Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1
& Frank Askin, Esq.
Penny M. Venetis, Esq. • CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION CLINIC Rutgers Law School
15 Washington Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 (201) 648-5687 FA: 6724
Martin Glenn, Esq
Michael J. Holden, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022 (212) 326-2000 MJH - 9954

Filed 06/16/1997 Page 1 of 48
/

U

t ) :1

I

(Jf 97

ATRW

TA

WILLIAW T. WALSH

CLERK

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
___________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HAWA A.BDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKA.H,
CHARLES ADDAI, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE, YVETTE NSUKANI BADJOKO, GONZALO CRESPO,
JOSEPH DEER-AN, CECILIA KOU JEFFREY,
ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKtJMAR, ABRAHAM KENNEH, NAGENDRAN MANOHARAN, THOMAS KYEU MANU, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA,
JASMEL SINGH, FOLORUNSHO WASIU ALIBI, and
SARAH TETTEH YOWER,

Plaintiffs,

:

Vs.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO:
q7.30c3
COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES, INC., JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE fOYER,
JOHN DOE FREISS, JOHN DOE SILVA, JAMES
SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, JAMES POULAND, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, JOHN DOE BROWN, JOHN DOE BROWNDIE, JANE DOE CLARK, JOHN DOE EDIDER, JOHN DOE FEDER, JOHN DOE FIGEL, JOHN DOE GARCIA, JOHN DOE GILL, JOHN DOE HAWKINS, JOHN DOE HAYES, JOHN DOE HIGGS, JOHN DOE HUGHES, JOHN DOE HUNTER, JOHN DOE JACKSON, JOHN DOE JOHNSON, JOHN DOE KUTZ, JOHN DOE MELENDEZ, JANE DOE MICHELLE, JOHN DOE MOHAMMED, JOHN DOE NKENKE, JANE DOE PHIL, JOHN DOE SNEED, JOHN DOE STRATFORD, JOHN DOE: VANDERPOOR, JOHN DOE WILLIAMS, JOHN DOE
WILSON, JOHN DOE WALLINGTON, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-50,
Defendants.

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

Filed 06/16/1997 Page 2 of 48

S

PREUMINARY STATEMENT

1. This lawsuit is being brought by men and women who fled from political persecution and violence in their countries only to encounter cruel and abusive treatment at the hands of the United States government and its agents. These men and women applied for political asylum in the United States, pursuant to this country's laws. Instead of fmding a safe haven here, they were subjected to unremitting physical and psychological abuse, including beatings, sexual abuse, and racial hatred, at the hands of Defendant Immigration and Naturalization Service ("I.N.S.") and its agents.
2. Defendant ]I.N.5. warehoused these men and women in a detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Pursuant to a multimillion-dollar contract (hereinafter the "Contract"), this facility was run by Defendant Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. ("Esmor Corporation"), a private prison corporation. At this detention center (hereinafter "Esmor Elizabeth") Plaintiffs were served food that was not fit for human consumption, and were given dirty and ill-fitting clothing, including underwear that contained vestiges of human waste. In the "dorm rooms" where these men and women slept, dinirg tables and beds were inches away from filthy toilets and showers. The cruelty inflicted on these men and women lasted 24 hours a day. Guards who worked at Esmor Elizabeth would not let the men and women sleep. Overhead bright fluorescent lights were kept on night and day. The guards also blared music and television programs and held loud parties throughout the night. The guards would deliberately wake the men and women up as they nodded off to sleep and would conduct head counts during the night to taunt the asylees.

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 3 of 48

3. When the men and women asked for supplies to clean their clothes or the dorms, or complained about not being able to sleep, or not being able to practice their religious rituals, they were thrown into "segregation" -- tiny solitary confinement rooms where they were shackled, often to their beds, and deprived of access to sunlight and exercise.
4. The men and women complained about these abusive conditions to officials of Defendant I.N.S. stationed at Esmor Elizabeth and Esmor Corporation supervisors. They took no action to correct these abuses. After suffering under these inhuman conditions for 11 months, in the early morning of June 18, 1995, the men and women at Esmor Elizabeth could no longer endure the harsh conditions under which they were detained, and rebelled.
5. A subsequent report issued by the I.N.S. acknowledges that the events of
June 18, 1995 ("Event?) were sparked by the inhuman conditions at the Esmor Elizabeth facility. After the Events, the I.N.S. closed Esmor Elizabeth and discontinued its Contract with Defendant Esmor Corporation. Subsequently, the men and women detained there were transferred to other detention facilities throughout the United States. Some of the men and women have received political asylum, some stifi are detained by the LN.S., while others have been deported.
6. This action challenges Defendants' policies and practices of: (a) using excessive physical force against Plaintiffs; (b) subjecting Plaintiffs to psychological and emotional abuse; (c) placing Plaintiffs in solitary confinementor "segregation" without adequate due process protections; (d) permanently depriving Plaintiffs of their property, including valuables and legal documentation necessary to support theft claims for
2

S Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 4 of 48

political asylum; (e) refusing to grant Plaintiffs access to their attorneys or access to the courts; (t) failing to provide Plaintiffs with adequate medical care; (g) failing to provide Plaintiffs with an adequate diet; (h) failing to provide Plaintiffs with adequate and clean clothing; (i) failing to provide access to exercise and recreational activities; U) compelling Plaintiffs to engage in forced unpaid labor; and (k) refusing to allow Plaintiffs freedom to practice their religions.
7. This action also alleges that Defendants I.N.S. and the Esmor Corporation breached their contractual duty to Plaintiffs, who were the intended beneficiaries of the Contract. They also breached theft duty to the Plaintiffs by negligently hiring and retaining employees who they knew or should have known were abusing and violating Plaintiffs' rights.
8. Defendants include the I.N.S., the Esmor Corporation, and officers and employees of the I.N.S. and the Esmor Corporation. Each defendant either unrelentingly and continuously brutalized Plaintiffs in a way that violated their constitutional and human rights, or manifested deliberate indifference towards the violation of Plaintiffs' rights.
9. Plaintiffs bring this action for money damages to redress Defendants' violations of Plaintiffs' rights under the laws of the United States, the First, Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, the laws and Constitution of the State of New Jersey, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and international law, including the following international human rights treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the

3

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 5 of 48

American Convention on Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour.

JURJSDICHON 10. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 401. This court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) (diversity of citizenship); 8 U.S.C. § 1329 (jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Immigration and Naturalization Act); and Article Ill, Section 2[1] of the United States Constitution (jurisdiction over matters arising from violations of international treaties). 11. Subject matter jurisdiction of this Court is based also upon 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) in that the action includes tort claims against the I.N.S., a United States agency. Plaintiffs ified tort claims notices against the I.N.S. on April 3, 1997 and are waiting to learn the results of the agency's investigations. 12. A declaratory judgment is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202. 13. Venue is proper in this Court as all of the Plaintiffs were detained in this judicial district at Esmor Elizabeth and the Defendants' illegal acts occurred in this judicial district.

PARTIES 14. Plaintiffs are foreign nationals who arrived in the United States seeking political asylum prior to June 18, 1995. Plaintiffs, who were fleeing for theft lives, had to
leave their countries under assumed identities, and did not have proper documentation
4

I Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 6 of 48

to enter the United States. Because Plaintiffs did not have proper documentation upon arrival at airports in the New York metropolitan area, they were placed into custody at Esmor Elizabeth by the I.N.S. At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiffs were not accused of or convicted of any criminal activity.
15. Plaintiff HAWA ABDI JAMA is from Somalia. Jama arrived in the United States on August 24, 1994 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Jarna is approximately 27 years old. Jama remained at Esmor Elizabeth from August 24, 1994 until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which she was transferred to York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania. Jama has been granted asylum and lives in Clarkson., Georgia.
16. Plaintiff ABU BAKAR is from Sierra Leone. Bakar arrived in the United States on August 3, 1994 via John F. Kenneth International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Bakar is approximately 30years old. Bakar remained at Esmor Elizabeth from August 3, 1994 until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which he was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania and then to Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania. Bakar was granted political asylum and lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
17. Plaintiff ABRAJ-LkM KENNEH is from Liberia Kenneh arrived in the United States on December 9, 1994 via Newark International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Kenneh is approximately 27 years old. Kenneh remained at Esmor Elizabeth from December 9, 1994 until the spring of 1995. He was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania and then Berks County

S

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 7 of 48

Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania, where he was detained until April 1997. Kenneh has been released by the I.N.S. and lives in Queens, New York.
18. Plaintiff JOSEPH ACKAH is from Ghana. Ackah arrived in the United States on August 21, 1994 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Ackah is approximately 28 years old. Ackah remained at Esmor Elizabeth from August 21, 1994 until the spring of 1995, when he was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania and then Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania. Ackah has been returned to Ghana, at the behest of the I.N.5.
19. Plaintiff CHARLES ADDAJ is from Ghana. Addai arrived in the United States on August 10, 1994 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Addai is approximately 30 years old. Addai remained at Esmor Elizabeth from August 10, 1994 until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which he was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania and then Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania. Addai has been returned to Ghana, at the behest of the LN.S.
20. Plaintiff BENJAMIN ANANG is from Ghana Anang arrived in the United States on May 25, 1995 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Anang is approximately 28 years old. Anang remained at Esmor Elizabeth from May 25, 1995 until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which he was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania Currently, Anang is being detained at Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the I.N.S.
6

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1 Filed 06/16/1997 Page 8 of 48
21. Plaintiff KWEKU AWOTWE is from Ghana Awotwe arrived in the United States on April 29, 1995 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Awotwe is approximately 37 years old. Awotwe remained at Esmor Elizabeth from April 29, 1995 until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which he was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Currently, Awotwe is being detained at Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the I.N.S.
22. Plaintiff YVE'im NSUXAMJ BADJOKO is from Zaire. Badjoko arrived in the United States on November 20, 1993 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth after a short period of I.N.S. detention at Wicomico County Prison in Salisbury, Maryland. Badjoko is approximately 30years old. Badjoko remained at Esmor Elizabeth until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which she was transferred to the I.N.S. Varick Street Detention Center in New York City and then to York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania. Currently, Badjoko is being detained at Pike County Jail in Hawley, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the I.N.S.
23. Plaintiff GONZALO CRESPO is from Ecuador. Crespo arrived in the United States on April 1, 1995 via John F. Kennedy International Airport. Crespo is approximately 36 years old. Crespo was detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport for almost 48 hours without food or drink and then was transferred to Esmor Elizabeth. Crespo later was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Currently, Crespo is being detained at Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the I.N.S.
7

S Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 9 of 48

24. Plaintiff JOSEPH DEBRAH is from Ghana. Debrah arrived in the United States on November 14, 1994 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Wackenhut Facility in Queens, New York, upon arrival. Debrah is approximately 39 years old. Debrah was transferred to Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania and then to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania before he arrived at Esmor Elizabeth in the spring of 1995. Debrah remained there for approximately five and one-half weeks, after which he was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Currently, Debrah is being detained at Berks County Prison in L.eesport, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the I.N.S.
25. Plaintiff CECILIA KOU JEFFREY is from Liberia. Jeffrey arrived in the United States on April 13, 1995 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Jeffrey is approximately 41 years old. Jeffrey remained at Esmor Elizabeth from April 13, 1995 until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which she was transferred to the I.N.S. Varick Street Detention Center in New York City. Currently, Jeffrey is being detained at York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the I.N.S.
26. Plaintiff ANANTARAJAH JEYAKUMAR is from Sri Lanka Jeyakumar arrived in the United States on October 28, 1994 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Jeyakumar is approximately 28 years old. Jeyakumar remained at Esmor Elizabeth from October 28, 1994 until the spring of 1995, when he was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania Currently, Jeyakumar is being detained at Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the I.N.S.
8

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 10 of 48

27. Plaintiff NAGENDRAN MANOHARAN is from Sri Lanka. Manoharan arrived in the United States on November 4, 1994 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Manoharan is approximately 26 years old. Manoharan was detained at Esmor Elizabeth at various times between November 5, 1994 and the spring of 1995. Currently, Manoharan is being detained at the Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the I.N.S.
28. Plaintiff THOMAS KYEU MANU is from Nigeria. Manu arrived in the United States on May 8, 1995 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Manu's age is unknown. Manu remained at Esmor Elizabeth from May 8, 1995 until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which he was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Currently, Manu is being detained at Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the I.N.S.
29. Plaintiff DENNIS RAil is from Nigeria. Raji arrived in the United States on April 10, 1995 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Raji is approximately 30 years old. Raji remained at Esmor Elizabeth from April 10, 1995 until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which he was transferred to several detention facilities. Currently, Raji is being detained at the York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the LN.S.
30. Plaintiff SHAMILMU NANTEZA is from Uganda Nanteza arrived in the United States on September 13, 1994 via Newark International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Nanteza is approximately 22 years old. Nanteza remained at Esmor Elizabeth from September 13, 1994 until the Events of June
9

S Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 11 of 48

18, 1995, after which she was detained in various county prisons in Pennsylvania, at the behest of the J.N.S., until May of 1997. In May of 1997, the LN.S. deported Nanteza, in violation of an order issued by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. A motion is pending before that court that will determine whether the I.N.S. will be required to bring Nanteza back to the United States.
31. Plaintiff AGATHA SERWAA is from Ghana. Serwaa arrived in the United States on April 25, 1995 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Serwaa is approximately 34 years old. Serwaa remained at Esmor Elizabeth from April 25, 1995 until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which she was transferred to the Varick Street Detention Center in New York City. Currently, Serwaa is being detained at Pike County Jail in Hawley, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the I.N.S.
32. Plaintiff JASMEL SINGH is from India. Singh arrived in the United States on September 14, 1994 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Singh is approximately 28 years old. Singh was at Esmor Elizabeth from September 14, 1994 until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which he was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Currently, he is being detained at Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the I.N.S.
33. Plaintiff FOLORIJNSHO WASIU ALIBI is from Nigeria. Alibi arrived in the United States on September 2, 1994 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Alibi is approximately 30 years old. Alibi remained at Esmor Elizabeth from September 2, 1994 until the spring of 1995,
10

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 12 of 48

when he was transferred to Lehigh County Prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Currently, Alibi is being detained at Berks County Prison in Leesport, Pennsylvania, at the behest of the LN.S.
34. Plaintiff SARAH TETFEH YOWER is from Ghana. Yower arrived in the United States on January 30, 1995 via John F. Kennedy International Airport, and was detained at Esmor Elizabeth upon arrival. Yower is approximately 39 years old. Yower remained at Esmor Elizabeth from January 30, 1995 until the Events of June 18, 1995, after which she was transferred to York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania. Yower has been returned to Ghana, at the behest of the I.N.S.
35. Defendant I.N.S. is a federal agency that apprehended all Plaintiffs at airports in the New York City area, and confined them at Esmor Elizabeth. The I.N.S., at all times complained of, was responsible for overseeing that Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers detained at Esmor Elizabeth were treated in accordance with the Contract and the laws of the United States and New Jersey and with irnernational human rights law.
36. Defendants JOHN DOE McLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE. MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE BOYER, JOHN DOE FREISS, and JOHN DOE SILVA are officers of the I.N.S. whose duties included on-site supervision and administration of the Esmor Elizabeth facility and its staff. These Defendants were present or should have been present at Esmor Elizabeth on a continuous basis. (Hereinafter, Defendants McLean, Uzzle, Rozos, Boyer, Freiss, and Silva will be referred to collectively as "I.N.S. Official Defendants" or "Defendant I.N.S. Officials.") Defendant I.N.S. Officials were responsible for ensuring that mandates governing the detention of individuals by the
11

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 13 of 48

I.N.S. were carried out in conformance with the law. These defendants also were responsible for overseeing the Contract to ensure the care, custody and safe treatment of Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers. The I.N.S. Official Defendants acted with deliberate indifference towards the widespread continuous and unrelenting pattern of abuse exhibited by Defendant Esmor Corporation and its employees towards the Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers. Defendant I.N.S. Officials are being sued in their individual capacities.
37. Defendant ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., also known as Correctional Services Corporation ("Esmor Corporation"), is a Florida corporation. At all times referred to in this complaint, Defendant Esmor Corporation was doing business in New Jersey and was acting as an agent of Defendant I.N.S. pursuant to the Contract. Defendant Esmor Corporation, through its senior officials, promulgated and implemented policies -including policies regarding the use, reporting and investigation of force by uniformed staff, and the provision of food, medical, laundry and other program services mandated by the Contract and the law. In addition, Senior Esmor Corporation officials knew or should have known of the widespread pattern of brutality exhibited towards Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers at Esmor Elizabeth, and tolerated and failed to stop this brutality. This tolerance of widespread continuous and unrelenting brutality constitutes the Esmor Corporation's unwritten policies and customs endorsing the brutality.
38. Defendants JAMES F. SLAflERY and AARON SPIESMAN are executive officers of the Esmor Corporation. Defendant WILLARD STOVALL was the Facility Administrator of the Esmor Elizabeth facility. Defendant JOHN LIMA was the Assistant Facility Administrator of the Esmor Elizabeth facility. Defendants JAMES
12

S Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 14 of 48

POULAND, DIANE McCLURE, and RICHARD STALEY were at all relevant times supervisory employees of the Esmor Corporation. (Hereinafter Defendants Slattery, Speisman, Stovall, Lima, Pouland, McClure, and Staley will be referred to collectively as "Esmor Officer Defendants" or 'Defendant Esmor Officers.") Defendant Esmor Officers were responsible for the care, custody, and safe treatment of Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers, consistent with the Contract and other legal mandates governing the detention of individuals by the I.N.S. They also were responsible for all matters relating to the training, supervision, oversight, and discipline of the guards at Esmor Elizabeth. At all times referred to in this complaint, Defendant Esmor Officers were acting within the scope of theft employment as employees and agents of Defendants Esmor Corporation and I.N.S. The Esmor Officer Defendants acted with deliberate indifference towards the continuous and unrelenting widespread pattern of abuse exhibited by the guards at Esmor Elizabeth towards the Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers. Defendant Esmor Officers are being sued in their individual and official capacities.
39. Defendants JOFIN DOE BROWN, JOHN DOE BROWNDIE, JANE DOE CLARK JOHN DOE ED1DER, JOHN DOE FEDER, JOHN DOE FIGEL, JOHN DOE GARCIA, JOHN DOE GILL, JOHN DOE HAWKINS, JOHN DOE HAYES, JOHN DOE HIGGS, JOHN DOE HUGHES, JOHN DOE HUNTER, JOHN DOE JACKSON, JOHN DOE JOHNSON, JOHN DOE KUTZ, JOHN DOE MELENDEZ, JANE DOE MICHELLE, JOHN DOE MOHAMMED, JOHN DOE NKENKE, JANE DOE PH1L JOHN DOE SNEED, JOHN DOE STRATFORD, JOHN DOE TATE, JOHN DOE VANDERPOOR, JOHN DOE WILLIAMS, JOHN DOE WILSON, and JOHN DOE WALLINOTON were employed by the Esmor
13

S Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 15 of 48

Corporation as guards in the Esmor Elizabeth facility.' Defendants John and Jane Does 1-50 are guards who were employed by Defendant Esmor Corporation in the Esmor Elizabeth facility and whose names are unknown at this time. (Hereinafter Defendants John Doe Brown, John Doe Browndie, Jane Doe Clark, John Doe Edider, John Doe Feder, John Doe Figel, John Doe Garcia, John Doe Gill, John Doe Hawkins, John Doe Hayes, John Doe Higgs, John Doe Hughes, John Doe Hunter, John Doe Jackson, John Doe Johnson, John Doe Kutz, John Doe Melendez, Jane Doe Michelle, John Doe Mohammed, John Doe Nkenke, Jane Doe Phil, John Doe Sneed, John Doe Stratford, John Doe Tate, John Doe Vanderpoor, John Doe Williams, John Doe Wilson, John Doe Wallington, and John and Jane Does 1-50 will be referred to collectively as "Defendant Guards.") At all times referred to in this complaint, Defendant Guards were acting within the scope of theft employment as employees and agents of Defendants Esmor Corporation and I.N.S. Defendant Guards violated the Plaintiffs' civil rights and human rights by brutalizing them in a continuous and unrelenting manner. The Defendant Guards are being sued in theft individual and official capacities.

