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. As we stated in the panel opinion, "[t]he Eighth Amendment gets at the basic necessities of life; it does not go to the undesirability of conditions to which inmates are subjected." 844 F.2d at 839-40.
And it is in this respect that we discerned error in the District Court's treatment of expert testimony. We have no quarrel with our dissenting colleagues' observation that Rhodes "endorsed as legitimate the use of expert opinion," Dis. at 798. The panel opinion in no wise prohibits the District Court from employing expert testimony in its appropriately prescribed role as evidence in prison conditions litigation. But we cannot agree that "[t]he district judge in this case ... properly used expert testimony to evaluate prison conditions." Id. In determining whether

there has been a violation of the Eighth Amendment, the applicable benchmark is community norms, not the norms of experts in the field of corrections. Indeed, the Supreme Court in Rhodes specifically warned that "generalized opinions of experts cannot weigh as heavily in determining contemporary standards of decency as the `public attitude toward a given sanction.'" 452 U.S. at 348-49 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. at 2400 n. 13 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2925, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). The Court thus reaffirmed its cautionary observation of two years before that "the recommendations of these various [professional] groups ... simply do not establish the constitutional minima." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 544 n. 27, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1876 n. 27, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). But, as we read the District Court's opinion, it is that very error into which the trial court inadvertently fell.
Having determined that the District Court erred in its liability analysis, the question for the panel was whether to conduct that analysis under the proper standard or, alternatively, to remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings. It was, and is, our judgment that the latter, well-trodden path is more consistent with the respective roles of the trial and appellate courts. Our dissenting colleagues' view that in pointing to the stale record, the panel somehow "charted a third ... constitutionally infirm, course," Dis. at 799, represents, with all respect, a misconception of our opinion. Only after having determined that the District Court erred in its liability analysis did we refer to the undisputed staleness of the record as an additional factor in guiding the appropriate manner in which to proceed.
Finally, on the issue of remedies, the real question is whether the traditional requirement in our law that the remedy must be tailored to fit the violation has force. If it does, then it was quite wrong for the District Court to impose a population cap 0907 a last-resort remedy 0907 as a first step. The District Court pointed to specific, cumulative "deficiencies" as violative of the Eighth Amendment, not to overcrowding per se. A population cap on the entire institution, trenching as that remedy does on fundamental judgments by the political branches, is scarcely tailored to remedy specific deficiencies. Indeed, the very ease of judicial administration in imposing a population cap carries with it the high danger of judicially intruding, in the name of self-restraint, into the most fundamental arenas for decisionmaking reserved in a democratic society to the political branches. Under the circumstances 802 here, a population cap evidences a complete lack of tailoring, as *802 the District Court's abbreviated analysis in this respect ineluctably suggests.
* * * * * *
Our colleagues'concern with the plight of prisoners in the District of Columbia system is understandable. Our review of the record in the case led us to the view that the conditions at Occoquan, in certain respects, gave us pause. We did not, therefore, dismiss the complaint or otherwise foreclose the challengers' efforts to demonstrate that conditions there ran afoul of constitutional norms. The case lives on. What the panel has done is demand fidelity to the higher law of the Constitution as the Supreme Court has articulated it. Courts are not to be in the business of running prisons or seeking to make them better places. In a democratic society, that function is entrusted to the branches representative of the people. Our more limited role, which is vital to our constitutional democracy, is to divine what the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, demands in the difficult and sensitive arena of prison conditions litigation.
[*] See also panel dissent at 853-55 (recounting history of District of Columbia prison litigation and suggesting, to paraphrase Santayana's aphorism, that judges who cannot remember the past, i.e., what has happened in the absence of a population lid, are condemned to repeat it). I note, in addition, the panel dissent's observation that a population cap is "less intrusive" than "injunctions relating to specific conditions." Id. at 856.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 717 F.Supp. 854 (1989)
INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Marion BARRY, Mayor, et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 86-2128.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
June 30, 1989.
Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, Edward I. Koren, Stuart H. Adams, Nat. Prison Project of the American Civ. Liberties Union, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.
Frederick D. Cooke, Corp. Counsel, Martin L. Grossman, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Paul A. Quander, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., for defendants.
OPINION
JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, inmates confined at the District of Columbia's Occoquan Facility of the Lorton Correctional Complex, brought this action claiming violations of their eighth amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that an excessive inmate population; deficiencies in environmental health and safety; food services; fire safety; medical and dental services; and mental health care, alone or in combination, violate the eighth amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
After certifying the plaintiff class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), the Court conducted a ten855 day trial *855 on the merits. On December 22, 1986, the Court filed its opinion and accompanying order entering
judgment in plaintiffs' favor. Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 650 F.Supp. 619 (D.D.C.1986). The Court found that the "numerous deficiencies at Occoquan, systemic in nature, exacerbated by chronic overcrowding, combine cumulatively to subject plaintiffs to cruel and unusual punishment." Id. at 634. As a remedy, the Court imposed an institution population cap of 1,281 and subjected each of the nineteen housing units within the Occoquan Facility to individual population caps.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that the population cap was too broad a remedy. Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F.2d 828, 844 (D.C.Cir.1988). The Court of Appeals also found error with the Court's "continuous resort to the standards articulated by professional agencies in evaluating the constitutionality of the conditions at Occoquan." Id. at 843. The Court of Appeals stated that this Court should have "scrutiniz[ed] specific dormitories or services found to fall short of the constitutional minima." Id.
A trial to the Court was held upon remand to determine whether the conditions at Occoquan violate plaintiffs' eighth amendment rights, and if so, to determine the proper remedy.
I. Findings of Fact
In the fall of 1988, defendants consolidated Occoquan I, II, and III into one facility. The three Occoquans became Zones I, II, and III, respectively. In addition, the J-1 Dorm became Dorm 6 and J-2 Dorm became Dorm 7, each a part of Zone III.[1] A detailed description of the composition of the Occoquan Facility is found in the Court's original opinion. Occoquan, 650 F.Supp. at 620. The population of the Occoquan Facility has risen steadily since the initial trial in 1986. On November 26, 1986, the population at Occoquan had risen to 1,637. Id. Before the