S supra note 1.
14

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 16 of 48

FACFUAL ALLEGATIONS Background
40. The Esmor facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey opened in August 1994, under a contract between the I.N.S, and Defendant Esmor Corporation. The intended purpose of the Esmor Elizabeth facility was to house persons while theft political asylum applications were pending. The facility was designed to hold 300 asylees, with an "emergencf capacity of 327. In March of 1995, the LN.S. ordered that the facility's occupancy be reduced to below 300. On the day of the June 18, 1995 Events, 315 asylees were being warehoused in the Esmor Elizabeth facility.
41. Prior to the Events, Defendant I.N.S. investigated Defendant Esmor Corporation's performance under the Contract. Defendant I.N.S. found that Defendant Esmor Corporation materially breached the Contract in numerous ways, and decided not to renew the Contract, (These breaches are documented by the I.N.S. in an interim report it published on July 20, 1995, hereinafter the "Interim Report," attached hereto as Exhibit A.) These breaches led to the I.N,S.'s decision not to renew the Contract. As discussed in detail throughout this complaint, each of these breaches of contract by Defendant Esmor Corporation caused harm to Plaintiffs. Among these breaches of contract were the following:
a. The Contract required Defendant Esmor Corporation to treat asylum seekers humanely and to protect the asylum seekers' physical well-being
and mental health. ($ Contract, subsection 12, p. 51.) In violation of
the Contract, Defendant Esmor Corporation failed to provide Plaintiffs
15

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

Filed 06/16/1997 Page 17 of 48

protection from personal abuse, corporal punishment, personal injury,
disease, property damage, and harassment ( Interim Report, pp. 7 and
10);
b. The Contract required that clean, suitable, and presentable clothing be issued to the asylum seekers twice weekly. (S Contract, subsection 7, p. 38.) In violation of the Contract, Defendant Esmor Corporation gave Plaintiffs dirty and soiled ill-fitting clothing on an irregular basis, but never more than once per week. Defendant Esmor Corporation also failed to provide the Plaintiffs with appropriate footwear (ç Interim Report, p. 28);
c. The Contract required that the Esmor Corporation provide personal hygiene products to the asylum seekers at no cost. (S Contract, subsection 7, p. 38.) In violation of the Contract, Defendant Esmor Corporation failed to provide to the Plaintiffs toiletries, including soap, shampoo, toothpaste, and feminine hygiene products S Interim Report, p. 6);
d. The Contract required that the physical plant provide natural light for the segregation units, as well as an outdoor recreational area. (SeeContract, subsection 5, p. 30.) In violation of the Contract, Defendant Esmor Corporation failed to provide natural light in the area above the segregation units. In addition, the recreational area was surrounded by a tall brick wall that provided only limited views of the sky. As a result,

16

S Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 18 of 48

Plaintiffs had minimal access to natural light ( Interim Report, pp. 25-
26); e. The Contract required that the Esmor Corporation interview, screen for
security clearance, and train all personnel for 40 hours before employing them. (S Contract, subsection 2, pp. 17-23; subsection 3, pp. 24-25.) The Contract also required that all new security personnel be provided with a total of 160 hours of orientation and training. (5 Contract, subsection 3, page 24.) In violation of the Contract, Defendant Esmor Corporation hired guards who did not meet specified minimum requirements, including security clearance; employed guards before providing them with the mandatory 40-hour training course; and failed to provide any additional training after hiring the guards. Also in violation of the Contract, there was inappropriate supervision of guards. (Ses, Interim Report, pp. 10, 15, and 18-19.) Thus, guards were able to abuse the Plaintiffs and violate theft rights. f. The Contract required that guards be assigned to all posts within the
facility. ( Contract, pp. 13-14.) Defendant Esmor Corporation failed to
hire an adequate number of guards to properly maintain the facility S Interim Report, p. 14); g. The Contract required that a written, itemized inventory of the asylum seekers' personal property be kept and that all property be returned to asylum seekers upon release. (S Contract, subsection 14, p. 53.) In violation of the Contract, Defendant Esmor Corporation failed to

17

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 19 of 48

reimburse Plaintiffs for personal property, money, or valuables for which Plaintiffs had receipts. The I.N.S. found that Esmor Corporation personnel lost, damaged, or stole asylum seekers' property (ei Interim Report, p. 9); h. The Contract required that Defendant Esmor Corporation maintain efficient and accurate records, including a log of all incidents or
unusual occurrences. ( Contract, subsection 4, pp. 26-27.) In violation
of the Contract, Defendant Esmor Corporation failed to maintain accurate records of incidents involving abuse of Plaintiffs. (S Interim Report, pp. 12-13.) In addition, contrary to the Contract, Defendant Esmor Corporation withheld from the I.N.S. information regarding violations or attempted violations of the standard of conduct, as well as criminal activity
of Esmor Elizabeth personnel (s ii);
The Contract required that the Esmor Corporation provide appropriate health care to the asylum seekers. (S Contract, subsection 8, pp. 39-43.) In violation of the Contract, Plaintiffs did not receive adequate health care, including screening for tuberculosis, and often had to wait inappropriately long to see a doctor for initial or follow-up treatment (s Interim Report, pp. 21-24); j. The Contract required the Esmor Corporation to hold hearings before placing any asylum seekers in administrative segregation or solitary confinement. (S Interim Report, p. 8.) Contrary to the Contract, the Esmor Corporation sent Plaintiffs to administrative segregation without
charging them or offering them an opportunity to be heard. ($Jj)
18

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

S Filed 06/16/1997 Page 20 of 48

The Physical Layout of Esmor Elizabeth Violated Plaintiffs' Privacy Rights and Exposed them to Unsanitary Conditions 42. Esmor Elizabeth was separated into several large rooms, or dorms. Between 20 and 40 asylees were packed into each dorm. The dorms were separated from each other, and the communal hallways of Esmor Elizabeth, by thick clear glass. The dorms were not kept clean and smelled of human waste and other filth. Plaintiffs took it upon themselves to clean theft living space, but were denied cleaning materials. In desperation, Plaintiffs sometimes used toothpaste and shampoo to clean the dorms. When Plaintiffs politely requested cleaning materials, they were beaten by Defendant Guards. 43. The shower and toilet in each dorm at Esmor Elizabeth were in the same room as the Plaintiffs' beds and dining area. The shower and toilet area were not equipped with a curtain or divider. Plaintiffs ate theft meals inches away from the filthy shower and toilet area. As they ate, they could observe and smell other asylum seekers using the toilets. In addition, Plaintiffs using the toilets and showers had no privacy, and could be observed by theft fellow asylees as well as by security guards. 44. The interim Report notes that the women's dorms, including the shower and toilet areas, were particularly visible to the hallway areas. (S Interim Report p. 26.) Many of the women Plaintiffs had never appeared naked before strangers before, and suffered severe emotional harm as a consequence of being forced to expose theft bodies to strangers. On a continuous basis, male Defendant Guards would ogle at and make fun of the female Plaintiffs while they were in the bathrooms and showers, and make sexual and crude comments about theft bodies.

19

• Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 21 of 48

45. The dorms lacked telephones and recreational materials. Plaintiffs did not have any way of diverting themselves as they sat in their filthy dorm rooms.

Defendants Denrived Plaintiffs of Fresh Food 46. Defendants deprived the Plaintiffs of adequate nutrition and deliberately served them spoiled food on a continuous basis. Plaintiffs who worked in the kitchen, including Plaintiff Bakar, were told to serve pre-packaged meat and food well past the expiration date on the packages. Kitchen workers were ordered to serve sour milk, even though fresh milk was in the refrigerator. Plaintiffs were not given sufficient quantities of food, and requests for additional food routinely were rejected. 47. Plaintiffs became ill as a result of eating the spoiled food. Plaintiff kitchen workers were told by Defendants Esmor Officers and Defendant Guards not to report food problems to I.N.S. inspectors who visited the facility. Nonetheless, on an ongoing basis, Plaintiffs reported the food problems to various Defendant I.N.S. Officials during regularly scheduled meetings.
Defendants Deprived Plaintiffs of Adequate Clothing and Personal Hygiene Necessities 48. On a continuous basis, Defendants denied the Plaintiffs adequate clothing. Although the Contract required that Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers be supplied with clean clothing twice a week, the Plaintiffs were given a change of clothes only weekly or every few weeks Plaintiffs who wanted clean clothing were left with no other alternative but to wash their own clothing in the dorm sinks. On a continuous basis, Plaintiffs were

20

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

S Filed 06/16/1997 Page 22 of 48

beaten by Defendant Guards for washing their clothes or for requesting detergent or soap.
49. Frequently, garments, including underwear, were dirty and soiled with human waste when Plaintiffs received them. Both men and women were given men's underwear. The underwear was often several sizes too big. Women Plaintiffs often received underwear with large question marks drawn in the crotch area.
50. On a continuous basis, Plaintiffs were denied basic personal hygiene necessities, such as soap, shampoo, towels, sheets, toothpaste, and feminine hygiene products. The number of toilet and shower facilities was insufficient to serve the Plaintiff populatioft

Defendants Denied Plaintiffs Their Right to Legal Assistance 51. Defendant Guards hindered the Plaintiffs' ability to reach their immigration attorneys by telephone. Defendant Guards refused to allow Plaintiffs to use the telephone to discuss theft cases with their asylum counsel. Oftentimes, this caused Plaintiffs to miss their asylum hearings. 52. Plaintiffs did not have access to a law library or any legal materials. 53. Defendant Guard Williams frequently denied Plaintiffs use of the telephone in retaliation for complaints Plaintiffs made at meetings between the Plaintiffs and Defendants Esmor Officers and I.N.S. Officials. 54. On a continuous basis, Defendant Guards failed to transport Plaintiffs to theft asylum hearings on time. This resulted in the postponement of Plaintiffs' asylum cases and a prolongation of their detention.
21

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

S Filed 06/16/1997 Page 23 of 48

Defendants' Physical and Mental Abuse of Plaintiffs 55. The Defendant Guards engaged in a continuous pattern and practice of abuse and degradation of the Plaintiffs. Defendant Guards frequently beat the Plaintiffs, oftentimes in response to Plaintiffs' requests for food, clothing, cleaning supplies, or use of the bathrooms. Defendant Guards also placed Plaintiffs in solitary confinement, without hearings. There, Plaintiffs were denied access to exercise, recreation, and natural light. Defendant Guards placed the Plaintiffs in shackles and other restraints when they were in solitary confinement -- at times chaining Plaintiffs to their beds -- and during visits with family members and attorneys. 56. Defendant Guards, as part of a continuous pattern and practice of abuse, also subjected Plaintiffs to extreme mental and emotional abuse. Defendant Guards verbally abused Plaintiffs by using racial and ethnic epithets and incessant profanity. Defendant Guards on the night shift did not permit the Plaintiffs to sleep. They blared the televisions and radios and kept the lights on 24 hours each day. Defendant Guards often woke Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers up whenever they nodded off to sleep for the purpose of taunting the Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers. 57. Defendant Guard Sneed, as part of a continuous pattern and practice of abuse, woke the Plaintiffs of Dorm D before sunrise and forced them to stand facing a wall, with their legs spread, for up to an hour each time. The frisks conducted by Defendant Guard Sneed would begin at the Plaintiff's ankle. Upon reaching the genitalia area, Defendant Guard Sneed would forcefully yank the Plaintiffs' genitals in an upward motion, causing Plaintiffs excruciating pain. Throughout this daily early-morning procedure, Plaintiffs were subjected to the constant verbal abuse of Defendant Guard
22

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 24 of 48

Sneed and other Defendant Guards. If a Plaintiff made any motion or sound that Defendant Guard Sneed found offensive, Defendant Guard Sneed would send Plaintiffs to solitary confinement, without a hearing.
58. When Plaintiff Ackah lived in Dorm D, he was responsible for part of the cleaning duties. On one occasion, Defendant Guard Sneed ordered Plaintiff Ackah to clean the bathroom. When Plaintiff Ackah explained that he already had completed his cleaning assignment, Defendant Guard Sneed punched him hard in the stomach. Defendant Guard Sneed then pushed Plaintiff Ackah and bashed Plaintiff Ackah's head against a wall. While beating Plaintiff Ackah, Defendant Guard Sneed screamed racial epithets at Plaintiff Ackah, such as "Fucking African! Go back to your own country! We don't need you here!" Plaintiff Ackah reported the incident to Defendant Guard Johnson, who took no action and merely told Plaintiff Ackah that "Sneed is a bad officer." Plaintiff Ackah later filed grievances with Defendant Esmor Officers and with Defendant I.N.S. Plaintiff Ackah never received a response to his complaint.
59. Defendant Guard Higgs severely beat Plaintiff Awotwe. Defendant Guard Higgs punched, slapped, and kicked Plaintiff Awotwe in response to Plaintiff Awotwe's inquiry as to why Defendant Guard Higgs was rummaging through Plaintiff Awotwe's documents supporting his claim for political asylum.
60. Defendant Guard Clark physically abused Plaintiff Jama by beating her with a hard boot in the presence of other Plaintiffs and another Defendant Guard. Defendant Guard Clark pulled Plaintiff Jama's hair and then pushed Plaintiff Jama against the wall where she kicked Plaintiff Jama repeatedly all over her body.

23

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 25 of 48

61. Defendant Guard Michelle punched Plaintiff Jeffrey in the abdomen when Plaintiff Jeffrey complained of severe menstrual cramps.
62. Defendant Guard Wallington, Defendant Guard Nkenke, and one other Defendant Guard attacked Plaintiff Raji in the middle of the night near the "booking desk." Defendant Guard Wallington shackled Plaintiff Raji's hands and feet to his bed for two hours. Plaintiff Raji then was placed in solitary confinement for several weeks without receiving a hearing.
63. On one occasion, Plaintiff Manu witnessed Defendant Guard Browndie brutally beat another asylum seeker, Addisson, for requesting to use the toilet. Defendant Guard Browndie repeatedly smashed Addisson's head against the wall, causing a severe head wound and profuse bleeding.
64. Defendant Guards shackled Plaintiff Bakar each time he took out the garbage or cleaned the visitation room, the corridor, or the "booking room." Plaintiff Bakar's hands, feet, and waist were chained every time he was taken to the doctor. Defendant Guards shackled Plaintiffs Anang and Debrah whenever either Plaintiff had to make a court appearance.
65. Plaintiffs Jama, Jeffrey, Nanteza, and Yower were shackled each time they visited with their family members or attorneys.
66. Defendant Guards repeatedly used ethnic and racial slurs when referring to the Plaintiffs. They called them African monkeys," and said that they came from the "jungle" and that they should go back to Africa if they did not like the conditions at Esmor Elizabeth.

24

I Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 26 of 48

67. Defendant Guard Tate and other Defendant Guards would not allow Plaintiffs to use the toilets when they woke up in the morning. These Defendant Guards would make them wait until the next Defendant Guards began their shift several hours later.

Defendants' Sexual Abuse of Plaintiffs 68. As part of a continuous pattern and practice of abuse, the Defendant

Guards often used their positions of authority to sexually abuse and humiliate Plaintiffs.

69. Plaintiffs Jeffrey, Nanteza, and Yower and the other women Plaintiffs in

their dorm were sexually abused by Defendant Guards who would inappropriately touch their bodies and breasts when they counted the Plaintiffs each night When the Plaintiffs

asked the Defendant Guards to stop touching them in a sexual manner, the Defendant

Guards responded that they considered these molestations to be privileges of their jobs.

70. Defendant Guards requested sexual favors from the women Plaintiffs.

Women Plaintiffs lived in fear of the Defendant Guards. Women Plaintiffs who did not

perform such favors were treated poorly and were denied access to the telephone to contact their lawyers. Defendant Guards coerced some women into performing sexual

favors so that they could use the telephones and receive fresh food from outside the

facility. 71,

Defendant Guards would sexually harass and assault the women Plaintiffs

who worked in the laundry room. Plaintiff Jeffrey asserts that Defendant Guard Johnson

repeatedly touched her breasts whenever she was at work.

25

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 27 of 48

72. Plaintiff Bakar asserts that he was sexually assaulted by Defendant Guard Gill. Plaintiff Bakar asserts that he awoke to find Defendant Guard Gill fondling his penis and touching his body. Plaintiff Bakar asserts that he immediately reported this incident to Defendant Guard Johnson, who was in charge of the dormitory, and that he received no response. Throughout the rest of Plaintiff Bakar's stay at Esmor Elizabeth, other Defendant Guards taunted Plaintiff Bakar for having been sexually assaulted.

Unlawful Forcible "Strip-Searches" of Plaintiffs 73. Defendant Guards, as part of a continuous pattern and practice of abuse, searched Plaintiffs en masse. These searches, which included strip-searches and bodycavity searches, were done in a manner designed to humiliate and degrade Plaintiffs. 74. Defendant Guards Brown, Wallington, Figel, Wilson, and Jackson, Esmor Officer Defendant Lima, and various other John Doe Defendants forcibly strip-searched the Plaintiffs in Dorms A through H. This included Plaintiffs Ackah, Addai, Alibi, Manoharan, and Bakar. The Defendant Guards entered the dormitories wearing black riot dress, rather than theft customary uniforms. The Defendant Guards ordered the Plaintiffs to strip, line up against the wall, and spread the cheeks of their buttocks, while a dog sniffed them. Defendant Guard Brown video-taped the entire search, including the body-cavity search. Defendant Guards fondled the penises of the Plaintiffs during the strip-search. Throughout the ordeal the Defendant Guards continuously insulted the Plaintiffs with profane language and ethnic and racial slurs about theft African heritage. Esmor Officer Defendant lima supervised this search.