present trial, the population had swelled to as much as 2,042 on November 2, 1988. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 266. This count far exceeds the level of 1,756 that existed at the time of the July 1986 riot. Occoquan, 650 F.Supp. at 620.
A. Environmental Conditions
1. Housing
a. Bathroom Facilities
General sanitation in the dorms is deplorable and the bathroom facilities are in terrible condition. First, there are insufficient numbers of showers and lavatories in many of the dorms. Even defendants' expert in the area of penology, and correctional practice and operations stated that "one could not argue that there should be more [toilets], more sinks [lavatories] and more showers." Vol. V at 157, lines 21-22.[2] Defendant Hallem H. Williams, Jr. stated that he was "concerned about the bathroom facilities in relationship to the number of beds." Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 at 15 (Williams Deposition). Numbers of bathroom facilities, however, are just the beginning of the problem.
The showers are filthy. In K-1 Dorm, "icicle-like [stalactites]" hang down from the ceiling, the result of a long-term leak. Vol. II at 30, lines 15-17. The shower walls are filled with soap scum, id. at lines 21-25, and the walls are covered with mold. Id. at 31, lines 1-9. In L Dorm, "soapy, smelly water" oozed out of a cracked baseboard and the walls were covered with mold. Id. at lines 15-18. Plaintiffs' environmental and health expert, Ward C. Duel, testified that these conditions "[show] that cleaning has been consistently inadequate over a period of time." Id. at lines 4-5. Soap scum is prevalent not only on the shower walls, but also along the floor. There are pathways of 856 soap scum between the showers, but where people *856 stand to dry, the soap scum has been worn off by traffic. Id. at 32, lines 4-11.
During Mr. Duel's tour, he came across a toilet in Dorm 4 that was stopped up. A newspaper was covering the toilet, "but, even so, as you walk[ed] by the area, you could smell the decomposing feces." Id. at 39, lines 10-15. When asked why the toilet was in such sad shape, the officer in charge and the inmate porter stated that they "had not been able to get it repaired for a considerable period of time." Id. at lines 18-20.
This type of problem is systemic. Numerous toilets did not work and leaking pipes were found throughout the Occoquan Facility. Mold grows on the wet walls, paint peels from lack of proper ventilation and tiles have fallen off the ceiling or have come up from the floor due to the moisture. Q Block toilets are in foul condition. The toilets are surrounded by cement, with no lids. Due to leaking flush buttons, the paint on the toilets' walls is cracked and peeling, with mold growing in the cracks. See Plaintiffs' Ex. 22, BW Photos 2-31, 5-30, 6-12, and Color Photo 1-4. Filthy toilets are a common problem throughout Q Block, along with thick soap scum in the showers. Plaintiffs' Ex. 42 at 68. Since there are no toilet seats, the toilet is rough with peeling paint. Vol. II at 40, lines 13-15; Plaintiffs' Ex. 22, Color Photo 1-4. The Q Block sanitary fixtures are dirty, dilapidated, and depressing.
The toilets in the main dorms are not much better. Many urinals leak. Some leaks are due to washers, others are due to leaking seals or cracked bowls. Toilet flush valves leak and the sewer pipe in Dorm 1 dripped into a toilet. Plaintiffs' Ex. 42 at 57. Stalactites were hanging from an overhead sewer pipe, due to a long-time leak. Id.; see also Plaintiffs' Ex. 22, Color Photo 2-12. In Dorm 7, in addition to leaking urinals and pipes, water from the restroom above the toilet area was leaking through the ceiling and water was running out of the wall in the restroom. Plaintiffs' Ex. 42 at 57-58. In other dorms, toilets were loose from the floor, along with leaking flush buttons.
A closer look at the ratio of sanitary fixtures to inmates shows that most dorms far exceed the ratio suggested by national standards. The American Correctional Association (ACA) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) set the following number of inmates per fixture:
Inmates per Fixture

Standard ACA APHA

Lavatories 6 8

Toilets 8 8

Showers 8
15

See Plaintiffs' Ex. 42 at 64.

While D and F Dorms are generally within these standards with 8/10 inmates per toilet, 18/10 inmates per
lavatory, and 8/14 per shower, respectively, the remaining dorms are overextended. Id. For example, the ratio of inmates to showers in A Dorm is 55.[3] Dorm 6 is one of the worst with 22 inmates per toilet,[4] 50 inmates per lavatory,[5] and 38 per shower. Id. C Dorm is not much better with 10 inmates per toilet,[6] 18 per lavatory,[7] and 30 per shower.[8]

Another problem with the bathroom facilities is the regulation of water temperature. Mr. Duel testified that he had a series of inmate porters tell him that when they flush a toilet, the shower water becomes scalding. Vol. I at 178, lines 17-20. He tested this in Dorms 5 and 6. When a toilet was flushed in Dorm 5, the temperature jumped from 105° to 124°. At 124°, the skin is damaged within 15 seconds. Id. at lines 22-24. In Dorm 6, the temperature jumped from 106° to 138°. Id. at 178-79.

857 *857 Mr. Duel also ran a short test on the showers in Dorm 5. After turning on one shower at a suitable temperature, he turned on two more. The second shower did not affect the temperature, but when he turned on the third shower, the first shower "fluctuated back and forth from quite cold to very hot." Plaintiffs' Ex. 42 at 58.

During Mr. Duel's December tour of Occoquan, he discovered a dangerous problem in Dorm 5. Water was leaking through the back wall where two electrical boxes were located. When the boxes were opened, one was rusty and the other had water seeping out of it. Vol. I at 180, lines 1-13. A mattress was on the floor by the electrical boxes and was soaked. Blankets were wedged around the mattress to keep water from running out into the main sleeping area. Id. at lines 15-19. Sheets were hanging on the electrical conduit to catch the dripping water. Slime and mold was on the wall behind it. Id. at lines 21-25. See Plaintiffs' Ex. 22, Color Photo 1-20.

Mr. Claude Morgan, the Maintenance Foreman at Occoquan, stated that they had been trying to find the source of the leak in Dorm 5 since about mid-November. He was aware of the mattress on the floor sopping up water. Plaintiffs' Ex. 13 at 13 (Morgan Deposition). He was also aware of the scalding water in the showers and at the time of the deposition, nothing had been done to fix it. He stated that the water lines that supply Dorms 6 and 7 are inadequate. Id. at 14. He believed that Dorms 6 and 7 were scheduled to be remodeled.

As for preventive maintenance, Mr. Morgan stated that they did not have time for it. It is a matter of repairing things on a daily basis. Id. at 19. He believed he had to replace about 12 toilets over the past year, and only about 6 of those were in stock. Id. at 7. Depending on when the toilets are ordered during the fiscal year, he stated that the delays could be three or four months. Id. at 8.

Mr. Duel also testified that he did not see any evidence of Occoquan's housekeeping manual being used. Vol II at 42, line 24. He stated that the sanitary supplies and cleaning procedures listed in the manual were not available. Id. at 43, lines 1-4; see also Plaintiffs' Ex. 33i. Especially as to the showers, he stated that there were no brushes or detergents that should be used on the showers. Vol II at 57, lines 1-14. An inmate supervisor, Mr. Stephen H. Simms, Jr., also testified that there was a lack of cleaning supplies. He stated that they were not able to get the greasy scum off of the walls and floors of the bathroom because there were no scrub brushes and the disinfectant they have will not remove the scum. Vol. IV at 68-70.

Mr. Duel also testified that Occoquan has a self-inspection program where the facility is supposedly inspected daily and corrective actions are taken accordingly. Vol. II at 43, lines 7-10. After inspecting all of the leaking and broken toilets, other leaks from pipes and walls, and leaking showers, Mr. Duel testified that he could not see any evidence of a self-inspection program. Id. at lines 13-15.