26

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 28 of 48

Unlawful Solitary Confinement of Plaintiffs 75. As part of a continuing pattern and practice of abuse, Defendant Guards locked Plaintiffs in solitary confinement cells, which they referred to as "segregation." Defendants Guards sent Plaintiffs to segregation without warning or explanation and for unspecified periods of time, ranging from several days to several months. Plaintiffs were held for 24 hours a day in approximately 6 x 10-foot cells that lacked natural light. While in segregation, Plaintiffs often were shackled to their beds. The Plaintiffs received no exercise and were denied reading material while in segregation. 76. Plaintiff Raji was beaten, shackled, and placed in segregation by Defendant Guard Wallington because Defendant Guard Wallington had overheard Plaintiff Raji complaining to the Chief of Security and to other Plaintiffs about the theft of his money by Esmor Elizabeth personnel. Plaintiff Raji remained in segregation for three weeks without ever being informed of the charges a&ainst him and without having a hearing. While in isolation, Plaintiff Raji was not permitted to go outside and exercise and was denied reading material. 77. Plaintiff Kenneh was placed in segregation for approximately 16 days. Plaintiff Kenneh did not receive a hearing before being placed in segregation. While in segregation, one Defendant Guard commented to another guard that Defendant Guards could treat asylum seekers "any way they liked," because they were in the country "illegally." Mother Defendant Guard then commented that asylum seekers "must pay the price" and "must suffer" for coming to the United States illegally. Plaintiff Kenneh did not receive a hearing before his placement in segregation. While in segregation, Plaintiff Kenneh received no exercise and was denied reading material.
27

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 29 of 48

78. Defendant Guard Johnson placed Plaintiff Awotwe in segregation after Defendant Guard Higgs assaulted Plaintiff Awotwe. Plaintiff Awotwe was not told why he was placed in segregation, nor was he told how long he would be kept there. Also, he was not given a hearing. Plaintiff Awotwe was never allowed to leave his cell and had no exercise during his time in segregation. In addition, he was denied reading material. While in segregation, Plaintiff Awotwe could hear the cries of other Plaintiffs who were confined in nearby cells.
79. Defendant Guards shackled Plaintiff Bakar's legs and locked him in the "booking room." Plaintiff Bakar was left in the cold room overnight for 12 hours without food, heat, a bed, or a blanket. At no time did anyone inform Plaintiff Bakar why he was left alone in the cold "hooking room."
80. Plaintiff Anang witnessed the Defendant Guards beat Francis, an asylee who refused to take his clothes off for a strip-search. Defendants punched Francis all over his body, particularly in his stomach, and placed him in segregation for two weeks. Francis said he was not given a hearing before being placed in segregation, and also was denied reading material. He was not permitted to exercise.
81. Defendants placed Plaintiff Jama in segregation for two days after she was assaulted by Defendant Guard Clark. Defendant Clark had beaten Plaintiff Jama with a boot before placing her in segregation. Plaintiff Jama was not given a hearing before being placed in segregatioa While in segregation, Plaintiff Jama did not receive any exercise and was denied reading material.
82. Plaintiff Alibi took a medical request slip (which was located on Defendant Guard Sneed's desk in Dorm D) to report an illness to the Esmor Elizabeth medical
28

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

S Filed 06/16/1997 Page 30 of 48

staff. Defendant Guard Sneed accused Plaintiff Alibi of "spying." Defendant Guard Sneed then placed Plaintiff Alibi in segregation, where he beat Plaintiff Alibi. Plaintiff Alibi was not given a hearing before being placed in segregation. While in segregation, Plaintiff Alibi received no exercise and was denied reading material.
83. Plaintiff Kenneh witnessed Defendant Guard Mohammed accuse Adam, an asylee from Somalia, of taking the remote control of the television. Defendant Guard Mohammed punched Adam repeatedly and Adam subsequently was placed in segregation for 15 days. Adam told Plaintiff Kenneh that he did not receive a hearing before being placed in segregation. While in segregation, Adam did not receive any exercise and was denied reading material.

Defendants Coerced Plaintiffs To Perform Strenuous Labor For Which They Never Were Compensated
84. Pursuant to well-settled law, Plaintiffs, who were detained immediately upon entering the country, were not authorized to work in the United States or while in I.N.S. custody. In violation of Plaintiffs' rights, and the law, Defendants forced Plaintiffs to perform strenuous labor and did not compensate the Plaintiffs for their work.
85. During the construction of dormitories at Esmor Elizabeth, Plaintiffs Ackah, Addai, and other Plaintiffs performed manual labor, including carrying and installing heavy items such as metal for structural work, air conditioners, appliances, gym equipment, and other machines. Also, they were ordered to work for several hours each day assembling new beds, putting the beds in the proper dormitories, painting rooms,

29

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

S Filed 06/16/1997 Page 31 of 48

fixing the gym, and cleaning the facility. The Plaintiffs did not receive compensation for their work.
86. Plaintiff Awotwe was compelled to work in the kitchen at Esrnor Elizabeth daily from 5:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff Awotwe was paid only one dollar per day for his labor.
87. Plaintiff Bakar worked in the kitchen daily for 11 months. He was promised one dollar per day for his labors, but has never received any payment. Plaintiff Bakar was not permitted to take a day off when he was feeling sick. Plaintiff Bakar was threatened with beatings by Defendant Guards if he did not arrive at 5:00 a.m. for kitchen duty.
88. Plaintiffs Jeyakumar, Manoharan, and Bakar cleaned bathrooms and dormitories, and swept and mopped floors every day at Esmor Elizabeth. Plaintiffs Jeyakumar, Manoharan, and Bakar never received any payment for their labor.
89. Plaintiff Jama worked in the laundry room daily from September 1, 1994 until November 1, 1994. Plaintiff Jama worked every day from 7:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. and was paid only 10 dollars for two months of work.
90. Plaintiff Jeffrey worked in the laundry room daily from September 1, 1994 until November 1, 1994. Plaintiff Jeffrey worked every day from 7:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. and never received any compensation for her work.

30

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

S Filed 06/16/1997 Page 32 of 48

Defendants Deprived Plaintiffs of Theft Right to Exercise Their Religions
91. As part of a continuing pattern arid practice of abuse, Defendant Guards prevented Plaintiffs from practicing theft religious rituals. The Defendant Guards prohibited the women Plaintiffs from praying in the dormitory and ordered them to pray in the gym. The women Plaintiffs could not pray in the gym because they were given access to it only when it was being used for competitive sports. The gym was too loud and not conducive to the quiet contemplation required for prayer.
92. The Defendant Guards also prohibited the women Plaintiffs from observing Muslim rituals that required them to wear head coverings when they prayed. Defendant Guards denied requests by the women Plaintiffs for sheets to wear on their heads when they prayed. When women Plaintiffs used their bed sheets as head coverings, Defendant Guards repeatedly yanked the sheets from the their heads, interrupting their prayers.
93. Defendant Guards prevented Plaintiffs from observing Ramadan, the holiest holiday of the Islamic faith. During Ramadan, Muslims are required to fast during the day. They can only eat after sunset. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner at Esmor Elizabeth all were served before sunset. Defendant Guards refused to allow Muslim Plaintiffs who were fasting to save their dinner until after sunset. As a result, these Plaintiffs received no food for the whole day; only to continue fasting the following day. Defendant Guards' actions forced Plaintiffs to choose between going hungry for days and violating their religious practices and beliefs.

31

I Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 33 of 48

Defendants Deprived Plaintiffs of Their Personal Property 94. Plaintiffs took everything that they could carry when they fled their native countries for the United States. Some Plaintiffs converted theft savings into precious metal objects or jewelry for easier transportation. Defendant Guards took this property when Plaintiffs arrived at Esmor Elizabeth and gave them property vouchers in return. When Plaintiffs were moved from Esmor Elizabeth after the Events, their property was not returned to them or transferred to them. Indeed, the Interim Report noted that Defendant Esmor Corporation did not supervise its employees properly in administering the Plaintiffs' and other asylum seekers' accounts. (S Interim Report, pp. 31-32.) 95. On or about April 10, 1995, Defendant Guard Wallington punched Plaintiff Raji and forced him to sign a receipt that misrepresented the amount of money that Plaintiff Raji had in his possession when he arrived at Esmor Elizabeth. Defendant Guard Nken.ke witnessed Defendant Guard Wallington's coercion of Plaintiff Raji and assisted in a scam to deprive Plaintiff Raji of his money by promising him asylum. As a result of the conduct of Defendant Guards Wallington and Nkenke, Plaintiff Raji was deprived of $7448.45 of his money. Before and after the June 18, 1995 Events, Plaintiff Raji made repeated attempts to access his money by writing to Defendant I.N.S. To date, his missing money has not been returned to him. 96. Plaintiff Bakar's bag was taken from him by Defendant Guards when he arrived at Esmor Elizabeth. He was given a voucher for his bag. Plaintiff Bakar's bag contained video cassettes, a gold pen encrusted with two diamonds and valued at $2500, a gold watch, two suits, and three pairs of leather shoes. Although Plaintiff Bakar has requested his bag from Defendant I.N.S. several times, it never was returned to him.

32

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

I Filed 06/16/1997

Page 34 of 48

97. Plaintiff Jeyakumar had $2900 worth of jewelry and a $400 leather jacket when be arrived at Esmor Elizabeth. His property was taken from him by Defendant Guards when he entered the facility, and he received a voucher. His property was not returned to him after the Events. When he requested his property from Defendant I.N.S. after the Events, he was told that the whereabouts of the property were unknown.
98. Plaintiff Manoharan's bags were taken from him by Defendant Guards when he arrived at Esmor Elizabeth. Even though he has located one of his bags, that bag and its contents were ruined. His other bag, which was not returned to him after the Events, contained such valuables as jewelry, a typewriter, and important documents.
99. Several Plaintiffs were told by friends and relatives that the friends and relatives mailed them cash to use in the facility's commissary. The Plaintiffs never received this cash.
100. Plaintiff Awotwe had a suitcase that contained jewelry when he arrived at Esmor Elizabeth. His bag was taken from him by Defendant Guards and he received a voucher for his property. His possessions were not returned to him after the Events. He has requested this property from the I.N.S., but his property never has been returned.
101. Plaintiff Nanteza's property was taken from her by Defendant Guards upon her arrival at Esmor Elizabeth. Plaintiff Nanteza received a voucher for her property. Plaintiff Nanteza requested that Defendant I.N.S. return her possessions after the Events, but she has not received any of her property. Among the missing property is jewelry, clothing, religious cassettes, and a Bible.
102. Plaintiff Manu's personal possessions, including a camera, a set of earphones, a leather suitcase, and clothing, were taken from him by Defendant Guards
33

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1 Filed 06/16/1997 Page 35 of 48
when he arrived at Esmor Elizabeth. He received a voucher for his property. Plaintiff Manu has been able to retrieve his suitcase but not its contents. The suitcase was returned damaged.
103. Defendant Guards threw away Plaintiff Jeffrey's engagement and wedding rings while she was at Esmor Elizabeth. Defendant Guards also took away Plaintiff Jeffrey's suitcase, which contained her clothes and shoes. They gave her a voucher for this property. Her property has not been returned to her despite her repeated requests to the I.N.S.
104. Plaintiff Serwaa's belongings were taken from her by Defendant Guards at Esmor Elizabeth. These belongings included shoes, a leather coat and clothes. She received a voucher for her property. Her property has not been renirned to her despite repeated requests to the I.N.S.
105. On Januaiy 20, 1995, Esmor Officer Defendants Jima and Rozos informed Plaintiff Kenneh that his financial account of $3465.00 was frozen in order to pay for the medical treatment of another asylum seeker whom Plaintiff Kenneh had been accused of injuring. From January 20, 1995 to March 3, 1995, Plaintiff Kenneh had no access to his funds. Plaintiff Kenneh still does not have full access to his funds.
106. After the Events of June 18, 1995, individuals under the employment and supervision of Defendants I.N.S. and Esmor Corporation stood at the facility's door with large waste bins and took documents and other property belonging to the Plaintiffs. This property included documentation critical to Plaintiffs' asylum proceedings. When Plaintiffs attempted to preserve their property and documents, the property and documents were forcibly taken from them and thrown into the waste bins. Even
34

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

I Filed 06/16/1997

Page 36 of 48

documents that Plaintiffs identified as being related to theft asylum claims were thrown into the bins.
Defendants Denied Plaintiffs Adequate Medical Treatment 107. Plaintiffs were told that in order to see a doctor they had to fill out medical request forms. Plaintiffs frequently had to wait several days or weeks from the time they submitted a medical request form until they were examined. Plaintiffs who suffered from chronic illness such as heart disease and diabetes were not given medication for theft illnesses. The medical staff at Esmor Elizabeth dispersed only Tylenol for every medical ailment. As a result of waiting an unreasonable time to see a doctor and receiving inadequate health care, plaintiffs were harmed. 108. Plaintiff Jama sustained stomach and head injuries when she was severely assaulted by Defendant Guard Clark. Plaintiff Jama was offered only Tylenol for her injuries. 109. Plaintiff Badjoko has high blood pressure, but was never checked by a physician or given medication for her condition, even though she submitted several medical request forms to see a doctor. 110. Plaintiff Raji received severe beatings for reporting that Defendants Esmor Officers and Guards took his property and currency. Plaintiff Raji was beaten by Defendant Guards and placed in solitary confinement. He requested to see a doctor many times. He was not permitted to fill out a medical request form and was denied access to the doctor for treatment of his injuries.

35

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 37 of 48

111. Plaintiff Raji was exposed to tuberculosis when he was transferred to another I.N.S. detention facility in Allentown, Pennsylvania where there was a tuberculosis outbreak Plaintiff Raji was given tuberculosis medication while in the Allentown facility. Upon being taken back to Esmor Elizabeth, he requested tuberculosis medication and was denied it. Plaintiff Raji was never tested for tuberculosis at Esmor, even though he requested screening and medication.
112. For several months, Plaintiff Bakar submitted medical request forms detailing his severe abdominal pain. When he was finally examined, he had to have an emergency hernia operatioxt

The Complicity and/or Acquiescence by Defendants I.N.S. Officials, Esmor Comoration. and Esmor Officers in the Pattern of Abuse
113. Defendants I.N.S. Officials and Esmor Officers were fully aware, or should have been aware of the physical and mental brutality inflicted on the Plaintiffs by Defendant Guards. l'hroug.hout the 11 months that Esmor Elizabeth was operational, Defendant I.N.S. Officials, including Defendants Rozos, Uzzle, and Silva, held meetings, sometimes on a weekly basis, that were attended by Plaintiffs from various dorms, including Plaintiffs Ackah, Awotwe, Manu, and Jeffrey. During these meetings, Plaintiffs repeatedly informed these Defendants that they were subjected to constant physical, mental, and sexual abuse by Defendant Guards, that the food was spoiled, that the clothing was ifithy and inadequate to keep the Plaintiffs warm, that it was too cold in the facility, that they were denied health care and access to their counsel, that their property was missing, and that they were subjected to strip-searches. Defendant Rozos responded

36

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 38 of 48

each week that he could not do anything to remedy the problems because he was not an Esmor officer, and that he would discuss the abuses with Esmor Officer Defendant Stovall, the Esmor Elizabeth administrator. In addition, the Contract gave Defendant LN.S. Officials complete access to all records kept by Defendant Esmor Corporation regarding operation of the Esmor Elizabeth facility.
114. Defendant I.N.S. Officials had a duty to check these records to ensure that Plaintiffs' rights were not being violated by Defendant Esmor Corporation and its employees or agents. The Interim Report, attached hereto as Exhibit A, states that Defendants I.N.S. and I.N.S. Officials notified Defendant Esmor Corporation of at least some of the abuses inflicted on the Plaintiffs by the Esmor Corporation's employees and agents, putting it on actual notice of these abuses. Moreover, on a regular basis, whenever Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers saw Defendant Esmor Officers, they complained to them of the abuses they suffered at the hands of Defendant Guards. No action was taken to protect the Plaintiffs from the ongoing and continuous brutality discussed throughout this complaint.
115. Defendants I.N.S. Officials and Esmor Officers, as well as the command structure of Defendants I.N.S. and Esmor Corporation, knew or should have known that the pattern of brutality that violated Plaintiffs' rights was extreme and outrageous, and existed at Esmor Elizabeth. Defendants' failure to take measures to curb this pattern of brutality constitutes an acquiescence in the unlawfW behavior of the Defendant Guards. The widespread extent of these practices, and general knowledge of theft existence, and the failure of these Defendants to take remedial action after the misuse of force was brought to their attention, constitutes deliberate indifference to the rights and safety of
37

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 39 of 48

the Plaintiffs and other men and women in theft care and custody. These Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in the continuation of the pattern of brutality, and a proximate cause of the violations (constitutional, human, stamtoiy, and common law) alleged in this complaint.
116. The pattern of unrestrained physical and mental brutality by Defendant Guards, the failure of Defendants I.N.S. Officials and Esmor Officers to stop this brutality, and the failure of Defendants Esmor Corporation and I.N.S. to conduct unbiased and thorough investigations of this brutality and to engage in prompt and meaningful discipline of its employees, became so institutionalized as to demonstrate a policy or custom of deliberate indifference that tacitly authorized and permitted the physical and mental brutality of Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers at Esmor Elizabeth. It was this policy or custom, by which the Esmor Corporation employees at Esmor Elizabeth remained free to brutalize the asylum seekers at Esmor Elizabeth and cover up their unlawful conduct, that caused the deprivation of Plaintiff? (constitutional, human, statutory, and common law) rights.
117. Defendants I.N.S. and Esmor Corporation failed and refused to hold accountable Defendants I.N.S. Officials, Esmor Officers, and Guards in the face of evidence of frequent, significant misconduct. This failure is a proximate cause of the harm suffered by the Plaintiffs and other asylum seekers at Esmor Elizabeth.

38

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

S Filed 06/16/1997 Page 40 of 48

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT I.N.S. 1st Cause of Action
118. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 117 above.
119. Defendant I.N.S. is responsible, under the theory of respondent superior of New Jersey state law, and consequently, the Federal Tort Claims Act, for the intentional torts -- including battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress -- of Defendants Esmor Corporation, Esmor Officers, and Esmor Guards. The torts conmiitted against the Plaintiffs arose from the actions the Esmor Defendants were employed to perform while fulfilling the Contract with Defendant I.N.S., and occurred solely within Esmor Elizabeth, while these defendants were fulfilling theft contractual obligation to Defendant I.N.S.

2nd Cause of Action 120. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 119 above. 121. Defendant I.N.S. breached its contractual duties of care to Plaintiffs, who were intended third party beneficiaries of the Contract. As a result of the breach, Plaintiffs suffered severe physical and mental harm.