b. Living Areas
In addition to the living areas being crowded with bunks, the dorms at Occoquan suffer from disrepair and neglect. Many dorms are dirty and have peeling paint, broken floor and ceiling tiles, and torn furnishings.
Dorm 7 is particularly dirty and dusty, with dirt from the recreation yard and coal dust from the adjacent coal pile blowing into the dorm. Mr. Kenneth Neely, an inmate housed in Dorm 7, testified that Dorm 7 had holes in the walls and ceilings, with pipes that leak from the ceiling. Vol. III at 26, lines 20-21.
Asbestos has been found in Dorms 5, 6, and 7. Mr. Duel testified that in September of 1988, he discovered asbestos in the broken insulation of the piping over the beds in Dorm 5. Vol. I at 188, lines 12-22; see also Plaintiffs' Ex. 42 (American Microscopy Lab, Inc. Report) and BW Photos 8-12 and 8-14. Mr. Lisandro Herrera, an area supervisor at Lorton, testified that asbestos had been discovered and that officials were "in the process of 858 writing a *858 change order to the contract to remove it." Vol. VII at 19, lines 8-11. At the time of trial, the renovation plans did not include a provision for the removal of asbestos. Id. at 22, lines 3-18.
Contractors working for defendant located asbestos in Dorms 5, 6, and 7, and recommend removal since it can not be encapsulated or enclosed safely. See Defendants' Building Inspection Reports.[9] There is no documentation that the asbestos has been removed.
2. Fire Safety
There is a serious fire safety hazard at Occoquan. There are no fire alarm systems in Dorms 5, 6, or 7. Vol. I at 14, lines 21-22. Thomas Jaeger, plaintiffs' fire safety expert, testified that the fire alarm systems in I and K Dorms, and Dorms 3 and 4 were inoperative. Id. at lines 23-24. In addition, there is no emergency power backup or secondary power backup to the fire alarm system. Id. at 19, lines 7-9. Smoke detectors are also lacking in many of the dorms and those that did exist were inoperative in some dorms. Id. at 15, lines 1-7.
Mr. Jaeger observed that fewer fire alarm systems and smoke detectors were operational in 1988 than in 1986. He stated that "[t]he condition had deteriorated since 1986." Id. at 27, lines 9-17. He also noted that many of the doors at Occoquan swing in the wrong direction. In case of an emergency, the doors should swing outward to accommodate the crush of people exiting the building. Many of the doors at Occoquan swing inward instead of outward.[10]
Mr. Jaeger noted additional fire hazards in Dorms 5, 6, and 7. The inmates had placed blankets and sheets up against the window to block the cold air. Id. at 44, lines 9-12. This is dangerous because cloth hanging in this manner with air all around it burns rapidly. Any material hung this way must be fire-retardant. Id. at lines 16-23.
Mr. Jaeger observed vast discrepancies between evacuation plans located in the same dorm. For example, in I Dorm, one of two plans posted side by side directs inmates to evacuate through a sealed door. Id. at 29, lines 22-25. The plan in F Dorm directs inmates to evacuate through a nonexistent rear door. There are side exits only in this dorm. Id. at 30, lines 11-16.
There are other conflicts within the Occoquan evacuation plans. One section instructs the correctional officer in the dorm to release the inmates in the building upon the fire alarm, id. at 16, lines 23-25, and another portion states that "No correctional officer shall release any inmates without direction of a shift supervisor." Id. at 17, lines 1-3. This can cause serious confusion during an actual emergency. A conflict exists between the Occoquan plan and the Fairfax County Fire Department plan. The Occoquan plan directs one officer to report to the sally port to meet the Fairfax County Fire Department while the fire department requires a minimum of four officers to report to the sally port in order to enter the site. Id. at lines 15-19. This could have serious consequences during an emergency.

The Occoquan plan, readopted on August 17, 1988, requires an annual fire drill, but it does not require one for every shift. See Plaintiffs' Ex. 45 at ¶ 4E. Some officers assigned to particular areas have not participated in fire drills in the last two years. Plaintiffs' Ex. 9E at 38; Plaintiffs' Ex. 9A at 77.
Another fire safety problem is in Q Block. In order to release all of the occupants in Q Block, 48 locks must be opened with 5 different keys. None of the keys are color coded. In addition, they are all notched in an identical fashion, which makes identification impossible during an emergency when there are no lights or if the area is 859 filled with smoke. Vol. I at 86-87. Q Block is the only housing that is *859 by cell instead of dormitory. It is critical that each cell be opened quickly and efficiently during an emergency.
3. Food Service
Mr. Duel testified that a food-borne illness can be caused in two ways. Organisms that grow on food and ingested by mouth can subsequently grow in the body. Other organisms can exude a toxin which causes food poisoning. Vol. I at 156, lines 13-23. This can be prevented by maintaining food at its proper temperature. Id. at lines 8-10.
Mr. Duel testified that there had been improvements in the kitchen since 1986. Defendants have added "refrigeration equipment, walk-in coolers [and] walk-in freezers." Id. at 159, lines 8-9. Work has been done by the loading dock where the compacter was leaking and defendants have repaired the concrete so the swill will wash out more easily. Id. at lines 11-15. He did not observe any filters missing over the stoves. Id. at lines 16-19. Defendants also began remodeling some outdoor storage areas in December 1988. Id. at lines 23-25.
The main problems Mr. Duel noted during his inspections were food temperatures in Q Block and at the main dining room near the end of the feeding. Id. at 147, lines 10-12. He also found dish washing problems with the failure to sanitize pots and pans. Id. at lines 15-17.
He stated that hot food should be at least 140 degrees. Id. at 149, line 17. For example, gravy was tested at 119°, Q Block noodle dish was 124° and veal patties were 117°. Id. at 150-51. He explained to the Court that the Food and Drug Administration recently has placed cooked rice on the hazardous food list because organisms easily grow in it when it is below the recommended temperature. Id. at 152, lines 12-13. He tested rice at Occoquan in December 1988 and it registered at 96°, far below the required 140°. He stated that 96° was an almost ideal incubation temperature for organisms that cause food poisoning in rice. Id. at lines 9-11.
He also observed that the temperature of the rinse water in the dishwasher was not hot enough to sanitize. Id. at 154, lines 6-8. Trays that had been washed were still dirty and they were stacked while wet. Id. at lines 9-14.
In his opinion, many of the problems he observed were due to the number of people being served. The dining room does not have time to clean and sanitize dishes between feedings. The tables are not cleaned between eaters and there is an extended serving period where the food is held for a long time before serving all of the inmates. Due to the equipment, food has to be prepared far in advance of its being cooked. The kitchen begins cooking the noon meal at breakfast time and at noon, they begin preparing the evening meal. Id. at 157.
B. Medical Services
There are major failures in the medical services provided at Occoquan even though there have been some improvements since 1986. Continuing problems exist with screening, sick-call, specialty clinics, and treatment and follow-up of chronic illnesses. Dr. Charles Braslow, plaintiffs' expert in the delivery of health services in a correctional facility, toured Occoquan on October 3, 1988 and December 21, 1988. The first time he toured the medical area in Building A, the pharmacy and the dental area. On his second visit, most of the medical facilities had been moved to the Administration Building, so he toured it and revisited the dental area.

1. Screening
Inmates entering the District of Columbia's correctional system are processed at the D.C. Jail. Each inmate is supposed to receive a complete physical examination, including screening for contagious diseases, specifically tuberculosis (TB) and syphilis. Vol. II at 125, lines 20-25. Out of 27 charts that Dr. Braslow reviewed for this purpose, only 4 had the results of their syphilis test. For example, in one chart, Dr. Braslow found a memo from 860 the Metropolitan Health Services Lab, dated May 10, 1988, which indicated that the inmate's *860 blood sample was too small to do the test. At the time Dr. Braslow reviewed this chart in December, no follow-up test had been completed. In fact, there were three previous positive syphilis tests in his record from earlier admissions. Id. at 126.
As for TB, out of the 27 charts reviewed by Dr. Braslow, 10 showed no indication of the result of the TB test that had been given. In another 14, the staff accepted the patient's own statement of having a negative test in the recent past. One chart had no indication at all. On another chart, the inmate had returned the TB test card with the positive reaction box checked in July 1988. No follow-up was done to check whether the test was actually positive. Id. at 129.
Although there is a low incidence rate of TB at Occoquan, Dr. Braslow was concerned because the incidence rate in the country as a whole is on the rise. He stated that "it is particularly common among populations with histories of intravenous drug abuse and with histor[ies] of alcoholism and within inner cities which is certainly the type of population that Occoquan draws from." Id. at lines 13-23. Since TB is transmitted through droplets in the air, the risk of being infected in the poorly ventilated, crowded dormitory is dangerously high.
2. Staffing
The Occoquan facility utilizes Physicians Assistants (PA's) and Medical Technical Assistants (MTA's), as well as physicians. PA's receive two years of training in medical knowledge and are trained to work under the supervision of a physician. Most states, except New Jersey and the District of Columbia, require PA's to be licensed. MTA's are medical assistants and have some training, generally in the Armed Forces. There is no licensing requirement for MTA's and there is no standard way to verify the amount of training that they have received.
Dr. Braslow testified that the staffing had decreased between his October and December visits. In December on the 8-to-4 day shift, there were two physicians on staff, which was down from the three in October. One physician had gone to another position. There were four PA's on staff, which was two less than in October, and there were three MTA's, one less than in October.
On the 4-to-12 shift, there was one physician and a second slot for a PA, which was filled by a MTA or PA working overtime from the day shift. There were no medical staff present on the 12-to-8 shift. Vol. II at 105-06.
Since there are no medical staff present on the 12-to-8 shift, emergencies are handled at the Lorton Central Facility, about 3-½ miles from Occoquan. Dr. Herman E. Branson, the Chief Medical Officer at Occoquan, stated in his deposition that he has had complaints from inmates about the emergency service during the 12-to-8 shift. Plaintiffs' Ex. 8 at 12. He believes that about two ancillary medical workers would be adequate staff for this shift. Id.
Dr. Branson stated that Occoquan was at the lower spectrum of staffing levels by having more residents per physician. Id. at 9. As a result, MTA's do more diagnostic evaluations than they are qualified to do. Dr. Braslow observed MTA's during sick call interviewing inmates and making notations in the day's log book. Out of 49 inmates seen that day, only 5 were referred to physicians. The remaining inmates had their entire encounter with MTA's. No notations were made in their medical records. In fact, most of the medical records were not even utilized. Vol. II at 116-17.
Dr. Braslow testified that the use of MTA's for primary medical care is inappropriate since they are not licensed and are seldom supervised as they should be. For example, one inmate came in complaining of abdominal pain.

The MTA made the notation in the daily log book but neither referred him to a PA or a physician nor noted the fact in his medical record. Id. at 117-18. He had to come back the next day complaining again, at which time he actually saw a PA. Another inmate was issued medication for high blood pressure when four days earlier, a 861 physician wrote a note *861 in his record to monitor the inmate's blood pressure for awhile without medication. The MTA issued the medication without checking the blood pressure or following the physician's order. Id. at 118-19. These are just a few of the illustrations Dr. Braslow used at trial to show the manner in which MTA's are used.
3. Sick Call
At the time of the 1986 trial, sick call had been reduced from five days per week to three days per week due to the increase in population. Occoquan, 650 F.Supp. at 627. Sick call has been increased to five days per week, but problems still plague the system. To begin, sign-up for sick call does not occur until after midnight for the following day. Vol. IV at 158. After arriving at sick call, inmates see MTA's initially. Most never see a physician or even a PA before they leave the building.
During the time of trial, the medical services had been moved to temporary quarters while the old quarters were renovated. The temporary area is congested. Vol. II at 103. The initial interview takes place with MTA's in one open room. There are no real examination tables or medical equipment. Id. at 116A. These encounters are conducted without access to medical records. Few inmates are referred to a physician in the main area where access to records is possible.
4. Follow-up Care and Records
There is no organized system for follow-up care of inmates requiring refills for medication, return appointments or who have chronic illnesses. For example, one inmate complained of frequent urination. A urine culture was done, showed bacteria in the urine and he was started on antibiotics. There was no follow-up to determine if he still had a urine infection. Dr. Braslow testified that a urine infection treatable by antibiotics is abnormal in a male. It would have required further evaluation. Vol. II at 134.
Another inmate complained of dizziness and upon examination, had an irregular heart beat. He had a history of drug use, anemia, and was a kidney donor. The examiner ordered an electrocardiogram, blood tests, and a follow-up at D.C. General as soon as possible and ordered his blood pressure to be monitored. He came back two weeks later on his own to check on his appointments which were still needed. After another two weeks, his legs were swollen, he had headaches and dizziness and his pulse was irregular. He was placed on medication at this point. After a total of three months, his clinic appointment came up at D.C. General. He was not able to go since there was no transportation available. He was rescheduled for over two months later. It took from July 15 to December 27 to get this inmate to D.C. General for just an appointment. Id. at 135-36.
Dr. Braslow indicated that another inmate had a past history of Hodgkin's disease. The D.C. General Cancer Clinic ordered that he receive temperature checks twice a day, beginning December 13, 1988. When Dr. Braslow reviewed his chart on December 21, one week later, there were no temperatures taken and none recorded on his chart. There was no way to monitor his progress. Id. at 136-37.
Dr. Braslow was also concerned with the treatment of diabetics in Occoquan. After reviewing the daily logs of diabetics, he found that urine checks were done rarely and very few blood sugars were completed to monitor the diabetics.
One inmate, who was on high doses of insulin, was in and out of the infirmary several times due to low then high blood sugar tests. He was discharged with a blood sugar level of 56 (normal is between 100-200). Three weeks later he had a severe insulin reaction with a blood sugar level of 31. He was treated and the PA noted in his chart to evaluate his fasting blood sugar and to adjust the insulin dose. None of this was done and there was no further indication on his chart that he was evaluated in any way. Dr. Braslow testified that someone who is on large doses of insulin could have permanent brain damage from having too low blood sugar. Id. at 143.
862

*862 There were several other inmates who were scheduled for fasting blood sugar and the tests were never done. Id. at 144. Others should have been checked as to doses of insulin or other monitoring and were not checked. Id. at 144-46.
Dr. Jenkins, the Assistant Director of Health Services for the Department of Corrections, testified that the Quality Assurance Committee has not evaluated the follow-up procedures at Occoquan. He said they had plans to do so in the future as a part of their auditing system. Vol. IV at 195, lines 9-15.
Another major area of concern which is linked with the follow-up care is medical records. There are significant delays in transferring inmates' medical records to Occoquan following their processing at the D.C. Jail. Some records never arrive. Dr. Jenkins acknowledged that there was a problem with the medical records following the inmates. He stated there would always be problems "in any kind of medical system with the way it works, especially when you increase the movement." Id. at 195-96.
Dr. Branson stated that inmates arrive at Occoquan regularly with no medical records, despite departmental orders against this practice. Plaintiffs' Ex. 8 at 31; Vol. II at 124. Without their medical records, the staff cannot determine if they require testing, monitoring, or present a risk to the general population. As stated previously, there are no results of TB or syphilis tests and there is no information as to chronic diseases.
5. Specialty Clinics
Inmates experience inordinately long delays in scheduling visits to specialty clinics. There are chronic problems with appointments to the eye clinic. One inmate was referred to the eye clinic in May 1988 for visual problems. He was seen three more times in June and July. As of December 31, 1988, he had not been seen for the eye examination. See Plaintiffs' Ex. 32d.
In 1987, an inmate was told in response to his Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP) he was "on the list" to see the eye doctor, but "since the eye clinic only sees a small number of residents twice a month, the delay could be significant." Plaintiffs' Ex. 37d. He was instructed to "wait your turn." Id. Another inmate waited over a month for an eye appointment, and was then told "owing to a backlog, examinations have been discontinued for approximately one month, as eyeglass fittings are made in the interim. Your examination will take place as soon as the backlog has been reduced." Plaintiffs' Ex. 37n.
Inmates experience even longer delays in receiving neurology and urology clinic appointments at D.C. General. Inmates must wait anywhere from three to eleven months to get an appointment. Vol. II at 150-52.
Another inmate experienced a six-month delay in scheduling an x-ray at D.C. General. Id. at 152. There is no xray equipment at Occoquan. Inmates have to go to the Central Facility for x-rays. The absence of this equipment delays treatment. Plaintiffs' Ex. 8 at 16.
6. Dental Care
During the 1986 trial, there were two dentists and one dental assistant at Occoquan. Occoquan, 650 F.Supp. at 629. Currently, there are two dentists and two dental assistants who work Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. There are an additional dentist and dental assistant who work from 4:00 p.m. until midnight. Plaintiffs' Ex. 12 at 7-8.
Dr. Braslow testified that this staffing is adequate, but was concerned about the number of patients that were actually seen. Dr. Allen, the Chief of Dental Services for the Department of Corrections, stated in his deposition that Occoquan had a two-chair clinic which limits the number of inmates that can be seen at one time. The clinic was built when Occoquan was a small facility for misdemeanors and a population of about 200. They are still operating out of the same clinic while the population has soared to about 2,000. Dr. Allen indicated that the clinic 863 is under renovation to increase *863 to five chairs and should be ready in about one year. Id. at 27-29.