39

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 41 of 48

3rd Cause of Action 122. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 121 above. 123, Defendant I.N.S. by its failure to exercise ordinaiy care in the selection, training, supervision and evaluation of Defendants Esmor Corporation, Esmor Officers, and Guards is liable under the laws to the state of New Jersey and the Federal Tort Claims Act for the harm caused to Plaintiffs as a result of these acts and omissions.

4th Cause of Action 124. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 123 above. 125. Defendant I.N.S. had a duty to ensure that Plaintiffs' personal property, which was confiscated from Plaintiffs upon their detention at Esmor Elizabeth, remained safe and could be recovered by Plaintiffs when they were released from I.N.S. detention. 126. Defendant I.N.S. failed to protect Plaintiffs' personal property. Pursuant to New Jersey state law and the Federal Tort Claims Act, Defendant I.N.S. is responsible for reimbursing Plaintiffs for the value of their missing property.

5th Cause of Action 127. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 126 above. 128. By failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality against Plaintiffs at Esmor Elizabeth, Defendant I.N.S. violated Plaintiffs right
40

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1

I Filed 06/16/1997

Page 42 of 48

to be treated with humanity and with respect; their right to have theft physical, mental, and moral integrity respected; and their right to life, liberty, and security in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10(1), and in violation of customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(1), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3.

6th Cause of Action 129. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 128 above. 130. By failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of abuse of Plaintiffs being placed in solitary confinement without a hearing. Defendant I.N.S. deprived Plaintiffs of their liberty rights, in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(4), and in violation of customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 8(1).
7th Cause of Action 131. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 130 above. 132. By failing to ensure that Plaintiffs' personal property was protected and that Plaintiffs were not deprived of their personal property without compensation, Defendant I.N.S. violated customary international law as informed by the American

41

I Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

Filed 06/16/1997 Page 43 of 48

Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 1(2), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17(2),
8th Cause of Action 133. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 132 above. 134. Defendant I.N.S. substantially burdened Plaintiffs' rights to the free exercise of their religion guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., by failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality of Plaintiffs who attempted to practice their religions.

9th Cause of Action 135. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 134 above. 136. By failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality of Plaintiffs who attempted to practice their religions, Defendant I.N.S. deprived Plaintiffs of theft right to manifest their religion or belief in worship, observance, and practice, in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18(1)-(2), in violation of customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 12(1)-(2), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.

42

I Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 44 of 48

10th Cause of Action 137. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 138 above. 138. By failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality of Plaintiffs who were forced to engage in unpaid labor, Defendant I.N.S. violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 8(2), and violated customary international law as informed by the Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, Article 1(1), the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1)-(2), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4.

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT LN.S. OFFICIALS 11th Cause of Action
139. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 138 above.
140. Defendant I.N.S. Officials violated Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due process rights by failing to curb the widespread pattern of brutality at Esmor Elizabeth, which included the following:
(a) Plaintiffs were arbitrarily beaten by Defendant Guards; (b) Plaintiffs were placed in solitary confinement for indefinite periods of time without any hearing, method of recourse, or appeal; (c) Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted by Defendant Guards; (d) Plaintiffs were coerced into performing sexual acts in return for services due to them under the Contract and special privileges;
43

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 45 of 48

(e) Plaintiffs were ogled and demeaned by Defendant Guards who watched them and made lewd remarks as they used the toilets and showered;
(f) Plaintiffs were subjected to unwarranted and unreasonable searches, including strip-searches, some of which were videotaped;
(g) Plaintiffs were continuously subjected to verbal abuse by Defendant Guards, including racial and ethnic slurs;
(h) Plaintiffs were not provided with adequate clothing and personal hygiene supplies;
(i) Plaintiffs' personal property was either confiscated or destroyed while they were detained at Esmor Elizabeth;
(j) Plaintiffs were consistently served spoiled food; (k) Plaintiffs were denied adequate and appropriate medical attention; (1) Plaintiffs were denied access to theft counsel.

12th Cause of Action 141. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 140 above. 142. Defendant I.N.S. Officials violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 20 of the New Jersey Constitution by failing to curb the widespread pattern of brutality at Esmor Elizabeth, which included the following: (a) Plaintiffs were arbitrarily beaten by Defendant Guards; (b) Plaintiffs were placed in solitary confinement for indefinite periods of time without any hearing, method of recourse, or appeal;
44

I Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 46 of 48

(c) Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted by Defendant Guards; (d) Plaintiffs were coerced into performing sexual acts in return for services due to them under the Contract and special privileges; (e) Plaintiffs were ogled and demeaned by Defendant Guards who watched them and made lewd remarks as they used the toilets and showered; (f) Plaintiffs were subjected to unwarranted and unreasonable searches, including strip-searches, some of which were videotaped; (g) Plaintiffs were continuously subjected to verbal abuse by Defendant Guards, including racial and ethnic slurs; (h) Plaintiffs were not provided with adequate clothing and personal hygiene supplies; (i) Plaintiffs' personal property was either confiscated or destroyed while they were detained at Esmor Elizabeth; (J) Plaintiffs were consistently served spoiled food; (k) Plaintiffs were denied adequate and appropriate medical attention; (1) Plaintiffs were denied access to theft counsel.

13th Cause of Action 143. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 142 above. 144. By failing to curb the widespread pattern of brutality at Esmor Elizabeth, Defendant I.N.S. Officials violated Plaintiffs' right to be treated with humanity and with respect; right to have theft physical, mental, and moral integrity respected; and theft
45

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

. Filed 06/16/1997

Page 47 of 48

right to life, liberty, and security in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10(1), and in violation of customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(1), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3.

14th Cause of Action 145. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 144 above. 146, Defendant I.N.S. Officials acted with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs' human rights by failing to ensure that Plaintiffs received a hearing before being placed in solitary confinement. Defendant I.N.S. Officials' conduct, in this respect, is a direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(4), and a violation of customary international law, as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 8(1).

15th Cause of Action 147. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 146 above. 148. Defendant I.N.S. Officials acted with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs being deprived of theft personal property without any compensation. Defendant I.N.S. Officials' conduct, in this respect, violated customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 21(2), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17(2).
46

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1

S Filed 06/16/1997 Page 48 of 48

16th Cause of Action 149. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 148 above. 150. Defendant I.N.S. Officials violated Plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by acting with deliberate indifference towards the widespread pattern of brutality inflicted on Plaintiffs when they attempted to exercise theft religions.
17th Cause of Action 151. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 150 above. 152, Defendant I.N.S. Officials violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution by acting with deliberate indifference towards the widespread pattern of brutality inflicted on Plaintiffs when they attempted to exercise theft religions.
18th Cause of Action 153. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 152 above. 154. Defendant I.N.S. Officials, by acting with deliberate indifference towards the widespread pattern of brutality inflicted on Plaintiffs when they attempted to exercise

47

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2

IFiled 06/16/1997

Page 1 of 50

their religions, substantially burdened Plaintiffs' right to the free exercise of their religion guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.

19th Cause of Action 155. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 154 above. 156. By acting with deliberate indifference towards the widespread pattern of brutality inflicted on Plaintiffs when they attempted to exercise theft religions, Defendant I.N.S. Officials deprived Plaintiffs of their right to manifest their religion or belief in worship, observance, and practice. In this respect, Defendant I.N.S. Officials violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18(1)-(2), and violated customary international law, as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 12(1)-(2), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.

20th Cause of Action 157. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 156 above. 158. Defendant I.N.S. Officials violated Plaintiffs' rights to be free from involuntary servitude guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by acting with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs' engagement in forced, unpaid labor.

48

S Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/1997 Page 2 of 50
21st Cause of Action 159. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 158 above. 160. Defendant I.N.S. Officials violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution by acting with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs' engagement in forced, unpaid labor.
22nd Cause of Action 161. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 160 above. 162. Defendant I.N.S. Officials violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 206, by failing to compensate Plaintiffs for the work they performed while detained at Esmor Elizabeth.
23rd Cause of Action 163. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 162 above. 164. Defendant I.N.S. Officials acted with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs' engagement in forced, unpaid labor. In this respect. LN.S. Officials violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 8(2), and violated customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights,
49

S Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 3 of 50

Article 6(1)-(2), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4, and the Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, Article 1(1).

24th Cause of Action 165. Plaintiffs repeat and allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 164 above. 166. By their failure to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the selection, training, supervision and evaluation of Defendants Esmor Corporation, Esmor Officers and Guards, Defendant L.N.S. Officials are liable to Plaintiffs under the laws of the state of New Jersey for the harm caused to Plaintiffs as a result of these acts and omissions.

25th Cause of Action 167. Plaintiffs repeat and allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 166 above. 168. Defendant I.N.S. Officials had a duty to ensure that Plaintiffs personal property, which was confiscated from Plaintiffs upon their detention at Esmor Elizabeth, remained safe and could be recovered by Plaintiffs when they were released from J.N.S. detention. 169. Defendant I.N.S. Officials failed to protect Plaintiffs personal property. Pursuant to New Jersey state law, the I.N.S. Official Defendants are responsible for reimbursing Plaintiffs for the value of their missing property.

50

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 4 of 50

26th Cause of Action 170. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 169 above.
171. Defendant I.N.S. Officials had a duty to ensure that Plaintiffs' were not
physically or mentally abused. Defendant I.N.S. Officials failed to protect Plaintiffs from the severe physical and mental abuse they suffered while detained at Esmor Elizabeth. Pursuant to New Jersey state law, Defendant I.N.S. Officials are liable to Plaintiffs for the harm they suffered while detained at Esmor Elizabeth.

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT ESMOR CORPORATION 27th Cause of Action
172. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 171 above.
173. Defendant Esmor Corporation violated Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due process rights by failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality at Esmor Elizabeth, which included the following:
(a) Plaintiffs were arbitrarily beaten by Defendant Guards; (b) Plaintiffs were placed in solitary confinement for indefinite periods of time without any hearing, method of recourse, or appeal; (c) Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted by Defendant Guards; (d) Plaintiffs were coerced into performing sexual acts in return for services due to them under the Contract and for special privileges;
51

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

Filed 06/16/1997 Page 5 of 50

(e) Plaintiffs were ogled and demeaned by Defendant Guards who watched them and made lewd remarks as they used the toilets and showered;
(f) Plaintiffs were subjected to unwarranted and unreasonable searches, including strip-searches, some of which were videotaped;
(g) Plaintiffs were continuously subjected to verbal abuse by Defendant Guards, including ethnic and racial slurs;
(h) Plaintiffs were not provided with adequate clothing and personal hygiene supplies;
(i) Plaintiffs' personal property was either confiscated or destroyed while they were detained at Esmor Elizabeth;
Plaintiffs were consistently served spoiled food; (k) Plaintiffs were denied adequate and appropriate medical attention; (1) Plaintiffs were denied access to their counsel.

28th Cause of Action 174. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 173 above. 175. Defendant Esmor Corporation violated Plaintiffs' due process rights under Arlicle I, Paragraphs I and 20 of the New Jersey Constitution by failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality at Esmor Elizabeth, which included the following: (a) Plaintiffs were arbitrarily beaten by Defendant Guards;
52

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 6 of 50

(b) Plaintiffs were placed in solitary confinement for indefinite periods of time without any hearing, method of recourse, or appeal;
(c) Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted by Defendant Guards; (d) Plaintiffs were coerced into performing sexual acts in return for services due to them under the Contract and for special privileges; (e) Plaintiffs were ogled and demeaned by Defendant Guards who watched them and made lewd remarks as they used the toilets and showered; (t) Plaintiffs were subjected to unwarranted and unreasonable searches, including strip-searches, some of which were videotaped; (g) Plaintiffs were continuously subjected to verbal abuse by Defendant Guards, including racial and ethnic slurs; (h) Plaintiffs were not provided with adequate clothing and personal hygiene supplies; (1) Plaintiffs' personal property was either confiscated or destroyed while they were detained at Esmor Elizabeth; Q) Plaintiffs were consistently served spoiled food; (k) Plaintiffs were denied adequate and appropriate medical attention; (I) Plaintiffs were denied access to their counsel.

53

S Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/1997 Page 7 of 50
29th Cause of Action 176. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 175 above. 177. Defendant Esmor Corporation breached its contractual duties of care to Plaintiffs, who were intended third party beneficiaries of the Contract. As a result of the breach, Plaintiffs suffered severe physical and mental harm.
30th Cause of Action 178. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 177 above. 179. By failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality inflicted against Plaintiffs at Esmor Elizabeth, Defendant Esmor Corporation violated Plaintiffs' right to be treated with humanity and with respect; their right to have their physical, mental, and moral integrity respected; and theft right to life, liberty, and security in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10(1), and in violation of customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(1), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3.
54

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 8 of 50

31st Cause of Action 180. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 179 above. 181. By failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of abuse of Plaintiffs being placed in solitary confinement without a hearing, Defendant Esmor Corporation deprived Plaintiffs of their liberty rights, in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(4), and in violation of customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 8(1).
32nd Cause of Action 182. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 181 above. 183. By failing to take appropriate steps to ensure that Plaintiffs' personal property was protected and that Plaintiffs were not deprived of theft personal property without compensation, Defendant Esmor Corporation violated customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 21(2), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17(2).
33rd Cause of Action 184. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 183 above.

55

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

IFiled 06/16/1997

Page 9 of 50

185. Defendant Esmor Corporation violated Plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality of Plaintiffs who attempted to exercise their religions.
34th Cause of Action 186. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 185 above. 187. Defendant Esmor Corporation violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution by failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality of Plaintiffs who attempted to exercise theft religions.

35th Cause of Action 188. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 187 above. 189. Defendant Esmor Corporation substantially burdened Plaintiffs' right to the free exercise of theft religion guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et sea, by failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality of Plaintiffs who attempted to exercise their religions.

56

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

IFiled 06/16/1997

Page 10 of 50

36th Cause of Action 190. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 189 above. 191. By failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality of Plaintiffs who attempted to exercise their religions, Defendant Esmor Corporation deprived Plaintiffs of their right to manifest their religion or belief in worship, observance, and practice, in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18(1)-(2), and in violation of customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 12(1)-(2), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.

37th Cause of Action 192. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 191 above. 193. By failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality of Plaintiffs who were forced to engage in unpaid labor, Defendant Esmor Corporation violated the Plaintiffs' right to be free from involuntary servitude, guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

38th Cause of Action 194. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 193 above.
57

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

Filed 06/16/1997 Page 11 of 50

195. Defendant Esmor Corporation violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, by failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality of Plaintiffs who were forced to engage in unpaid labor.

39th Cause of Action 196. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 195 above. 197. Defendant Esmor Corporation violated the Fair L.abor Standards Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 206, by failing to compensate Plaintiffs for the work they performed while detained at Esmor Elizabeti

40th Cause of Action 198. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 197 above. 199. By failing to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality of Plaintiffs who were forced to engage in unpaid labor, Defendant Esmor Corporation violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 8(2), and violated Plaintiffs' rights under customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1)-(2), the Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, Article 1(1), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4.
58

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 12 of 50

41st Cause of Action 200. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 199 above. 201. Defendant Esmor Corporation had a duty to ensure that Plaintiffs' personal property, which was confiscated from Plaintiffs upon theft detention at Esmor Elizabeth, remained safe and could be recovered for Plaintiffs when they were released from I.N.S. detention. 202. Defendant Esmor Corporation failed to protect Plaintiffs' personal property. Pursuant to New Jersey state law, Defendant Esmor Corporation is responsible for reimbursing Plaintiffs for the value of theft missing property.

42nd Cause of Action 203. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 202 above. 204. Defendant Esmor Corporation, by its failure to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the selection, training, supervision, and evaluation of Defendants Esmor Officers and Guards, is liable to Plaintiffs under the law as of the State of New Jersey for the harm caused to Plaintiffs as a result of these acts and omissions.

43rd Cause of Action 205. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 204 above.
59

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 13 of 50

206. Defendant Esmor Corporation is responsible, under the theory of respondeat superior of New Jersey State law, for the intentional torts --including battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress -- perpetrated by Defendant Guards against Plaintiffs.

CLAIMS AGAINST ESMOR OFFICER DEFENDANTS 44th Cause of Action
207. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 206 above.
208. Defendant Esmor Officers violated Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due process rights by failing to curb the widespread pattern of brutality at Esmor Elizabeth, which included the following:
(a) Plaintiffs were arbitrarily beaten by Defendant Guards; (b) Plaintiffs were placed in solitary confinement for indefinite periods of time without any hearing, method of recourse, or appeal; (c) Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted by Defendant Guards; (d) Plaintiffs were coerced into performing sexual acts in return for services due to them under the Contract and for special privileges; (e) Plaintiffs were ogled and demeaned by Defendant Guards who watched them and made lewd remarks as they used the toilets and showered; (t) Plaintiffs were subjected to unwarranted and unreasonable searches, including strip-searches, some of which were videotaped;
60

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 14 of 50

(g) Plaintiffs were continuously subjected to verbal abuse by Defendant Guards, including racial and ethnic slurs;
(h) Plaintiffs were not provided with adequate clothing and personal hygiene supplies;
(i) Plaintiffs' personal property was either confiscated or destroyed while they were detained at Esmor Elizabeth;
(I) Plaintiffs were consistently served spoiled food; (k) Plaintiffs were denied adequate and appropriate medical attention; (1) Plaintiffs were denied access to their counsel.

45th Cause of Action 209. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 208 above. 210. Defendant Esmor Officers violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 20 of the New Jersey Constitution by failing to curb the widespread pattern of brutality at Esmor Elizabeth, which included the following: (a) Plaintiffs were arbitrarily beaten by Defendant Guards; (b) Plaintiffs were placed in solitary confinement for indefinite periods of time without any hearing, method of recourse, or appeal; (c) Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted by Defendant Guards; (d) Plaintiffs were coerced into performing sexual acts in return for services due to them under the Contract and for special privileges;
61

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 15 of 50

(e) Plaintiffs were ogled and demeaned by Defendant Guards who watched them and made lewd remarks as they used the toilets and showered;
(t) Plaintiffs were subjected to unwarranted and unreasonable searches,
including strip-searches, some of which were videotaped; (g) Plaintiffs were continuously subjected to verbal abuse by Defendant
Guards, including racial and ethnic slurs; (h) Plaintiffs were not provided with adequate clothing and personal hygiene
supplies; (i) Plaintiffs' personal property was either confiscated or destroyed while they
were detained at Esmor Elizabeth; (j) Plaintiffs were consistently served spoiled food; (k) Plaintiffs were denied adequate and appropriate medical attention; (1) Plaintiffs were denied access to their counsel.

46th Cause of Action 211. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 210 above. 212. By failing to curb the widespread pattern of brutality at amor Elizabeth, Defendant Esmor Officers violated Plaintiffs' right to be treated with humanity and with respect; right to have their physical, mental, and moral integrity respected; and their right to life, liberty, and security in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10(1), and in violation of customaq international law
62

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 16 of 50

as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(1) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3.

47th Cause of Action 213. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 212 above. 214. Defendant Esmor Officers acted with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs' human rights by failing to ensure that Plaintiffs received a hearing before being placed in solitary confinement. The Esmor Officers' conduct, in this respect, is a direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(4), and is a violation of customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 8(1).

48th Cause of Action 215. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 214 above. 216. Defendant Esmor Officers acted with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs being deprived of their personal property without any compensation. Defendant Esmor Officers' conduct, in this respect, violated customary international law, as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 1(2),. and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17(2).

63

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 17 of 50

49th Cause of Action 217. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 216 above. 218. Defendant Esmor Officers violated Plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by acting with deliberate indifference towards the widespread pattern of brutality inflicted on Plaintiffs when they attempted to exercise their religions.

50th Cause of Action 219. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 218 above. 220. Defendant Esmor Officers violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution by acting with deliberate indifference towards the widespread pattern of brutality inflicted on Plaintiffs when they attempted to exercise theft religions.

51st Cause of Action 221. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 220 above. 222. By acting with deliberate indifference towards the widespread pattern of brutality inflicted on Plaintiffs when they attempted to exercise theft religions, Defendant

64

S Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 18 of 50

Esmor Officers substantially burdened Plaintiffs' rights to the free exercise of their
.i religion guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb

52nd Cause of Action 223. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 222 above. 224. By acting with deliberate indifference towards the widespread pattern of brutality inflicted on Plaintiffs when they attempted to exerdse theft religions, Defendant Esmor Officers deprived Plaintiffs of their right to manifest their religion or belief in worship, observance, and practice, in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18(1)-(2), and in violation of customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 12(1)-(2), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.

53rd Cause of Action 225. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 224 above. 226. Defendant Esmor Officers violated Plaintiffs' rights to be free from involuntary servitude guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, by acting with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiff? engagement in forced, unpaid labor.

65

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 19 of 50

54th Cause of Action 227. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 226 above. 228. Defendant Esmor Officers violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution by acting with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs' engagement in forced, unpaid labor.

55th Cause of Action 229. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 though 228 above. 230, Defendant Esmor Officers violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 206, by failing to compensate Plaintiffs for the work they performed while detained at Esmor Elizabeth.

56th Cause of Action 231. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I though 230 above. 232.Defendant Esmor Officers acted with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs' engagement in forced, involuntary labor. In this respect, Defendant Esmor Officers violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 8(2), and violated customary international law as informed by the American Convention on

66

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 20 of 50

Human Rights, Article 6(1)-(2), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4, the Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, Article 1(1).

57th Cause of Action 233. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 232 above. 234. The Esmor Officer defendants are responsible, under the theory of respondeat superior of New Jersey state law, for the intentional torts -- including battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress -- perpetrated by Defendant Guards against Plaintiffs.

58th Cause of Action 235. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 234 above. 236. Defendant Esmor Officers had a duty to ensure that Plaintiffs' personal property, which was confiscated from Plaintiffs upon theft detention at Esmor Elizabeth, remained safe and could be recovered by Plaintiffs when they were released I.N.S. detention. 237. Defendant Esmor Officers failed to protect Plaintiffs' personal property. Pursuant to New Jersey state law, the Esmor Officer Defendants are responsible for reimbursing Plaintiffs for the value of their missing property.

67

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

Filed 06/16/1997 Page 21 of 50

59th Cause of Action 238. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 237 above. 239. Esmor Officer Defendants, by their failure to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the selection, training, supervision and evaluation of Defendant Guards, are liable to Plaintiffs under the laws of the State of New Jersey for the harm caused to Plaintiffs as a result of these acts and omissions.

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT GUARDS 60th Cause of Action
240. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 239 above.
241. Defendant Guards violated the Plaintiffs' rights under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by perpetrating brutality on a continuous and ongoing basis against Plaintiffs. This pattern and practice of brutality included the following:
(a) Plaintiffs were arbitrarily beaten; (b) Plaintiffs were placed in solitary confinement for indefinite periods of time without any hearing, method of recourse, or appeal; (c) Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted; (d) Plaintiffs were coerced into performing sexual acts in return for services due to them under the Contract and for special privileges;
68

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES

Document 1-2

Filed 06/16/1997 Page 22 of 50

(e) Plaintiffs were ogled and demeaned by Defendant Guards who watched them and made lewd remarks as they used the toilets and showered;
(f) Plaintiffs were subjected to unwarranted and unreasonable searches, including strip-searches, some of which were videotaped;
(g) Plaintiffs were continuously subjected to verbal abuse, including racial and ethnic slurs;
(h) Plaintiffs were not provided with adequate clothing and personal hygiene supplies;
(i) Plaintiffs' personal property was either confiscated or destroyed while they were detained at Esmor Elizabeth;
(J) Plaintiffs were consistently served spoiled food; (k) Plaintiffs were denied adequate and appropriate medical attention; (1) Plaintiffs were denied access to their counsel.

61st Cause of Action 242. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 241 above. 243. Defendant Guards violated Plaintiffs' due process rights under Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 20 of the New Jersey Constitution by perpetrating brutality on a continuous and ongoing basis against Plaintiff. This pattern and practice of brutality included the following: (a) Plaintiffs were arbitrarily beaten;
69

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/1997 Page 23 of 50
(b) Plaintiffs were placed in solitaq confinement for indefinite periods of time without any hearing, method of recourse, or appeal;
(c) Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted; (d) Plaintiffs were coerced into performing sexual acts in return for services due to them under the Contract and for special privileges; (e) Plaintiffs were ogled and demeaned by Defendant Guards who watched them and made lewd remarks as they used the toilets and showered;
(0 Plaintiffs were subjected to unwarranted and unreasonable searches.
including strip-searches, some of which were videotaped; (g) Plaintiffs were continuously subjected to verbal abuse, including racial and
ethnic slurs; (h) Plaintiffs were not provided with adequate clothing and personal hygiene
supplies; (i) Plaintiffs' personal property was either confiscated or destroyed while they
were detained at Esmor Elizabeth; 0) Plaintiffs were consistently served spoiled food; (k) Plaintiffs were denied adequate and appropriate medical attention; (1) Plaintiffs were denied access to theft counsel.
62nd Cause of Action 244. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 243 above.
70

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 24 of 50

245. By inflicting serious mental and physical abuses on Plaintiffs, Defendant Guards violated Plaintiffs' right to be treated with humanity and with respect; right to have their physical, mental, and moral integrity respected; and right to life, liberty, and security; in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10(1), and in violation of customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(1), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3.

63rd Cause of Action 246. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 245 above. 247. By confining Plaintiffs in solitary confinement without a hearing on a continuous and ongoing basis, Defendant Guards violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(4), and violated customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 8(1).

64th Cause of Action 248. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 247 above. 249. Defendant Guards deprived Plaintiffs of their personal property without any compensation, on a continuous and ongoing basis, in violation of customary

71

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 25 of 50

international law, as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 1(2), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17(2).

65th Cause of Action 250. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 249 above. 251. Defendant Guards violated Plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by brutalizing them on a continuous and ongoing basis when Plaintiffs attempted to exercise theft religions.

66th Cause of Action 252. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 251 above. 253. Defendant Guards violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution by brutalizing Plaintiffs, on a continuous and ongoing basis, when Plaintiffs attempted to exercise theft religions.

67th Cause of Action 254. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 253. 255. Defendant Guards substantially burdened Plaintiffs' rights to the free exercise of their religion guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42
72

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 26 of 50

U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., by brutalizing Plaintiffs, on a continuous and ongoing basis, when they attempted to practice theft religions.

68th Cause of Action 256. Plaintiff repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 255 above. 257. By brutalizing Plaintiffs, on a continuous and ongoing basis, when they attempted to practice their religions, Defendant Guards deprived Plaintiffs of their right to manifest their religion or belief in worship, observance, and practice, in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18(1)-(2) and in violation of customary international law, as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 12(1)-(2), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article
18.

69th Cause of Action 258. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 257 above. 259. Defendant Guards violated Plaintiffs' right to be free from involuntary servitude guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, by forcing Plaintiffs to engage in forced, unpaid labor, on a continuous and ongoing basis.

73

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 27 of 50

70th Cause of Action 260. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 259 above. 261. Defendant Guards violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution by forcing Plaintiffs to engage in forced, unpaid labor, on a continuous and ongoing basis.

71st Cause of Action 262. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 261 above. 263. Defendant Guards violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 206, by failing to compensate Plaintiffs for the work they performed while detained at Esmor Elizabeth.

72nd Cause of Action 264. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 263 above. 265. Defendant Guards forced Plaintiffs to engage in involuntary servitude, on a continuous and ongoing basis, in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 8(2), and in violation of customary international law as informed by the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1)-(2), the Universal

74

S Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2

.Filed 06/16/1997

Page 28 of 50

Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4, and the Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, Article 1(1).

73rd Cause of Action 266. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 265 above. 267. On a continuous and ongoing basis, Defendant Guards intentionally committed assaults and batteries on Plaintiffs and intentionally caused them emotional distress, in violation of the laws of New Jersey.

74th Cause of Action 268. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 267 above. 269. Defendant Guards had a duty to ensure that Plaintiffs' personal property, which was confiscated from Plaintiffs upon their detention at Esmor Elizabeth, remained safe and could be recovered by Plaintiffs when they were released from LN.S. detention. 270. Defendant Guards failed to protect Plaintiffs' personal property. Pursuant to New Jersey state law, Defendant Guards are responsible for reimbursing Plaintiffs for the value of their missing property.

75

...
Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2

S Filed 06/16/1997

..Itr 1w,'Mnan.. Page 29 of 50

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court offer the following relief:
1. Declare that Defendants' actions violated the Plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; The Federal Tort Claims Act; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; Article I, Paragraphs 1, 3 and 20 of the New Jersey Constitution; the laws of the State of New Jersey; and international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 2. Award each Plaintiff compensatory damages against each Defendant; 3. Award each Plaintiff in punitive damages against each Defendant; 4. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and 5. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

515487.V2
76

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-ES Document 1-2

IFiled 06/16/1997

Page 30 of 50

Dated: June /, 1997

Frank Asian Penny M. Venetis Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic 15 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102
Martin Glenn Michael J. Holden O'Melveny & Myers LU' 153 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

77

 
 Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-MAS Document 528 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

NEWARK

DATE: November 13, 2007

JUDGE: Dickinson R. Debevoise

COURT REPORTER: Mollie Giordano

DEPUTY CLERK: Antigone Owens-Krefski

OTHER: ______________

Title of Case:

Docket #97cv3093

Hawa Jama, et al v. Esmor Correctional Services, et al

Appearances: Penny Venetis, Esq., Justin Smith, Esq., Mary Beth Hogan, Esq., Derek Tarson, Esq. and Drew Dorman, Esq. for all plts Larry Reich, Esq., Frank Volpe, Esq., James Owens, Esq. and Joseph Cordaro, Esq. for dfts Esmor Officials; Thomas Wolf, Esq. for dft Diane McClure

Nature of proceedings: Jury Trial

Jury trial continued at 9:00 a.m. Deliberations continued. Verdict reached and placed on record. Jury trial completed.

Time Commenced 9:00 a.m. Time Adjourned 2:30 p.m.
cc: chambers

Antigone Owens-Krefski Deputy Clerk

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-MAS Document 528 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 2 of 2

 
 ·Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-MAS Document 531 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 1 of 9 '

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HAWA ABDA JAMA, et aI., Plaintiff, v.
ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et aI.,
Defendant.

Civ. Action No. 97-cv-3093(DRD)

JURY OUESTIONNAIRE ATCAClaim

1. Has Ms. Jama proved by a preponderance of the evidence her Alien Tort Claims Act claim against Esmor or any ofthe individual Defendants, Slattery, Staley, McClure andlor Lima?

Yes _ __

NoL

(If your answer is "Yes", proceed to Questions IA-IH. If your answer is "No," proceed
to Question 2].

IA. Has Ms. Jama proved her ATCA claim against Esmor?

Yes _ __

No _ _

lB. Has Ms. Jama proved her ATCA claim against James Slattery?

I

. Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-MAS Document 531 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 2 of 9 '

Yes _ __

No _ _

IC. Has Ms. Jama proved her ATCA claim against Richard Staley?

Yes _ __

No _ __

1D. Has Ms. Jama proved her ATCA claim against Diane McClure?

Yes _ __

No _ __

IE. Has Ms. Jama proved her ATCA claim against John Lima?

Yes _ __

No _ __

IF. What is the amount of the compensatory damages to which Ms. Jama is

entitled on account of her ATCA claim?

$_-1G. Is Ms. Jama entitled to punitive danlages against any Defendant found liable

on her ATCA claim?

Yes _ __

No _ _

lH. If the answer to Question IG is "yes," what is the amount of punitive

damages, if any, to which Ms. Jama is entitled against:

Esmor

$

James Slattery

$

2

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-MAS Document 531 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 3 of 9

Richard Staley

$

Diane McClure

$

James Lima

$

RPRAClaim

2. Has Ms. Jama proved by a preponderance of the evidence her Religious Freedom

Restoration Act claim against Esmor or any of the individual Defendants, Slattery, Staley,

McClure andlor Lima?

Yes /

No _ _

[If your answer is "Yes," proceed to Questions 2A-2I. If your answer is "No," proceed to

Question 3].

2A. Has Ms. Jama proved her RPRA claim against Esmor?

Yes

No _ _

2B. Has Ms. Jama proved her RPRA claim against James Slattery?

Yes _ __

v' No ___

2C. Has Ms. Jama proved her RPRA claim against Richard Staley?

Yes _ __

/ No _ _

2D. Has Ms. Jama proved her RPRA claim against Diane McClure?

Yes _ _

/ No ___

3

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-MAS Document 531 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 4 of 9

2E. Has Ms. Jama proved her RFRA claim against John Lima?

Yes /

No _ _

2F. What is the amount of compensatory damages to which Ms. Jama is entitled

on account of her RFRA claim alone, without considering damages on account of any other claim

on which you found a Defendant liable?
$ t.OO

2G. Was the amount of the damages awarded on the RFRA claim included in the

amount of damages awarded on any other claim, and, if so, which claims?

ATCAciaim

Yes _ __

~ Negligence Claim #1 Yes

No
NoL

Negligence Claim #2 Yes _ __

No......::._ _

[You may wish to answer this question after answering Questions 3 and 4).

2H. Is Ms. Jama entitled to punitive damages against any Defendant found liable

on her RFRA claim? Yes _ __

NO~

21. If the answer to Question 2H is "Yes," what is the amount of punitive

damages, if any, to which Ms. Jama is entitled on her RFRA against:

Esmor

$

James Slattery

$

Richard Staley

$

Diane McClure

$

4

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-MAS Document 531 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 5 of 9

James Lima

$

Negligence Claim #1

3. Has Ms. Jama proved by a preponderance of the evidence her claim of negligent

hiring, training, supervision andlor retention of guards against Esmor or any ofthe individual

Defendants, Slattery, Staley, McClure andlor Lima?

No _ _

[If your answer is "Yes," proceed to Questions 3A-3F. If your answer is "No,"

proceed to Question 4]

3A. Has Ms. Jama proved her negligence #1 claim against Esmor?

Yes

No _ _

3B. Has Ms. Jama proved her negligence #lclaim against James Slattery?

Yes

No _ _

3C. Has Ms. Jama proved her negligence #1 claim against Richard Staley?

Yes

No _ __

3D. Has Ms. Jama proved her negligynce #1 claim against Diane McClure?

Yes _ __

No/

3E. Has Ms. J70Ved her negligence #1 claim against John Lima?

Yes

No _ __

3F. What is the amount of the compensatory damages to which Ms. Jama is

entitled on account of her negligence #1 claim?

5

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-MAS Document 531 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 6 of 9

Negligence Claim #2 4. Has Ms. Jama proved by a preponderance of the evidence her claim of negligent hiring of Willard Stovall and John Lima by Esmor or any ofthe individual Defendants Slattery, Staley and/or McClure?

Yes _ __

NO$-

[If your answer is "Yes," proceed to Questions 4A-4H. If your answer is

"No," proceed to Question 5].

4A. Has Ms. Jama proved her negligence #2 claim against Esmor?

Yes _ __

No _ _

4B. Has Ms. Jama proved her negligence #2 claim against James Slattery?

Yes _ __

No _ __

4C. Has Ms. Jama proved her negligence #2 claim against Richard Staley?

Yes _ _

No _ _

4D. Has Ms. Jama proved her negligenee #2 claim against Diane McClure?

Yes _ __

No _ __ 6

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-MAS Document 531 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 7 of 9

4E. Has Ms. Jama proved her negligence #2 claim against John Lima? .

Yes _ __

No _ __

4F. What is the amount of the compensatory damages to which Ms. Jama is

entitled on account of her negligence 2 claim?

4G. If you found that Ms. Jama proved her negligence #1 claim and you awarded her compensatory damages on that claim, how much, if any, of the compensatory damages awarded on account of the negligence #2 claim was included in the compensatory damages awarded on the negligence 1 claim?
$_--4H. If you awarded Ms. Jama compensatory damages on her ATCA claim andior on her RFRA claim, how much, if any, of the combined damages on those claims are included in your award on Ms. Jama's negligence #1 claim?
$_----
t Failure to Protect Pro ert Claim ll(rl~S. Jama proved by a preponderance offire-e-\C'idence her claim of negligent failure to protect property by ~o'""",Lr or any of the individual Defendants Slatte , taley,
7

Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-MAS Document 531 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 8 of 9

McClure and/or Lima?

Yes _ __

swer is "Yes," proceed to Questions 5A-

our answer is "No,"

you should answer no further questio d your foreman should sign this Questio . e and

inform the attending officer that you are prepared to re

Esm ?

SA. Has Ms. Jama proved her n~ailure to p ct property claim against

~"

Yes _ __

No _ __

~, ,
' "---~~,

SB.

a proved her negligent failure to protect property-~t

James Slattery?
".",.
Yes _ __

"'§.C: Has Ms. Jama proved her negligent failure to prot~ property claim against

Richard Staley?

"~

H~ p",p~" 50. :d='pro" h&::,I;"Otf"l=to pro"'"

Diane McClure?

~
',-

Yes _ __

No_--,"-.

John Lima?

SE..~ Ms. Jama proved her negligent failure to protect property claim against

'-""'c
-,~,~~

' "~,

'..

Yes

"', No _ __

of~~pensatory SF. What is the amount

damages to which Ms. Jama is

~,

8 ".