Although the staffing may be adequate, there are numerous administrative complaints filed by prisoners complaining of the delays and of being put off by the dental staff. One inmate tried for over three months to get a crown recemented to his tooth. One of the problems was locating his medical record. As a result, he had to go to the medical clinic for a physical before he could receive dental treatment. Plaintiffs' Ex. 37b. These delays could have been avoided easily. Other inmates' treatments have been delayed due to misplaced medical records. Plaintiffs' Ex. 37h & 37t.
C. Mental Health Care
Dr. Frank Rundle, plaintiffs' expert in psychiatry, toured the Occoquan facility on December 15 and 16, 1988. He was also qualified as an expert in the 1986 trial.
1. Staffing
There are only two psychologists on staff at Occoquan. Robert E. Jones, Jr., the Chief Psychologist at Occoquan, is responsible for over 1,200 inmates in Zones I and II. Plaintiffs' Ex. 16 at 4. Anthony J. Rapone, the other psychologist, is responsible for over 700 inmates in Zone III. Plaintiffs' Ex. 15 at 4. The Department of Corrections does not have a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist from outside of the department comes two afternoons a week. Plaintiffs' Ex. 16 at 6.
In his deposition, Mr. Jones stated that he had trouble administering health-care services at Occoquan. He stated that they "were supposed to implement programs, provide [individual] and group psychotherapy; to handle the psychiatric visitations we have there; and to oversee the taking of medicine, and follow up the people who are on medication." Plaintiffs' Ex. 16 at 3-4. However, due to the lack of staff and hours required, "the only real service they get is psychiatric." Id. at 4. He believed that Occoquan needs a minimum of five psychologists, perhaps a psychometrist, and an upper-level clerical to handle the computer programs. Id. at 5. He also stated that Occoquan needs at least two full days of psychiatric time. As it is, there is difficulty just scheduling inmates for treatment, without much time at all for a comprehensive method of treatment. Id. at 6.
Mr. Jones stressed that he had no staff. He even types his own psychological evaluations. Id. at 10. There is a large backlog of inmates that need testing. A move to minimum custody requires a psychological evaluation. Vol. III at 131. While Mr. Rapone indicated that he had caught up with his evaluations at Occoquan, Mr. Jones, with over 1,200 inmates, was struggling to give merely emergency service.
2. Screening
None of the inmates coming into Occoquan has had a mental health diagnostic work-up. Plaintiffs' Ex. 16 at 29. Any initial screening that occurs is at the D.C. Jail and this is not done by mental health professionals. Vol. VI at 192.
Mr. Jones believes that there is a high probability that there are people in need of mental health services at Occoquan that no one knows about due to the lack of screening. Plaintiffs' Ex. 16 at 20.
3. Q Block
In addition to housing inmates on administrative and punitive segregation, Q Block is used to house mentally ill inmates. Dr. Rundle believes that it is inappropriate and unacceptable from a professional viewpoint to house people with serious mental illnesses in a place like Q Block. They are locked in their cells for 23 hours a day with no social contact and they receive no treatment except for medication and an occasional visit from the psychologist. Vol. III at 143. While Mr. Jones tries to "walk through" Q Block daily, he might just call and talk to the officers there.

Mr. Jones has not participated in any type of in-service training for the officers on how to deal with mental health 864 inmates in Q Block. Q Block is used for these purposes because there is nowhere else to *864 put them since the
general population is housed in open dormitories. Plaintiffs' Ex. 16 at 12. While Mr. Jones tries to transfer inmates with mental health problems to the Central Detention Facility (CDF), they are often returned. He admits that there is a constant battle with CDF regarding these transfers at least once or twice a week. Id. at 34.
Dr. Rundle concludes that the inmates in Q Block "are abandoned to their hallucinations and their delusions ... it makes the illness more difficult to treat, in some cases may make it untreatable." Vol. III at 144, lines 1-4. Suicide risks are placed in Q Block and are checked every 30 minutes. Plaintiffs' Ex. 16 at 23. Dr. Rundle testified that a visual check every 30 minutes is ineffective since a person suffers brain damage and brain death somewhere in the range of five to eight minutes after deprivation of oxygen to the brain. Vol. III at 147, lines 1-5.
D. Personal Security
Plaintiffs' expert in correctional administration, Mr. Eugene Miller, toured the facility in October 1986, September 1988, and December 1988. He was also qualified as an expert in the 1986 trial.
1. Classification
Classification of inmates is critical for prison security. Mr. Miller testified that diagnostic work-ups are supposed to occur at the Modular Facility before inmates arrive at Occoquan. Vol. IV at 82. Somewhere between 50 to 100 percent of the sentenced felons entering Occoquan have not had these diagnostic work-ups. Id. at 81-82.
Proper classification is essential for identifying violent inmates who may be dangerous to the general prison population and for identifying those in need of psychiatric care. This is important especially when the population at Occoquan has a significant history of substance use or abuse and significant mental health problems. Vol. VI at 12.
The failure of the correctional department to provide diagnostics has put undue pressure on the Classification and Parole staff to be involved at intake. This limits their ability to carry out their other duties, such as preparing parole progress reports, recalculating parole dates as a result of the Emergency Powers Act and dealing with individual inmate problems.
In order to keep up with the increased workload, C & P staff work about 100 to 150 hours of overtime a month. Vol. VI at 67. According to Chief Case Manager Walsh, he could use eight case managers. He has only six, plus one vacancy. The current ratio of case managers to inmates is 1 to 150. Vol. VI at 66-67.
2. Correctional Staffing
Mr. Douglas Stempson, the administrator of Occoquan, testified that as of October 24, 1988, Occoquan needed 100 additional correctional officers. Vol. VII at 109. As a result, many officers are logging extensive overtime hours. Consultants from the National Institute of Corrections are presently conducting a staffing study with the D.C. Department of Corrections' institutions to determine staffing needs. Plaintiffs' Ex. 2 at 9.
Due to the limited staffing, officers from other posts are consistently "pulled" to escort and supervise inmates during meals, to cover officers on breaks, or to cover construction supervision posts. This results in many dorms becoming dangerously understaffed. The staff assignment rosters are misleading because they indicate two, sometimes three, officers in each dormitory when, in reality, it is much less due to officers being "pulled."