· .Case 2:97-cv-03093-DRD-MAS Document 531 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 9 of 9
her negligent failure to protect property claim? $----~Dated: November ~,2007
9

 
 Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________ No. 08-2500 _________
HAWA ABDI JAMA, n/k/a HALI HASHI EGAL; JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH; ABU BAKAR; CECILIA KOU JEFFREY; ABRAHAM KENNETH;
SHAMIMU NANTEZA; DENNIS RAJI; AGATHA SERWAA; AND SARAH TETTEH YOWER
v. ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., n/k/a CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION;
JAMES SLATTERY; AARON SPEISMAN; WILLARD STOVALL; JOHN LIMA; DIANE MCCLURE; ESTATE OF RICHARD STALEY AND PHILIP JOHNSON
Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., and John Lima, Appellants _________

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
__________ On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 97-cv-03093) District Judge: Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise
__________ Argued May 20, 2009 Before: RENDELL and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and VANASKIE,* District Judge.
(Filed: August 12, 2009)
James C. Owens, Esq Virginia A. Seitz, Esq. Frank R. Volpe, Esq. Rebecca K. Wood, Esq. [ARGUED] Sidley Austin 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005
* Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie, Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
2

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
Larry S. Reich, Esq. Blank Rome LLP 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174
Counsel for Appellants Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., n/k/a Correctional Services Corporation; and John Lima
Drew Dorman, Esq. Derek S. Tarson, Esq. Justin P. Smith, Esq. [ARGUED] Mary Beth Hogan, Esq. Alison J. Page, Esq. W. Barton Patterson, Esq. Erica Davila, Esq. Debevoise & Plimpton 919 Third Avenue, 41st Floor New York, NY 10022
Frank Askin, Esq. Rutgers University Constitutional Law Clinic 15 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102
3

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
Penny Venetis, Esq. [ARGUED] Rutgers University Constitutional Litigation Clinic 123 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102 Counsel for Plaintiffs - Appellees
Hawa Abdi Jama, n/k/a Hali Hashi Egal; Jeyakumar Anantharajah; Abu Bakar; Cecilia Kou Jeffrey; Abraham Kenneth; Shamimu Nanteza; Dennis Raji; Agatha Serwaa; Sarah Tetteh Yower
__________ OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge. Appellee Hawa Abdi Jama1 was detained as an illegal
immigrant at a detention center run by Esmor Correctional
1Appellee has since changed her name to Holi Hashi Egal. For consistency across the proceedings, we use her original name here.
4

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
Services, Inc. (“Esmor”). Jama sued Esmor and certain of its officers and employees, including facility administrator John Lima, for violating her rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., and on tort theories. The jury found in favor of Jama on the RFRA claim, against Esmor and Lima, and in favor of Jama on one state negligence claim, against Esmor, Lima, and two other Defendants. The jury awarded $1 in RFRA damages and $100,000 in tort damages. The District Court awarded Jama an attorney’s fee against Esmor and Lima after concluding that a portion of the tort award was “designed as compensation for” RFRA injuries. Jama v. Esmor Corr. Servs. Inc., 549 F. Supp. 2d 602, 607 (D.N.J. 2008). Esmor and Lima appealed.
Appellants argue that the District Court’s interpretation of the jury award was erroneous, and assert that no fee may be awarded because Jama’s success on the fee-eligible RFRA claim was de minimis, and the pendent state claim cannot be considered. Appellants alternatively challenge the reasonableness of the amount awarded on several grounds. We agree that the District Court erred in interpreting the jury award, but do not agree that the Court is precluded from awarding fees under these circumstances as a matter of law. We will remand the matter for the District Court to reconsider the fee award under the legal standards discussed below.
5

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
I. INTRODUCTION
Ms. Jama, a Somalian immigrant and Muslim, filed a complaint in 1997, along with 19 other plaintiffs, to redress allegedly abusive treatment and deplorable conditions at a private detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey (“the Facility”). The Facility was operated by Esmor under contract with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Esmor was named as a Defendant, as were certain officers and employees of the company, including the facility administrator John Lima.2 By the time of the 2007 verdict, Jama was the last remaining plaintiff whose claims had not settled. At trial, she presented evidence of general indignities suffered in the Facility, as well as evidence specifically relating to restrictions on her practice of religion. This latter category included evidence that her attempts to pray were disrupted by guards, that she was picked up from the floor while praying and thrown onto her bed, that her Koran was thrown in the garbage, that she was subjected to unnecessary strip searches, that she was exposed naked in common view, that she was forced to eat pork, and that
2The remaining Defendants subject to claims that reached the jury were James Slattery, Richard Staley (deceased), and Diane McClure. None of these individuals, nor the Estate of Richard Staley, is a party to this appeal.
6

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
the only cleric available was a priest who urged her to pray to Jesus.3
The District Court submitted four claims to the jury, including a claim that Defendants substantially burdened Jama’s ability to practice her religion in violation of RFRA,4 and a claim under state law that certain Defendants, including Esmor and Lima, were negligent in hiring, training, supervising, and/or retaining guards at the facility.5 On the RFRA claim, the Court instructed the jury that Jama had to prove either that the officials “inflicted or constrained conduct or expressions that manifested some central tenet” of her beliefs, that their acts or omissions
3As we do not have the complete trial record before us, we accept the District Court’s characterization of the evidence for the limited purpose of providing background. See Jama, 549 F. Supp. 2d at 607.
4RFRA provides that a government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless the government “demonstrates that application of the burden . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and . . . is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. A person who is burdened in violation of RFRA has a private right of action. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c). Although RFRA is unconstitutional as applied to state governments, City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 536 (1997), federal claims remain viable, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 439 (2006).
5The remaining two claims, not directly at issue here, alleged liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and negligent hiring of specified individuals under state law.
7

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
“meaningfully curtailed” her “ability to express adherence to her faith,” or that the officials denied her a “reasonable opportunity to engage in those activities that are fundamental to her religion.” (JA 194-95.) To succeed specifically against Defendant Esmor, the Court instructed that the violations had to be caused by “an official policy or custom” or “from the actions of an official with final policy-making authority.” (JA 196.)
For negligent hiring/training/supervision/retention, the Court instructed that, under New Jersey law, Jama must prove that one or more of the enumerated Defendants, including Esmor and Lima, were negligent, and that their negligence proximately caused Jama injury. Negligent acts or omissions within the purview of the claim included failures by the Defendants to exercise reasonable care in investigating the guards’ conduct, and failures to exercise reasonable care in training and supervising the guards to prevent foreseeable harm to the inmates.
As for damages, if any, the jury was instructed to award “an amount that will fairly compensate her for any injury she actually sustained as a result of a defendant’s conduct.” (JA 207.) The Court explained that Jama claimed as damages “[p]hysical harm . . . during and after the events at issue, physical pain, disability, disfigurement, or discomfort, [and] emotional or mental harm . . . during and after the events at issue, including fear, humiliation, and mental anguish . . . .” (JA 208-09.) The Court stated that the jury “must not award compensatory damages more than once for the same injury” and that it “must not award her any individual compensatory damages on each claim if the two claims resulted in the same injuries.” (JA 209.) Further, “if different injuries are
8

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
attributable to the separate claims, then you must compensat[e] Miss Jama for all of her injuries.” (Id.) The Court also instructed that, “If you return a verdict for Miss Jama on the . . . RFRA claim[], but Miss Jama has failed to prove compensatory damages, then you must award nominal damages of one dollar. A person whose federal rights were violated is entitled to a recognition of that violation, even if she suffered no actual injury.” (JA 210.)
The jury found that Jama proved her RFRA claim against both Esmor and John Lima, but awarded only $1 on the claim. It indicated on the questionnaire that no RFRA damages were included in damages awarded on any other claim. The jury also found that Jama proved negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention against Esmor, Lima, and two other Defendants, and awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages on the claim.6 The jury found for Defendants on the two other claims.
Jama moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In ascertaining the degree of Jama’s success under § 1988, the District Court reasoned that the jury “was not in a position to clarify whether it had concluded that Jama had simply not proven any compensable [RFRA] injury . . . , or
6Because the jury awarded compensatory damages on what may be termed a negligent oversight claim, the jury essentially had to find that those guards who were negligently hired, trained, supervised and/or retained engaged in liability-creating conduct. In such cases, a plaintiff must prove that the negligently hired, trained, supervised and/or retained employee’s “incompetence, unfitness or dangerous characteristics proximately caused the injury.” Di Cosala v. Kay, 450 A.2d 508, 516 (N.J. 1982).
9

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
whether the result reflected the jury’s inability to distinguish between those and other injuries,” and that the jury may have “bundle[d] all of Jama’s injuries into one substantial award under Jama’s Negligence Claims.” Jama, 549 F. Supp. 2d at 606. The Court stated that, based on its assessment of the evidence, “between 33% and 50% of the jury’s Negligence Claims award of $100,000 was designed as compensation for Jama’s RFRA-related injuries.” Id. at 607. The Court calculated a lodestar of $642,398.57 based entirely on counsels’ work on the RFRA claim, and awarded the entire amount against Esmor and Lima, the two Defendants found liable under RFRA. Id. at 613. Esmor and Lima appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
This Court has jurisdiction to review the award of a statutory attorney’s fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, once the award is reduced to a definite amount. Interfaith Comty. Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 426 F.3d 694, 701 (3d Cir. 2005). We review the reasonableness of a fee award for abuse of discretion, but our review of the legal standard applied in calculating a fee is plenary. Evans v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 273 F.3d 346, 358 (3d Cir. 2001). Plenary review also extends to a district court’s interpretation of a jury’s answers to interrogatories. See Failla v. Passaic, 146 F.3d 149, 153 (3d Cir. 1998). A district court abuses its discretion when its decision “rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact.” Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237, 243 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted).
10

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) provides that, “In any action or proceeding to enforce [certain federal statutes including RFRA], the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (emphasis added). Appellants concede that, the jury having awarded nominal damages to Jama on her fee-eligible RFRA claim, Jama was the prevailing party for the purposes of § 1988. However, Appellants argue that the District Court erred in recharacterizing the jury verdict, and that no fee award can be reasonable as a matter of law because Jama’s success on the fee-eligible federal claim was de minimis and the pendent state claim cannot be considered.
A. Interpretation of the Jury Verdict
We agree with Appellants that the District Court erred in attributing a portion of Jama’s tort award to her RFRA claim. The jury was instructed that “[n]ominal damages of one dollar are designed to acknowledge the deprivation of a federal right, even where no . . . injury occurred. However, if you find actual injury, you must award compensatory damages as I instructed you, rather than nominal damages.” (JA 210.) The jury plainly indicated on its questionnaire that $1 in damages was awarded on the RFRA claim, and that no RFRA damages were included in the award on any other claim. A court generally “must assume that the jury understood and followed the court’s instructions.” Rinehimer v. Cemcolift, Inc., 292 F.3d 375, 383 (3d Cir. 2002). We find no inconsistencies in the jury’s answers to interrogatories that might have required the District Court to exercise its limited authority to mold the answers to achieve consistency. See McAdam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 896 F.2d 750, 763-64 (3d Cir. 1990). The District Court was thus
11

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
required to presume that the jury determined that no actual injury was sustained as a result of the RFRA violation, and could not conclude that any portion of the $100,000 in compensatory damages was awarded to compensate for a RFRA violation.7
We accordingly conclude that the District Court’s assessment of the evidence was based on an improper interpretation of the interrogatories and verdict sheet, and we cannot affirm the resulting order awarding an attorney’s fee.
B. Impact of Farrar v. Hobby
Our conclusion that the District Court erred does not end our inquiry. Appellants argue that, under Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992), no fee may be awarded as a matter of law because Jama was only awarded nominal damages on her feeeligible RFRA claim. Farrar is plainly distinguishable because Jama received a substantial award on the litigation as a whole, whereas the plaintiffs in Farrar received only a nominal award
7In light of the nature of the negligence claim on which Jama prevailed (negligent oversight), and the District Court’s familiarity with the evidence, it is understandable that the Court could surmise that negligently hired, trained, supervised, and/or retained guards caused both compensable RFRA and tort injuries. Perhaps there was a shortcoming in the unchallenged special verdict sheet in that the jury was not required to specify the liability-creating conduct of the guards. However, the jury was instructed to determine damages according to the claims for relief, and the District Court did not have the prerogative of reallocating compensatory damages awarded solely on the negligent oversight claim.
12

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
of $1 in total. Farrar, 506 U.S. at 107. Yet even if we were to ignore the substantial award on Jama’s pendent state claim, we do not agree with Appellants that Farrar would conclusively prohibit the award of a fee on Jama’s RFRA claim.
In Farrar, state officials closed a school for troubled teens and secured an indictment against the owner. Farrar, 506 U.S. at 105. The owner sued, alleging deprivations of liberty and property without due process. Id. at 106. He, and his administrators after his death, sought only monetary relief in the form of $17 million in damages. Id. The jury found, through special interrogatories, that just one of the six defendants had deprived Farrar of a civil right. However, the jury expressly found that the defendant’s conduct did not proximately cause Farrar’s asserted damages. Id. The district court ultimately awarded nominal damages of $1 and attorney’s fees. Id. A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed the award of fees, holding that the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties, and were thus ineligible for fees under § 1988. Id.
The Supreme Court affirmed in a 5-4 decision, but on different grounds. The Court held that a plaintiff who is awarded nominal damages is a prevailing party for the purposes of § 1988. Id. at 114. However, the Court also stated that, “Although the ‘technical’ nature of a nominal damages award or any other judgment does not affect the prevailing party inquiry, it does bear on the propriety of fees awarded under § 1988.” Id. In determining the reasonableness of fees under § 1988, the Court continued, “‘the most critical factor . . . is the degree of success obtained.’” Id. at114 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983)). Accordingly, when a plaintiff seeking compensatory damages “recovers only nominal damages
13

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief, the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all.” Id. at 115 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted).
Justice O’Connor joined the other four justices in the majority without reservation, but she filed a concurring opinion that further elaborated on the degree of success inquiry. While she acknowledged that the disparity between the damages sought and awarded was important in determining the degree of success, she stated that this “is not the only consideration.” Id. at 121 (O’Connor, J., concurring). She asserted that “an award of nominal damages can represent a victory in the sense of vindicating rights even though no actual damages are proved.” Id. Justice O’Connor stated that “courts also must look to other factors” in assessing success, including “the significance of the legal issue” decided, and whether the decision “accomplished some public goal.” Id. at 121-22. Upon considering all of these “relevant indicia of success,” Justice O’Connor concluded that Farrar’s victory was de minimis. Id. at 122.
Several courts of appeals, relying on Justice O’Connor’s concurrence, have permitted fee awards despite the award of only nominal damages. In Mercer v. Duke University, 401 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2005), a female college football player brought a Title IX discrimination claim against a university after she had been cut from the football team. Id. at 201. Although the plaintiff was awarded only nominal damages, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld an award of $350,000 in attorney fees despite the de minimis compensatory relief. Id. at 211. The court concluded that a fee award was within the district court’s discretion because the legal issue on which the plaintiff prevailed was significant and the litigation served a
14

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
public purpose. Id. at 206-09.
In Diaz-Rivera v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 377 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2004), terminated municipal employees sued city officials, alleging that their terminations were motivated by the employees’ political affiliations. Id. at 121. The plaintiffs brought First Amendment and due process claims. Id. The jury found for the defendants on the First Amendment claims and awarded only nominal damages on the due process claim. Id. at 122. The district court awarded an attorney’s fee, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. The court of appeals distinguished the facts of the case at bar from those in Farrar by applying Justice O’Connor’s factors:
Here, although plaintiffs’ victory was de minimis as to the extent of relief, the district court appropriately exercised its discretion to award fees, as the determination that the municipality violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights represented a significant legal conclusion serving an important public purpose.
Id. at 125. Other courts of appeals have also adopted Justice O’Connor’s factors for resolving the degree of success inquiry. See Cummings v. Connell, 402 F.3d 936, 947 (9th Cir. 2005); Phelps v. Hamilton, 120 F.3d 1126, 1131 (10th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Lafayette Fire Fighters Ass’n Local 472, 51 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 1995); Jones v. Lockhart, 29 F.3d 422, 423-24 (8th Cir. 1994).
In contrast, we find no case in which a court of appeals has interpreted Farrar to require the automatic denial of fees
15

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
that Appellants seek when only nominal damages are awarded. We agree with our sister courts of appeals that a district court determining the degree of a plaintiff’s success should consider not only the difference between the relief sought and achieved, but also the significance of the legal issue decided and whether the litigation served a public purpose.8
Yet our interpretation of Farrar only takes us part way in resolving this appeal. While Jama might be entitled to at least a partial fee award solely on the basis of her RFRA claim, Jama received more than mere nominal damages as a result of her litigation. The substantial award on her pendent state claim distinguishes her from the plaintiffs in Farrar, Mercer, and Diaz-Rivera, who received only nominal damages in total. We
8In adopting these considerations, we do not, as Judge Garth suggests, set aside the majority opinion in Farrar, nor do we accord Justice O’Connor’s concurrence controlling weight. While the majority in Farrar stated that a reasonable fee is usually no fee when a plaintiff receives only nominal damages, the case involved extreme facts and the majority provided no guidance for distinguishing the usual from the unusual case. Justice O’Connor set forth a practical method for resolving such questions that other courts of appeals have found helpful. Also, we do not agree with Judge Garth that a nominal award on a RFRA claim necessarily amounts to a technical and de minimis victory. The jury found that Esmor and Lima violated Jama’s rights by substantially burdening her exercise of religion. The impact of such a violation on a victim may be uniquely difficult to express in monetary terms, but the significance of the right vindicated and the purpose served by the litigation cannot be overlooked and, especially in the prison setting, should not be diminished.
16

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
must therefore decide whether Jama’s success on her state law claim may independently inform the degree of her success under § 1988.
C. Pendent State Claim
We are surprised to find that the impact of success on state claims as related to the award of fees under § 1988 has not been squarely addressed by this Court, and has been sparsely litigated elsewhere. Appellants argue that pendent state law claims may only be considered in the success inquiry if the legal standards and operative facts for the state and federal feeeligible claims are identical.9 However, the cases relied on by Appellants do not really support this restrictive rule because they either permitted fee awards or were materially distinguishable.10
9Appellants also assert another “exception” for allowing the consideration of state claims by pointing to cases where feeeligible claims were not decided for prudential reasons, but fees were permitted on the basis of other successful claims. Since it is undisputed that Jama prevailed on her fee-eligible RFRA claim, these cases are all distinguishable and of little assistance.
10For instance, Appellants cite Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980), but the language cited dealt with an Eleventh Amendment issue that is irrelevant here. Id. at 132. Moreover, Maher cannot support a restrictive rule on fee awards because the Court interpreted § 1988 expansively, ruling that fee awards are permissible on non-constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 128. Appellants also cite to Luria Brothers & Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 347 (3d Cir. 1982), a case in which attorney’s fees were denied, but this case is plainly distinguishable because the plaintiff in Luria, unlike Jama, did not prevail on a
17

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
Appellants point to no case where a court denied fees to a plaintiff who had prevailed on a qualifying federal claim and also received a substantial award on a state law claim.
Jama contends that the express language of § 1988(b) authorizes the consideration of pendent state claims in awarding fees when a plaintiff prevails on a fee-eligible claim. The statute does not refer to “claims,” but instead provides that fees may be awarded, “In any action or proceeding to enforce” various provisions including RFRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (emphasis added). Under the plain text of the statute, Jama asserts, it is within a district court’s discretion to consider the success of the action or proceeding as a whole, to include success on pendent state law claims.
fee-eligible federal claim. Id. at 358. Other cases asserted by Appellants are Martini v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n, 178 F.3d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1999), and Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc., 212 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2000). Martini involved a determination as to whether a federal damages cap should apply where the state and local standards instructed to the jury were identical. 178 F.3d at 1349-50. This case is of little help because no fee award was at issue. In Passantino, a plaintiff prevailed on her federal Title VII retaliation claims, but did not prevail on her federal Title VII discrimination claims. Passantino, 212 F.3d at 517-18. In short shrift, the court of appeals rejected defendant’s argument that the attorney fee should have been reduced for limited success, noting that the claims were “inextricably intertwined.” Id. at 518. No state claim was involved, and nothing suggests that the court would have required the claims to be inextricably intertwined in order to conclude that the fee award was within the district court’s discretion.
18

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
We agree that the language of § 1988(b) seems to be sufficiently broad to endorse the inclusion of state claims in the consideration of overall success. However, we do not find precedent on point that clearly adopts this interpretation as conclusive. Jama relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), in which plaintiffs obtained mixed results in a case involving multiple federal claims. There, the Supreme Court instructed the district court to consider whether the unsuccessful and successful claims shared a common core of facts or were based on related legal theories, in order to inform the “results obtained” inquiry. Id. at 434, 437. While Hensley provides the standard for determining whether claims are related under § 1988, the case did not specifically involve pendent state claims, nor did the clarifying and reaffirming case of Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Independent School District, 489 U.S. 782 (1989).
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided a case closer to the one before us in Bridges v. Eastman Kodak Co., 102 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1996), cert. denied sub nom., Yourdon, Inc. v. Bridges, 520 U.S. 1274 (1997). The plaintiffs in Bridges alleged that they were sexually harassed by their employer in violation of Title VII and an analogous New York antidiscrimination statute. Id. at 57. The district court held a jury trial on the state claims and a concurrent bench trial on the Title VII claims. Id. The jury found that the defendants violated the state law and awarded plaintiffs substantial amounts for back pay and compensatory damages. Id. The court made parallel findings under Title VII, but awarded no monetary relief on the federal claims, specifically in order to avoid double recovery. Id. at 58. The district court awarded fees to the plaintiffs
19

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
without making any reduction for lack of success on the federal claim. Id.
The defendants argued on appeal that the plaintiffs were ineligible for attorney’s fees because there was no award on the fee-eligible claim, and, alternatively, that the award should have been reduced due to the plaintiffs’ limited success. Id. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed on both points in a brief opinion. The court concluded that the plaintiffs prevailed on the fee-eligible claim, and distinguished Farrar because Farrar did not involve “a plaintiff who had achieved substantial success - and a large monetary award - on pendent state-law claims.” Id. at 59. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment of award without any reduction. Id. at 60.
Although Bridges helps Jama, the case is distinguishable because the state and federal claims at bar were brought under parallel employment discrimination statutes. Here, the elements of Jama’s state negligence and federal RFRA claims are not so closely aligned. Moreover, the court in Bridges specifically declined to award damages on the federal claim in order to avoid double recovery, suggesting that the plaintiffs would have recovered on the federal claim but for the jury award on the state claim.11 Yet nothing in Bridges can be read to require identical
11The jury here was instructed not to compensate more than once for the same injury. However, the interrogatory form asked for the amount of damages attributable to each claim, and asked whether RFRA damages were included in any award on another claim. The jury indicated that only $1 was awarded on the RFRA claim, and that no RFRA damages were included in an award on any other claim. We thus cannot conclude that the
20

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
or nearly identical state and federal claims in order for the state claim to be considered as part of the degree of success inquiry.
The Bridges panel cited approvingly to an earlier case in the Second Circuit that aligns more closely with the instant circumstances. In Milwe v. Cavuoto, 653 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1981), the plaintiff was injured in a scuffle with police officers. Id. at 81. Police officials thereafter secured a warrant for her arrest, and charged her with interfering with a police officer and disturbing the peace. Id. The charges were subsequently dismissed. Id. The plaintiff brought a suit against several officers and supervisors for compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and on pendent state law theories. After a trial, the jury found for the plaintiff against one defendant on a constitutional excessive force claim and a pendent state assault claim. The jury awarded $1 and $1,320 on these claims, respectively. The jury also found for the plaintiff against one other defendant on a constitutional claim relating to her arrest, and a claim for false arrest under state law. The jury awarded $1 in total for both of these claims. Id.
The district court denied fees under § 1988, and the plaintiff appealed. Defendants argued that fees were inappropriate since, inter alia, the only significant damages were awarded on the pendent state assault claim. Id. at 84. The court of appeals reversed for two reasons. First, the court quoted Maher v. Gagne, and stated that “attorney’s fees are available in cases ‘in which the plaintiff prevails on a wholly statutory, non-civil rights claim pendent to a substantial constitutional
jury awarded nominal damages on the RFRA claim merely to avoid double recovery.
21

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 22 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
claim.’”12 Id. (quoting Maher, 448 U.S. at 132). The court thus extended Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding pendent federal claims to pendent state claims. The court also concluded that, leaving aside the state law claim, the award of $1 on a feeeligible constitutional claim could alone support the award of fees. Id. at 84. The court accordingly remanded the matter for further consideration. Id.
The second reason given in Milwe for permitting fees, namely consideration of the fee-eligible claim only, should be read with caution in light of Farrar and our discussion above. However, Farrar did not involve a pendent state law claim, and thus has no effect on the first reason for permitting fees in Milwe. While we recognize that Milwe predates many important § 1988 cases, we find no case that contradicts or undermines the Milwe court’s reasoning with regard to pendent state claims.13
12Appellants argue that allowing a district court to consider state common law claims would violate Maher’s “wholly statutory” language. We are not persuaded. In Maher, the Supreme Court was distinguishing between clearly fee-eligible constitutional civil rights claims and statutory Social Security claims under § 1983. The “wholly statutory” language marked an expansion of § 1988 to include non-constitutional claims. We agree with the District Court that the wholly statutory distinction has no bearing on this case.
13We also note that the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit treated Milwe approvingly in Aubin v. Fudala, 782 F.2d 287, 291 (1st Cir. 1986) (citing Milwe and determining that an award on a pendent state negligence claim may inform the success inquiry where the plaintiff prevailed with a lesser award on a fee-eligible federal claim), overruled on other grounds by Crowe
22

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 23 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
Based on these considerations, we cannot agree with Appellants that a district court may only consider an award on a pendent state claim if the operative facts or legal standards of the state and federal claims are identical.
While identity between the claims is not required, the state and federal claims must certainly bear some relation in order for the state claim to be considered under § 1988. Although Hensley did not address pendent state claims, the case does provide helpful guidance. In Hensley, the Supreme Court described how a district court should determine whether unsuccessful claims are sufficiently related to claims on which a plaintiff prevailed in order to include work on the unsuccessful claims in a fee award. The Court instructed that claims that “involve a common core of facts [or are] based on related legal theories” are related for these purposes. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435. The Court further instructed that “[t]here is no precise rule or formula for making these determinations,” and that the district court “necessarily has discretion in making this equitable judgment.” Id. at 436. The Court also noted that “[a] request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.” Id.
Applying this reasoning here, we conclude that the Hensley standard should guide a district court’s consideration of pendent state claims in a litigation where a plaintiff has prevailed on a fee-eligible federal claim. We will vacate the award and remand the matter for the District Court to make this discretionary determination in the first instance. The District Court should determine whether Jama’s RFRA and pendent
v. Bolduc, 365 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2004).
23

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 24 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
state negligence claims involved a “common core of facts” or were based on “related legal theories.”14 If the claims are related under this standard, the results on Jama’s tort claims may inform the degree of Jama’s overall success for the purposes of § 1988.15 Whether or not the state and federal claims are related, the District Court should also consider the extent to which Jama’s RFRA claim might, even independently, justify a fee award under the factors articulated by Justice O’Connor in Farrar. Thus, while the jury’s nominal award must undoubtedly
14Although we do not have the complete trial record before us, statements by the District Court suggest that it should not be difficult to reconsider the relationship between the state and federal claims under the instant standard. For instance, the District Court stated in its opinion that “the RFRA-related conduct was . . . a significant part of Jama’s Negligence Claims,” suggesting that the Court identified legal and/or factual relationships between the two claims. Jama, 549 F. Supp. 2d at 606.
15Judge Garth contends that the jury’s compensatory award on the negligence claim and mere nominal award on the RFRA claim conclusively forecloses the existence of a sufficient relationship between the state and fee-eligible claims, and our decision therefore intrudes upon the role of the jury. We do not agree. Hensley makes clear that an attorney’s work on an unsuccessful claim may be compensated if the claim is factually or legally related to a claim on which the plaintiff prevailed. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435. The question of whether particular claims, successful or otherwise, arise from a common core of facts does not turn on a jury’s verdict. Moreover, a jury’s factual findings cannot possibly resolve relationships between legal theories. Hensley leaves no doubt that such inquiries under § 1988 are left to the discretion of district court. Id. at 436.
24

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 25 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
color the degree of Jama’s success on her RFRA claim, the District Court should also consider the significance of the legal issue on which she prevailed and determine whether her victory served a public purpose.
D. Reasonableness of the Fee Awarded
Appellants argue in the alternative that, even if a fee award is permissible in this case, the $642,398.57 amount awarded by the District Court is unreasonably high. Since we conclude that the District Court’s degree of success analysis was predicated on an erroneous interpretation of the jury verdict, we cannot review the overall figure until the Court has reconsidered Jama’s success under the standards discussed above. However, we will address two issues relating to the overall award that are suitable for review at this time in order to provide guidance on remand.
Appellants argue that the District Court abused its discretion by arriving at unreasonable hourly rates. A District Court’s determination of market billing rates “is a factual question which is subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review.” Smith v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 107 F.3d 223, 225(3d Cir. 1997). In moving for a fee award,
The plaintiff bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence of what constitutes a reasonable market rate for the essential character and complexity of the legal services rendered in order to make out a prima facie case. Once the plaintiff has carried this burden, defendant may
25

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 26 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
contest that prima facie case only with appropriate record evidence.
Id. (internal citations omitted). “Under the clearly erroneous standard, a finding of fact may be reversed on appeal only if it is completely devoid of a credible evidentiary basis or bears no rational relationship to the supporting data.” Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted).
In determining the hourly rates in the instant matter, the District Court relied on a previous analysis it had made in connection with a request for discovery sanctions against Esmor. Jama v. Esmor Corr. Servs., Inc., 2007 W.L. 4166016 (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2007). Jama’s counsel supported its rates with affidavits listing similar rates that had been accepted by the District Court for the District of New Jersey in prior cases. The District Court accepted counsel’s submitted rates, after making a reduction in fees from New York market levels to the levels of the metropolitan Newark market. Id. at *3. The attorney hourly rates accepted by the District Court for Debevoise & Plimpton LLP ranged from $600 for a partner to $205 for a first-year associate, and $400 for Ms. Penny Venetis of the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic.
Appellants argue that their own evidence regarding rates, and rates accepted in other cases, demonstrated that the rates used by the District Court are unreasonable. While the rates applied here may have been higher than rates applied in other cases, we find nothing in the record indicating that the District Court’s determination was clearly erroneous. Jama’s counsel submitted affidavits and prior examples of similar rates. The
26

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 27 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
District Court weighed the sophisticated nature of the work involved, and made a reduction in Debevoise’s rates to bring them in line with the Newark market. The rates adopted are neither devoid of a credible evidentiary basis, nor do they lack a rational relationship to the supporting data, and we will accordingly not disturb them on appeal.
Finally, Appellants argue that the District Court erred by including in the award $1,485.70 for expert fees because such fees are not authorized in RFRA claims. Jama concedes this point, and disclaims her entitlement to $1,485.70. Thus, the District Court shall exclude these expert fees from any future award.
III. CONCLUSION
The District Court’s degree of success inquiry under § 1988 was based on an impermissible reconstruction of the jury verdict, and we will VACATE the resulting order awarding an attorney’s fee. We will REMAND the matter for the District Court to reconsider Jama’s motion for an attorney’s fee award consistent with this Opinion.
GARTH, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Let me recount the fundamental issues presented on this appeal—in effect: “let’s review the bidding.”
1. The complaint filed by Jama sought $250,000 in statutory damages for violations of the Religious Freedom
27

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 28 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
Restoration Act (“RFRA”); it also sought a total of nearly $5 million for all damages including general negligence damages, punitive damages, and RFRA.
2. RFRA provides that, if a violation is found, not only may damages be awarded but reasonable attorney’s fees may be assessed. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
3. After 23 days of trial before a jury which heard evidence of RFRA violations and tortious conduct by some of the defendants, the jury was charged specifically by the District Court as follows:
You must not award compensatory damages more than once for the same injury. For example, if Miss Jama prevails on two claims and establishes a dollar amount for her injuries, you must not award her any individual compensatory damages on each claim if the two claims resulted in the same injuries. Miss Jama is only entitled to be made whole once, and may not recover more than she has lost. Of course, if different injuries are attributable to the separate claims, then you must compensation [sic] Miss Jama for all of her injuries. . . .
If you return a verdict for Miss Jama on the ATCA and the RFRA claims, but Miss Jama has failed to prove compensatory damages, then you must award nominal damages of one dollar. . . . However, if you find actual injury, you must award compensatory damages as I instructed you,
28

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 29 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
rather than nominal damages.
J.A. 209-10.
4. No exceptions were taken to the charge. No additions were sought by the plaintiffs to the charge. See Farrar v. Cain, 756 F.2d 1148, 1150-51 (5th Cir. 1985), aff’d 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (failure to object to the jury charge and special interrogatories precludes our review in the absence of plain error or manifest miscarriage of justice).
5. The evidence before the jury consisted of actions which violated RFRA, but also consisted of other negligent tortious actions by the defendants. We note them infra.
6. The jury was asked to answer a series of interrogatory questions in delivering its verdict.16 The jury complied fully with the District Court’s instructions and answered the relevant interrogatories as follows:
1. [not relevant to this appeal]
2. Has Ms. Jama proved by a preponderance of
16 The only other case cited by Jama in which interrogatories were utilized by the District Court was Farrar itself. However, the interrogatories in Farrar were not detailed as they were here, did not involve the distinction between eligible and ineligible fee statutes, and did not afford the explicit and unequivocal answers to the interrogatories that the instant verdict provides.
29

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 30 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
the evidence her Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim against Esmor . . . and/or Lima?
Yes17
. . .
2F. What is the amount of compensatory damages to which Ms. Jama is entitled on account of her RFRA claim alone, without considering damages on account of any other claim on which you found a Defendant liable?
$1.00

2G. Was the amount of the damages awarded on the RFRA claim included in the amount of damages awarded on any other claim, and, if so, which claims?

. . . Negligence Claim #1:

No18

17 The jury found that the RFRA claim was not proved against Defendants Slattery, Staley, and McClure.
18 “Yes” was the first answer given by the jury. That answer was crossed out and “No” was entered in its place.
30

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 31 Date Filed: 08/12/2009

. . .

2H. Is Ms. Jama entitled to punitive damages against any Defendant found liable on her RFRA claim?

No

. . .

3F. What is the amount of the compensatory damages to which Ms. Jama is entitled on account of her negligence #1 claim?

$100,000

J.A. 240-43.

7. No exceptions or objections were taken to the form or to the content of the interrogatories, nor were additions sought to the interrogatories.

8. When the jury returned with its verdict, the Clerk of the Court had the following exchange with the jury foreperson:

THE CLERK:

Okay. What is the amount of compensatory damages to which Miss Jama is entitled on account of her RFRA claim alone, without considering damages on account of any other claim on which you found a defendant liable?

31

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 32 Date Filed: 08/12/2009

THE FOREPERSON: One dollar.

THE CLERK:

Was the amount—I’m sorry. Was the amount of damages awarded on the RFRA claim included in the amount of damages awarded on any other claim?

THE FOREPERSON: No.

THE CLERK:

Okay. Is Miss Jama entitled to punitive damages against any defendant found liable on her RFRA claim?

THE FOREPERSON: No.

J.A. 232 (emphasis added).

9. The District Court awarded attorney’s fees holding that 33% to 50% of the damages awarded were allocable to the RFRA claim.