3. Q Block
Due to the mixture of classifications, Q Block poses several problems. Q Block houses inmates on punitive segregation, newly arrived inmates, those in protective custody, and those with psychiatric problems. Combining this assortment with double-celling in cells, created for one occupant, causes multiple security problems.
865 One altercation occurred between two inmates housed in the same cell. Both were *865 in for protective custody. It appears that one inmate had been placed in this status due to being pressed for sexual favors in N Dorm. Plaintiffs' Ex. 23 at # 102. This is one example of why protective custody inmates should not be housed with any other inmates.
II. Conclusions of Law
A. The Eighth Amendment Standard
The standard to be used in determining whether conditions of confinement are cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment was set out in Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). Conditions of confinement must not: (1) "involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain"; or (2) "be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime warranting imprisonment." Id. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. This standard is not static, for the eighth amendment "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958) (quoted with approval in Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346, 101 S.Ct. at 2398).
While "[e]ighth [a]mendment judgments should neither be nor appear to be merely the subjective views" of judges, Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 275, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1139-1140, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980), a court's "own judgment will be brought to bear on the acceptability" of a certain condition. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 597, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 2868, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977) (plurality opinion). These judgments, however, "should be informed by objective factors to the maximum possible extent." Id. at 592, 97 S.Ct. at 2866.
The recommendations of professional groups "may be helpful and relevant with respect to some questions, but `they simply do not establish the constitutional minima; rather, they establish goals recommended by the organization in question.'" Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. at 2400 n. 13 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 543-44, n. 27, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1876, n. 27, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979)). Such opinions cannot carry as much weight in determining contemporary standards of decency as "the public attitude toward a given sanction." Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2925, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (joint opinion).
In Rhodes, inmates housed in the same cell in an Ohio maximum-security prison brought a class action alleging that "double celling" violated the eighth amendment. While the district court and the court of appeals found that double celling was cruel and unusual punishment, the Supreme Court found otherwise. The district court had made favorable findings of fact, describing the physical plant as "unquestionably a top-flight, first-class facility." Chapman v. Rhodes, 434 F.Supp. 1007, 1009 (S.D.Ohio 1977). Each cell had a heating and air circulation vent near the ceiling, hot and cold running water, cabinet, shelf, and a radio built into one of the walls. Over half of the cells had a window that opens and closes. The food was "adequate in every respect," and there was no evidence "that the food facilities were taxed by the prison population." Id. at 1014. The cells were free from offensive odor, the temperature was well controlled and the noise was not excessive. The library was "modern, well-lit" and "superior in quality and quantity." Id. at 1010.
In view of these findings, the Supreme Court found that they fell "far short in themselves of proving cruel and unusual punishment, for there is no evidence that double celling under these circumstances either inflicts unnecessary or wanton pain or is grossly disproportionate to the severity of crimes warranting imprisonment." Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348, 101 S.Ct. at 2400. The Court noted that the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons and that a maximum-security facility "cannot be free of discomfort." Id. at 349, 101 S.Ct. at 2400.

B. The Eighth Amendment Violations
The Court finds that many of the conditions at Occoquan fail to fulfill contemporary standards of decency. The 866 Court of Appeals noted in its opinion that *866 the District had implemented a number of new procedures:
The prison had in place (1) new general housekeeping procedures to ensure sanitary conditions; (2) a routine fire inspection schedule; (3) new evacuation plans and training in implementing them; (4) sick call five days per week; and (5) new procedures for medical record transfers and follow-up medical care for inmates.
Occoquan, 844 F.2d at 840 n. 17. While this sounds all well and good, it can be seen from the findings at this time that these procedures, if implemented, have not worked. The housekeeping manual is not followed; the fire inspection is lacking; new evacuation plans have not been posted and proper training has not occurred; sick call has been increased to five days but has not cured other chronic problems; and the new procedures for medical records transfers and follow-up have either not been implemented or have failed to work.
This Court was criticized initially for relying too heavily on expert testimony. Unfortunately, the Court is not an expert in environmental or health hazards, fire safety or health care, and must rely, to a certain extent, on the reports made by the experts in these fields. This, in no way, relieves the Court of its burden of discerning and remedying constitutional violations. The professional standards do not establish the constitutional minima, but merely act as an aid in determining the minima. The Court has been careful to establish the contemporary standards of decency by assessing the public attitude toward the conditions at Occoquan. It is not an easy task.
1. Living Conditions
No human being should be required to frequent bathrooms with slime oozing down the walls, stalactites hanging from the ceiling, thick soap scum on the walls and floors, and sewer water dripping into toilets. While bathrooms in some dorms were worse than others,[11] most were substandard. Defendants would have the Court believe that the conditions of the bathrooms were due to the failure of the inmates to apply "elbow grease." The Court is unconvinced. The evidence shows that neither proper cleaning supplies nor cleaning tools are provided. There is testimony that the maintenance workers can barely keep up with repairs, much less monitor the fixtures in the bathrooms. The ventilation in most of the bathrooms is nonexistent and pipes are leaking almost everywhere.
As stated in the facts, Dorms 5, 6 and 7 are particularly foul. These dorms were all hastily converted from warehouses in a matter of days and are not fit places in which to live. Defendants have informed the Court that they have plans to renovate these three dorms. See Defendants' Ex. 15. Notwithstanding this representation, the Court will monitor the renovation progress to ensure that it moves on schedule. The Court requests additional documentation that the asbestos located in these three dorms is removed before renovation begins.
The Rhodes Court recognized that prison conditions alone or in combination could be cruel and unusual when they "deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. Sanitary living conditions and basic elements of hygiene are part of the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." An inmate must rely on prison authorities to provide him with sanitary conditions. Without cleaning supplies, proper plumbing maintenance and adequate bathroom facilities, inmates are without recourse. This Court determines that unsanitary living conditions that are as dilapidated and filthy as those at Occoquan cause "serious deprivation of basic human needs." Id.
These conditions go beyond merely restrictive or harsh and exceed the penalty that "criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society." Id. The conditions at Occoquan are light years away from those in Rhodes. Just one look at the photos of the toilets in Q Block is enough to illustrate this point.
867 *867 Most of the dorms need serious maintenance. All missing screens and broken windows must be replaced. Vents in the bathrooms and sleeping areas must be cleaned and maintained periodically. The missing tiles in the shower of N Dorm must be replaced. All leaks in the pipes must be repaired, along with the defective plumbing

fixtures and cracked urinals. Bulbs in the "Exit" signs must be replaced and maintained. Proper cleaning solutions, along with scrub brushes, must be provided. All exposed electrical wiring and fixtures must be covered or safely secured.
Defendants must submit a proposal to the Court within 60 days on how to remedy the nonexistent ventilation system in most of the dorms. With the excessive numbers of inmates living in these open dormitories, a satisfactory plan must be devised to operate in both cold and hot weather. The current "natural" ventilation does not work in the cold months when windows are closed and the fans are turned off.
Defendants must propose a quality assurance plan to monitor sanitation. Since it is evident that the present housekeeping manual is not followed, some "check" system must be devised to ensure that the manual is implemented.
The Court finds that the housing of "protective custody" inmates in Q Block violates the eighth amendment. To be housed with punitive segregation inmates is beyond the range of their punishment. Q Block is dank, dark, and filthy. While most of the toilets and fixtures need major overhauling, this alone will not cure the problem of housing those that should not be there in the first place. Defendants must submit a plan concerning alternative housing for protective custody inmates in Q Block within 60 days of this Court's order.
As for the fire safety hazards, the Court finds that these conditions endanger the lives of the inmates and violate the eighth amendment.
Prisoners have the right not to be subjected to the unreasonable threat of injury or death by fire and need not wait until actual casualties occur in order to obtain relief from such conditions.
Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir.1985) (citation omitted). Defendants are directed to repair the inoperative fire alarms and smoke detectors, to post proper evacuation plans, and to correct all exits to provide that they swing outward instead of inward. The Court also directs defendants to propose a fire emergency plan for releasing inmates from their locked cells in Q Block.
2. Health Care
The Supreme Court has recognized that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners" violates the eighth amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Such indifference may be shown by "repeated examples of negligent acts which disclose a pattern of conduct by the prison medical staff" or by showing "systemic or gross deficiencies in staffing, facilities, equipment or procedures." Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 575 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041, 101 S.Ct. 1759, 68 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981) (citation omitted). The evidence points to systemic failures throughout the entire medical services that show deliberate indifference to the medical needs of the inmates in Occoquan.
Defendants have failed to develop a reliable screening system for inmates entering Occoquan as shown by the lack of testing for TB and syphilis. There is no follow-up system for treating chronic diseases and inmates wait months for appointments to specialty clinics. While defendants claim they have new procedures to monitor medical records, the evidence has shown that medical records are consistently lost, mislaid and fail to follow the inmate upon transfer. Medical staff has failed to maintain the medical records routinely by not entering current information or by not referring to the record when the inmate arrives at sick call. The procedures for sick call rely too heavily on MTA's by allowing them to diagnose and dispense medications without proper supervision by trained medical staff.
868 *868 There are not enough physicians and PA's to cover the shifts and the numbers of inmates. Diabetics are not monitored properly, with incorrect doses of insulin given without reference to the medical files.
While the staffing might be adequate for the dental clinic, there are significant delays in receiving appointments and there is the constant problem of keeping track of the inmates' medical records.

The staffing in the mental health area is woefully short. The two psychologists there can barely keep up with emergencies, much less treat inmates for chronic problems. The psychiatric time is limited to two afternoons a week. As the chief psychologist indicated, Occoquan needs at least three more psychologists and clerical staff to handle reports and filing. At the present, they have no support staff whatsoever.
As with regular medical services, no proper screening takes place to determine mental health problems. A system must be developed upon entering Occoquan.
Inmates with mental health problems are no longer to be housed in Q Block. Defendants must develop a plan to house these inmates in a separate facility or allow them to be transferred to a mental hospital. Housing them in Q Block shows a deliberate indifference to their psychiatric health needs.
3. Other Conditions
Plaintiffs also ask the Court to examine the areas of food services, work release and other jobs, educational and drug programming, library facilities, and the general problem of idleness. While the Court is concerned with the lack of these services, it is not able to find that they violate the eighth amendment. As the Rhodes Court observed, "limited work hours and delay before receiving education do not inflict pain, much less unnecessary and wanton pain; deprivations of this kind simply are not punishments." Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348, 101 S.Ct. at 2400.
The Court recognizes the improvements to the kitchen area and can only hope that this trend will continue. The major danger posed to inmates is the temperatures of the foods, especially illustrated by the rice. The food, however, is nutritious and there is no evidence that the inmates are not receiving enough food. There are special diets provided for religious and health reasons. There was not enough evidence to show that inmates are actually becoming ill from improper food preparation or from the failure of the dishwasher to sanitize properly the eating utensils. Many of the problems occuring in the dining area are due to the number of people being served in a limited amount of space.
The remedies proposed by the Court to increase staffing and screening procedures should aid the inmates in obtaining access to educational programs and drug treatment. The library deficiencies do not come within the purview of the eighth amendment.
B. Population
Plaintiffs seek a reduction of the population at Occoquan. While it is the opinion of the Court that overcrowding has caused the systemic problems occurring at Occoquan, it cannot, in good faith, order a population cap when such a remedy has been declared as overbroad by our Court of Appeals. The fact remains, however, that as long as more inmates are placed in Occoquan, the bathroom facilities will be overburdened, the dorms will be filled beyond capacity, the food will become cold due to extended feedings, appointments for medical care will be postponed as more and more inmates seek help, and sanitation will remain a problem while far too many inmates scuffle to use limited facilities.
Occoquan remains as one of the few medium-security facilities that is not subject to a court-imposed population 869 cap.[12] As *869 shown by the repeated findings of contempt for exceeding the population cap in the Twelve
John Does v. District of Columbia case, Occoquan will remain the steam vent for the entire correctional system. This system is taxed to its fullest extent with no immediate solution in sight.[13]
C. Remedy
In fashioning an appropriate remedy for the constitutional violations in this action, the Court is between Scylla and Charybdis. The Supreme Court has instructed courts that "the operation of our correctional facilities is peculiarly the province of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government, not the Judicial." Bell v. Wolfish, 441

U.S. 520, 548, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878-1879, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). It is clear that courts are not to interfere with prison administration. On the other hand, our Court of Appeals instructs us that a population cap is "much too blunt an instrument." Occoquan, 844 F.2d at 842. Instead, it directs the Court to correct specifically each constitutional violation. While it appears to this Court that this comes painfully close to treading in the area of prison administration, the Court will do its utmost to correct the violations without being in the business of running prisons.
While "`[local] authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving,'" Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 281, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977) (Milliken II) (quoting Brown v. Board of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 755, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955)), if "`[local] authorities fail in their affirmative obligations ... judicial authority may be invoked.'" Id. (quoting Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1275, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971)). Our Court of Appeals has berated the District for its "apathetic" response to overcrowding on several occasions. See, e.g., Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 855 F.2d 874, 877 (D.C. Cir.1988); Twelve John Does, 861 F.2d 295, 301 (D.C.Cir.1988).
The Court finds that defendants have failed to maintain affirmatively Occoquan in a proper manner as shown above, thereby violating plaintiffs' eighth amendment rights. The Court directs defendants to submit a written report on how they anticipate correcting these constitutional violations in the areas of sanitation, bathroom facilities, fire safety, health care, and staffing. These plans are to be submitted to the Court within 60 days of this opinion.
The Court is under the assumption that renovation of Dorms 5, 6, and 7 is underway. The Court directs defendants not to exceed the population level as of the date of this order while renovation is in progress. Since these dorms will be out of commission during renovation, the Court finds that the additional stress of housing these inmates, in conjunction with the existing constitutional violations, fails to satisfy contemporary standards of decency.
An appropriate order is attached.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the trial held to the Court, the entire record herein, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, it is by the Court this 30th day of June 1989,
ORDERED that judgment is entered in plaintiffs' favor; it is further
ORDERED that defendants shall submit a monthly progress report to the Court documenting the renovation of Dorms 5, 6, and 7. The first report shall be due on or before August 1, 1989; it is further
ORDERED that defendants shall certify to the Court that the asbestos in Dorms 5, 6, and 7 is removed before any further renovation occurs; it is further
ORDERED that defendants shall not exceed the population level as of June 30, 1989, while the renovation of these dorms is in progress; it is further
870 *870 ORDERED that defendants shall submit a written report to the Court within 60 days of this order on how they propose to correct the constitutional violations in the areas of sanitation, bathroom facilities, fire safety, health care, and staffing. These plans shall contain proposals on how to remedy the nonexistent ventilation system in the majority of the dorms; where to house "protective custody" inmates; where to house psychiatric inmates; how to release the inmates of Q Block during an emergency; and how to remedy the chronic understaffing problems throughout the facility; it is further
ORDERED that defendants shall endeavor to work with plaintiffs in order to submit proposals that are mutually agreeable; and it is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed.

[1] Zone I includes Dorms A, C, D, F, G, and I. Zone II includes Dorms K-1, K-2, L, M, N, O, and Q. Zone III includes Dorms 1 through 7.
[2] There are seven volumes of transcripts from the January 1989 trial. Volumes I through V are marked as volumes while the transcripts from January 17 and 18, 1989, are not marked. The Court will refer to these two days as Volumes VI and VII, respectively.
[3] Plaintiffs' expert did not count two temporary showers that were being remodeled. Plaintiffs' Ex. 42 at 64.
[4] One toilet was not counted since it leaked and was loose from the floor. Id.
[5] One lavatory was not counted since it was stopped up. Id.
[6] A cracked toilet was counted. Id.
[7] Two lavatories were not counted since they would not shut off. Id.
[8] One shower was not counted because it ran constantly. Two others dripped but were counted. Id.
[9] These documents were submitted to the Court after trial pursuant to this Court's Order of January 18, 1989, in order to supplement the record.
[10] For example, such doors were found in Q Block, Vol. I at 31, lines 19-20; Dorm 5, id. at 37, lines 17-18; Dorm 7, id. at 42, lines 23-24; and A Dorm, id. at 47, lines 12-15.
[11] K-1, K-2, L, N, 5, 6, and 7 Dorms were particularly dilapidated and filthy.
[12] The Modular Facility is the only exception. Although relatively new, it is already way over capacity. The remaining facilities are D.C. Jail (Campbell v. McGruder, C.A. No. 1462-71 and C.A. No. 75-1668, 1987 WL 8724); Maximum Security (John Doe v. District of Columbia, C.A. No. 79-1726); Central Facility (Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, C.A. No. 80-2136).
[13] The construction of a new 800-bed Correctional Treatment Facility next to the D.C. Jail was put on hold until just recently when the injunction against its construction was lifted.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Doe v. District of Columbia, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

1987 WL 11422 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, District of Columbia.
John DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. Twelve John DOES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. Marion S. BARRY, et al., Defendants.
Nos. 79–1726, 80–2136, 86–2128. | May 20, 1987.
Opinion
ORDER
JUNE L. GREENE, District Judge.
*1 Upon consideration of defendants’ motion for a stay of the Court’s Order of December 22, 1986, of the memorandum in support thereof, of plaintiffs’ memorandum in opposition to the motion, and of the suggestion of plaintiffs John Doe, et al. and Twelve John Does, et al. regarding the motion, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Court’s order of December 22, 1986 is stayed until July 1, 1987, or until further order of the Court. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, effective immediately, the Honorable John D. Fauntleroy (retired), is appointed as a special officer of this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, to assist the Court in the finding of fact and devising appropriate measures to effect compliance with this Court’s Orders. Judge Fauntleroy’s term of appointment shall be two months from the date of this Order, subject to extension of the term at the request of the parties. Judge Fauntleroy’s tenure as Special Assistant to the Mayor shall be terminated during the

period that he is serving as special officer of the Court. His compensation for service as special officer of the Court shall be paid by Defendants. Judge Fauntleroy shall advise and assist the parties to fullest extent possible. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Judge Fauntleroy shall submit a report to the Court by June 19, 1987. Such report shall identify factors that affect defendants’ compliance with the Orders of this Court limiting the population at the Occoquan, Maximum and Central facilities, and shall provide recommendations to the Court concerning further Orders and other means by which this Court may effectuate compliance by defendants with its population orders. In preparing this report, Judge Fauntleroy may employ such experts and consultants as he finds necessary, the reasonable expenses and fees of such experts to be paid by defendants. Defendants shall continue to provide Judge Fauntleroy with office space and clerical assistance during his service as special officer of the Court. Judge Fauntleroy shall have unlimited access to any Department of Corrections (“Department”) records, files or papers. Defendants shall grant Judge Fauntleroy such access at any time and no advance notice shall be required. Judge Fauntleroy shall be authorized to conduct interviews and discussions, on a confidential basis or otherwise, with counsel for plaintiffs, any Department official or employee, with any Department inmate, and with any other person. Judge Fauntleroy shall be permitted to attend any institutional or Departmental meetings or proceedings. He may require written reports from any Department official or employee with respect to compliance with this Court’s population orders, and may require such reports from plaintiffs’ counsel as well. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may file comments on Judge Fauntleroy’s report by June 25, 1987. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing shall be held on June 29, 1987, to consider such further measures as may be appropriate to promote compliance with the Court’s Orders regarding population limits.
*2 SO ORDERED.
	  

1

 
 Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

1987 WL 13349 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, District of Columbia.
INMATES OF OCCOQUAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MARION BARRY, Mayor, et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 86–2128. | June 29, 1987.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge.
*1 Teamster Local Union No. 1714 (‘Union’), as the exclusive bargaining agent of some 2,600 employees of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (‘DCDC’), seeks to intervene as plaintiff in this action or, in the alternative, participate as amicus curiae, pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (‘Fed. R. Civ. P.’). For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the Union’s motion to intervene but will permit it to participate in this action as amicus curiae.
This case was tried to the Court, and an opinion and order followed on December 22, 1986, granting judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 650 F. Supp. 619 (D.D.C. 1986). The Union claims that the Court’s December 22, 1986, ruling affects directly the terms and conditions of its members’ employment. Further, the Union asserts that because no party represents the interests of DCDC employees, it should be permitted to intervene in order to protect its members’ interests in this fluid matter.
The Union undoubtedly has a significant interest in the issues presented in this action, e.g., prison overcrowding, environmental conditions, fire safety, etc. While these interests may justify commencing a lawsuit in appropriate circumstances, it does not mean necessarily that the Union has the kind of interest that will permit it to enter pending litigation. See Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1969).
A more useful point of departure in deciding a Rule 24(a)(2) request to intervene, is to consider whether the applicant may be impeded in protecting its interest by this action and whether the applicant’s interests are adequately represented by others. Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d at 179. The Union, as the exclusive bargaining agent for some

2,600 DCDC employees, occupies a privileged position from which to promote its members’ interest in a safe work place. Class action plaintiffs in this case, inmates at the Occoquan facilities, won a judgment based on violations of the Eighth Amendment. As a remedy, the Court imposed a population limit on the Occoquan facilities and initiated a reporting system to monitor various conditions there. Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 650 F. Supp. at 634–35. The Court does not perceive the disposition of this action as impairing or impeding the Union’s interest in ensuring a safer work place for its members. To the contrary, diligent compliance with the Court’s order could only serve to promote the Union’s desire to see safer working conditions at Occoquan, not to mention plaintiffs’ interests.
A proper examination of a Rule 24(a)(2) request to intervene requires further an examination of the adequacy of representation, i.e., a comparison of the applicant’s interest with the interest of the present parties. See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 578 F.2d 1341, 1346 (10th Cir. 1978). It cannot be said that the Union’s interests are not represented at all by the existing plaintiffs. Indeed, any success that plaintiffs realize in bringing about more humane conditions of incarceration translates readily into safer working conditions for those who work within the prison walls. In short, while the Court recognizes that plaintiffs’ interests and the Union’s goals do not converge fully, it does not perceive the differences between the interests of these parties to be significant enough to create a risk that plaintiffs will not provide adequate representation, albeit indirectly, of the Union’s interests. Moreover, the Union’s stature as the collective bargaining agent for the DCDC employees provides an avenue of special access to defendants, and this relationship cannot be overlooked. Cf. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 913 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (In ruling on a request to intervene, ‘the District Court must make a ‘discriminating appraisal of the circumstances of the particular case.’’) (quoting 7A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 1st ed. § 1909 at 533).
*2 Last, the Union’s complaint in intervention includes various factual allegations that were either asserted already by plaintiffs or would require some answer by defendants. Given the post-judgment status of this litigation, the Court finds that the necessity of adjudicating any new factual disputes would be most inappropriate.
Consequently, the Court will deny the Union’s motion to intervene in this action. Nonetheless, recognizing that the outcome of this litigation is sure to have a real impact on working conditions for Occoquan employees, and desirous of having the benefit of the Union’s views in implementing the remedy in this action, the Court will
1

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

invite the Union to participate as amicus curiae. An order is attached.
ORDER
Upon consideration of Teamster Local Union No. 1714’s (‘Union’) motion to intervene or, in the alternative, participate as amicus curiae, defendants’ opposition thereto, the Union’s reply, the entire record herein, and

for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is by the Court this 29th day of June 1987,
ORDERED that the Union’s motion to intervene is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the Union may participate in this action as amicus curiae.
	  

2