10. My colleagues in the majority correctly hold that the District Court erred in its determination, and I agree with them. Where I part company with my colleagues is their stark refusal to recognize the jury’s explicit declaration, made after receiving the District Court’s specific instructions, that the $1 awarded for the RFRA claim was not included in the calculation of the $100,000 awarded on the general state negligence claim. In other words, the fee-eligible RFRA conduct punished by the $1 award was wholly apart from, and distinct from, the

32

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 33 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
non-fee-eligible conduct punished by the award of $100,000 for negligent conduct.
Thus, in this case, only the nominal damages may be considered for purposes of fee-eligible attorney’s fees, and the only reasonable attorney’s fee is no fee at all. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992).
I would not remand to the District Court. Rather, I would reverse outright and instruct the District Court to deny all attorney’s fees as I believe no further consideration is required.
I.
The majority offers two theories under which it believes the District Court could award fees. First, under Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), the District Court could determine that the state claim of negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention involved a “common core of facts” or was based on a “related legal theory” such that the $100,000 award on that claim could enhance the overall “degree of success” of the $1 award obtained on the RFRA claim. But the jury’s verdict, expressed unequivocally and unambiguously in the interrogatory answers and in the answers to the Court Clerk, forecloses this argument by drawing an unmistakable line between the two claims. Alternatively, the District Court might apply Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in Farrar and find that factors other than the amount of damages make the RFRA award, standing alone, more worthy than a “technical” or “de minimis” victory. Again, however, this argument is completely undercut by the fact that the jury explicitly set apart the conduct ascribable to the RFRA claim, and determined that this conduct
33

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 34 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
merited no damages other than the bare acknowledgment that a violation occurred.
A.
An examination of the verdict form rules out the possibility that the plaintiff’s success on the negligence claim had any bearing on the nominal award on the RFRA claim. Interrogatory number 2G asked specifically whether “the amount of the damages awarded on the RFRA claim [was] included in the amount of damages awarded on any other claim.” J.A. 241. In response, the jury initially marked “Yes,” scratched out that response, and then marked its final answer as “No.” Id. This amended response clearly demonstrates that the jury not only considered, but ultimately rejected, the notion that the RFRA award and the negligence award shared any common basis. All of the proscribed conduct is distinct from the general negligence conduct. So too are the defendants who have been found liable. Only two defendants have been found liable for the RFRA conduct, whereas four defendants have been found liable for the general negligence conduct, thereby emphasizing the lack of legal and factual overlap between the RFRA and negligence claims.
The underlying facts bear out this dichotomy. Indeed, the majority itself notes that Jama presented “evidence of general indignities suffered in the Facility,” on the one hand, and “evidence specifically relating to restrictions on her practice of religion,” on the other hand. Maj. op. 5. The majority then enumerates the conduct that fell within the latter category, including exposing Jama naked to common view, forcing her to eat pork, disrupting her prayers, and defiling her copy of the
34

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 35 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
Koran.
The majority does not, however, explain that the “general indignities” were of an entirely different nature. Toilets were in close proximity to sleeping areas and were clogged and overflowing with human waste. Food supplies were insufficient and often consisted of spoiled or rotten food. The tainted food caused vomiting and diarrhea, which exacerbated the already overwhelmed plumbing. Heating was inadequate in the winter causing ice to collect on the cell walls, while prisoners were deprived of warm clothing and sufficient blankets. Female prisoners, like Jama, were given only one sanitary napkin per month. The guards themselves were physically and psychologically abusive to the prisoners regardless of religion.
The only possible understanding of the jury’s answer to interrogatory number 2G is that the jury segregated these general indignities from the religious indignities, and then concluded that one set (the general conduct) merited $100,000 in compensatory damages while the other set (the RFRA conduct) merited none. The jury explicitly disavowed any overlap in the damages it awarded; accordingly, neither we nor the District Court may alter that verdict by conferring the success obtained on the negligence claim to the RFRA claim. By altering the jury’s verdict, the District Court erred in assuming that the jury ignored its instructions and acted improperly. It is an “almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions.” Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573, 585 (1994) (quoting Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206 (1987)). Neither the District Court nor my colleagues in the majority have the authority to alter the jury’s findings or to construe the jury’s findings in a way that is inconsistent with the
35

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 36 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
verdict.
The Seventh Amendment provides that “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” U.S. Const. amend. VII.; see also Davis v. Omitowoju, 883 F.2d 1155 (3d Cir. 1989). My colleagues in the majority would permit the District Court to substitute its judgment for the jury’s verdict by circumventing the jury’s actual RFRA award and adding to it a portion of the negligence award so that fee-shifting may be achieved. The majority opinion, by supplanting the jury’s verdict and factfinding with the District Court’s factfinding, has thereby violated the proper roles of judge and jury under the Constitution.
I believe the verdict form is definitively dispositive in this case.
B.
All we are left with, then, is the $1 award standing alone, irrespective of the $100,000 award. Viewed thus, this case reveals itself to be an unexceptional civil rights case where the plaintiff has prevailed but failed to prove any damages. In Farrar, the Supreme Court announced the default rule that “[w]hen a plaintiff recovers only nominal damages because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief, the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all.” 506 U.S. at 115 (citation omitted).
Subsequently, several courts of appeals have affirmed that a nominal victory should receive a fee award only in the
36

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 37 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
rare or unusual case. See Pino v. Locascio, 101 F.3d 235, 238 (2d Cir. 1996) (“[W]hile there is no per se rule that a plaintiff recovering nominal damages can never get a fee award, Farrar indicates that the award of fees in such a case will be rare.”); Doe v. Chao, 511 F.3d 461, 467 (4th Cir. 2007) (interpreting Farrar as permitting fee awards only “in some rare cases”); Pouillon v. Little, 326 F.3d 713, 717 (6th Cir. 2003) (concluding that the plaintiff had failed to distinguish his case “from the ‘usual’ case where a prevailing civil rights plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees when all that he has won is . . . nominal damages”); Maul v. Constan, 23 F.3d 143, 146 (7th Cir. 1994) (stating that “attorney’s fees are not appropriate simply because plaintiff successfully establishes that his constitutional rights have been violated”); Wilcox v. City of Reno, 42 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Farrar teaches that an award of nominal damages is not enough” to support an award of fees without some other tangible result.); Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 1636625, at *4 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Plaintiffs in nominal-damage cases should not be awarded attorney’s fees in any but exceptional circumstances.”).
The majority sets aside the controlling opinion in Farrar, however, and turns instead to Justice O’Connor’s concurrence for the proposition that fee awards are occasionally permitted despite an award of only nominal damages. But Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion—not joined by any other member of the Court—is just that: it is her own explanation of how she herself would like to hold. Farrar, 506 U.S. at 116 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“I join the Court’s opinion and concur in its judgment. I write separately only to explain more fully why, in my view, it is appropriate to deny fees in this case.”). Five justices including Justice O’Connor joined the
37

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 38 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
majority opinion in holding that a $1 nominal fee does not usually entitle the plaintiff to § 1988(b) attorney’s fees. There was no plurality for Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion to join or to bolster, and therefore we do not look to it for the “narrowest grounds” of a splintered decision. See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (“When a fragmented court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.”) (emphasis added) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682, 693 (3d Cir. 1991) (“In a run-of-the-mill case where a majority of the Justices endorse a single legal standard, lower courts simply follow that standard.” (citation omitted)).
Moreover, to the extent that Justice O’Connor’s concurrence is attractive, it only elaborates that, in some cases, a fee award might be justified by the presence of other factors, such as a significant legal issue or the accomplishment of some public goal, which elevate the nominal damages beyond a mere “technical” or “de minimis” victory. Id. at 121-22 (O’Connor, J., concurring). And, in some unusual cases, courts have indeed cited these factors in affirming fee awards for nominal damages. See, e.g., Mercer v. Duke Univ., 401 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that the case involved a question of first impression that had broader implications for all women participating on traditionally male school sports teams); Diaz-Rivera v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 377 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2004) (concluding that the plaintiffs’ victory in a political discrimination suit against their municipality was a significant legal conclusion serving an important public purpose).
38

Case: 08-2500 Document: 00319765079 Page: 39 Date Filed: 08/12/2009
Nevertheless, an award of attorney’s fees remains inappropriate in the ordinary civil rights case where the only damages obtained were nominal. See Pino, 101 F.3d at 239 (“The vast majority of civil rights litigation does not result in ground-breaking conclusions of law . . . .”); Maul, 23 F.3d at 146 (observing that all “Section 1983 claims necessarily involve the violation of a right, privilege or immunity”).
Indeed, none of the indicated factors are present in this case. Nothing in the record suggests that Jama’s victory on her RFRA claim was anything but a technical and de minimis victory. Even the District Court was unable to justify awarding fees for Jama’s RFRA claim without borrowing substantially from the general negligence claim. Without the ability to conflate these two claims, however, the District Court would only be left to conclude that no fee award is appropriate.
II.
Because I would hold that the District Court is entirely precluded by the jury’s special interrogatories and verdict form from augmenting the nominal damages on the RFRA claim with the $100,000 damages on the general negligence claim, I would hold that the District Court’s judgment must be reversed and that the District Court must be instructed that no attorney’s fees are to be allowed. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion, which remands to the District Court for further consideration.
39

 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HAWA ABDI JAMA, et al.

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, :

INC., et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

Civ. No. 97-3093(DRD) O P I N I O N

Derek S. Tarson, Esq. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022
Attorneys for Plaintiff Hawa Abdi Jama

Steven D. Weinstein, Esq. New Jersey Resident Partner Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq. Blank Rome, LLP Woodland Falls Corporate Park 210 Lake Dr. E., Suite 200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

Larry S. Reich, Esq. Blank Rome LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10174

Frank R. Volpe, Esq. James C. Owens, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005
Attorneys for Defendants Esmor Correctional Services Inc., James Slattery, Richard Staley, and John Lima

Debevoise, Senior District Court Judge This is an action that nine plaintiffs brought against, Esmor Correctional Services, Inc.
(“Esmor”), James Slattery, Aaron Speisman, Willard Stovall, John Lima, Diane McClure, and Richard Staley1. The checkered history of this case is disclosed in the numerous opinions issued since its inception in 1997. Suffice it to say, the case arose out of the appalling conditions that prevailed at the detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, that Esmor managed under contract with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. With one exception the plaintiffs were persons awaiting hearing on their applications for asylum.
Trial commenced in September, 2007. By the conclusion of the nearly six weeks trial, all of the plaintiffs except Hawa Abdi Jama had settled with all the remaining defendants. Four of Jama’s claims went to the jury: i) violation of the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350; ii) negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision of administrators John Lima and Willard Stovall; iii) violation of Jama’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 bb, et seq. (“RFRA”); and iv) negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision of Esmor security officers (the “negligence claim”).
The jury found no liability against any defendant under the Alien Tort Claims Act and with respect to the claim of negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision of John Lima and Willard Stovall.
On the RFRA claim the jury found against Esmor and Lima, awarding her $1.00 in damages. On the New Jersey negligence claim the jury found against Esmor, Slattery, Staley and
1 Originally there were numerous other defendants, but they either settled or were dismissed from the case. Due to his illness at the time of trial, Willard Stovall was severed from the remaining defendants.
2

Lima, awarding Jama $100,000. Defendants have moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
50(b). They contend that the verdict on the RFRA claim was erroneous because there was not evidence of a “substantial burden” on Jama’s exercise of her religion, and the jury disregarded the evidence showing defendants established their statutory defense under RFRA to the effect that any burdens on Jama’s exercise of religion were in furtherance of a compelling government interest and were the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. With respect to the negligence claim, defendants contend that the verdict ignored the court’s statute of limitations charge and, in any event, Jama did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegedly negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention of certain Esmor security officers was a promote cause of any psychological or physical damage that she claims to have suffered at Esmor and, further, Jama did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained any compensable psychological or physical damage as a result of the negligent hiring, training, supervision or retention of Esmor security officers.
If, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Jama and giving her the advantage of every fair and reasonable inference, the verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence, the jury verdict must stand. Lighting Lube, Inc., v. Witco Corp., 5 F.3d 1153, 1156. There is a substantial trial record in this case. When that record is examined and the reasonable inferences drain, one will ask how the jury could have decided otherwise. If Jama and the other witnesses are believed, if the documentary evidence is taken into account, there is revealed a history of grievous abuses of the religious beliefs and practices not only of Jama but also of others, utterly without justification; and there is revealed a pattern of physical and emotional
3

abuse of detainees, including Jama, perpetrated by untrained and often sadistic guards, all of which was known or should have been known by higher officers in Esmor. Only a few examples of this evidence will be referred to in this opinion, but they are sufficient to demonstrate why defendants’ motion must be denied.
Jama was a devout Muslim, as were many other detainees. She and others, presented evidence that her ability to practice her religion at Esmor was substantially burdened. Her attempts to pray in the way dictated by her religion were interfered with by the guards. With no justification or reason they snatched her covering from her head as she prayed. When she was seated on the floor praying, guards grabbed her and threw her on her bed. Guards threw her Koran into the garbage and permitted dogs to sniff it during dorm searches. There were totally unnecessary naked strip searches and other occasions when Jama’s naked body was exposed to common view, a grievous offense to a Muslim woman. There was ample evidence that these practices by the guards were highly offensive to Muslim believers and that the guards and administrators were well award of their offensiveness.
Defendants maintain that they went to pains to enable Muslim detainees to avoid eating pork, but there is ample evidence that although this may have been the goal, it frequently was not observed. A kitchen worker testified that on occasion there were no substitute foods for those who did not eat pork. The only cleric to whom Jama was given access was a priest who urged her to pray to Jesus. Lima’s claim that he attempted to obtain Muslim religious leaders is negated by two letters from a local Islamic Center requesting to visit with Muslim detainees. Viewing the evidence in its entirety there is ample support for the jury’s determination that Jama’s religion was substantially burdened.
4

The offensive practices, about which numerous complaints were made to prison authorities, were so long-lasting and widespread that the policy making defendants either knew or should have known of their existence. Lima, as administrator, was particularly in a position to have been fully aware of these events. Jama specifically remonstrated with him about them, and he received communications from Stovall and Jama’s attorney about interference with her prayer and her exposure to food that violated her religion.
Defendants failed utterly to prove their affirmative defense. Of course they had to preserve security within the detention center, but a head covering (as distinguished from hiding one’s face) was not shown to have any security implication. Defendants had no compelling interest in serving pork to Muslims, throwing Korans in the garbage or on the floor, preventing Jama from praying on the floor, or permitting her naked body to be exposed in the showers and elsewhere. Certainly there were less restrictive means of serving whatever administrative concerns that defendants may have had.
Defendants Slattery, Staley and Lima (but not Esmor) asserted a statute of limitations defense on the state law negligence claim. Jama relied on a continuing offense theory to bring this claim within the New Jersey statute of limitations. The jury was charged:
In the present case, Esmor continued in operations through June 17th, 1995, and then shut down on June 18th. This lawsuit was commenced on June 16th, 1997. If the officer defendants can prove that all of the acts of the Esmor guards, if any, result[ing] from negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training occurred before June 16th, 1995, they have a defense against the negligent hiring, retention, supervision and training claim. In other words, if none of those alleged acts occurred on June 16th, 17th or 18th, 1995, the officers are entitled to the statute of limitations defense. The burden is on the defendant to prove this defense. It is defendants’ contention that “[t]here is not a scintilla of evidence of any act of an
5

Esmor guard occurring on June 16, 17, or 18, 1995, that caused injury to Plaintiff.” (Def. Brief at 12). They cite Jama’s testimony that during the early morning of June 18, 1995, while the detention center riot was being quelled, she was handcuffed, hosed down and sprayed with tear gas, but that it was the police (not the Esmor guards) who did it, and consequently Jama utterly failed to establish the existence of any act related to negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention that occurred on June 16, 17 or 18, 1995, or any injury arising out of such acts.
Defendants fail to address Jama’s testimony that many of the guards’ abuses which caused her psychological or physical harm occurred continuously each day of her detention. The dormitories remained filthy; the laughing and pointing by the guards when the detainees used the toilets and the showers never stopped; Jama was continually denied toilet paper and sanitary napkins; she had inadequate food; her religious needs were ignored. This was a continuing state of affairs, and there is no proof that it suddenly ended before June 16, 17 and 18, 1995. It is reasonable to infer that what had been going on in the Esmor detention center continued in its normal course until the riot resulted in closure of the center. It was defendants’ burden to prove its statute of limitations defense, and they offered no proof in this regard. See Dunn v. Borough of Mountainside, 301 N.J. Super. 262, 270 (App. Div. 1997). There is ample evidence to support the jury’s finding that the statute of limitations did not bar Jama’s negligence claim against Slattery, Staley and Lima2.
Esmor, Slattery, Staley and Lima also contend that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the negligence claim because Jama failed to establish proximate cause between
2 The statute of limitations had been tolled as to Esmor by virtue of its having been named as a defendant in a related class action. That action was settled.
6

any act resulting from negligent hiring, training, retention or supervision and any injury Jama suffered. They point to the terrible catastrophes Jama suffered in Somalia - the slaughter of her father and two brothers, being struck in the stomach with a gun, having her earlobe ripped off and being sent to a refugee camp.
After all, this, defendants assert, the consequences of the negligent hiring, supervision training and retention of the guards cannot have substantially caused Jama additional emotional injury. The defendants are clearly in error. There is substantial evidence that the actions of the guards, previously alluded to, caused this already impaired person further injury and prevented or delayed recovery from the psychological wounds with which she arrived at Esmor. Instead of finding refuge for which she fled from her tortured native country, she was thrust into a detention center where the guards mocked and violated her deeply held religious beliefs and subjected her to inhumane and occasionally torture-like treatment. There were the midnight sessions conducted by Lt. Wallington and his squad in which, for no reason other than practicing tactics, the squad routed all the inmates from their beds, lined them up against a wall, conducted demeaning strip searches, at least once with the use of a dog. There is the testimony (which must be accepted as true) that a security officer stomped on Jama’s finger and kicked her in the head.
Dr. Geteles’s expert testimony was to the effect that the abusive treatment that Jama received at Esmor exacerbated her pre-existing psychological injuries and caused further injury. It would hardly require an expert to support a finding that the treatment which Jama suffered caused substantial further physical and psychological injury.
The foregoing portions of this opinion mention only a fragment of the evidence that supports the jury’s verdict. It is sufficient, however, to establish that the Defendants’ motion for
7

judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) must be denied. The court will file an appropriate order.

March 17, 2008

/s/ Dickinson R. Debevoise DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE
U.S.S.D.J.

8

 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HAWA ABDI JAMA, et al.

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, :

INC., et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

Penny M. Venetis, Esq. Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic 123 Washington Street Newark, New Jersey 07102

Mary Beth Hogan, Esq. Derek S. Tarson, Esq. Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Steven D. Weinstein, Esq. New Jersey Resident Partner Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq. Blank Rome LLP Woodland Falls Corporate Park 210 Lake Drive E., Suite 200 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002

Larry S. Reich, Esq. Blank Rome LLP 405 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10174

Frank R. Volpe, Esq.

Civ. No. 97-3093(DRD) O P I N I O N

Sidley Austin LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005
Attorneys for Defendants, Correctional Services Corporation, James Slattery, Richard Staley, John Lima, and Aaron Speisman. Debevoise, Senior District Court Judge: On June 25, 2007 the court granted the motion of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic (the “Rutgers Clinic”) and Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP (“D&P”),1 for sanctions for Defendant’s failure to comply with discovery requests in connection with Defendants’ expert witness, Stuart Grassian, M.D. Plaintiffs’ attorneys moved initially for the payment of fees in the amount of $37,582.75 and expenses in the amount of $2,668.54 to the D&P firm and fees in the amount of $107,280.00 to the Rutgers Clinic. In a supplemental submission the Plaintiffs’ attorneys reduced by $4,693.50 their initial request for attorneys’ fees, and in a still further submission they sought additional attorneys’ fees for responding to Defendants’ objections in the amount of $20,963.50 ($7,000 for the Rutgers Clinic and $13,963.50 for D&P). The final request, rounded off, is for $163,801.00 for fees and expenses. The request is supported in meticulous detail by the certifications of Derek S. Tarson, Esq., of D&P and Penny M. Venetis, Esq., of the Rutgers Clinic, in which the hours and tasks of the attorneys and students working on the Grassian motion are set forth. Tarson’s original certification set forth the following information concerning the D&P fee application:
1 The judge handling this case has no relationship and never has had any relationship to the law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
2

LIST OF ATTORNEYS AND PARAPROFESSIONALS

Professional

Role

Year

Billing Rate Total

Graduated (per hour) Hours

Mary Beth Hogan Justin P. Smith Jason R. Abel Drew M. Dorman Derek S. Tarson
Laurel B. Lambert

ATTORNEYS

Partner 1990

825

Associate 1999

580

Associate 2001

515

Associate 2004

435

Associate 2004

435

PARAPROFESSIONALS

Senior Litigation Case 225 Manager

TOTALS

0.3 0.3 3.5 28.8 47.7
9.25
89.85

Total Amount (Lodestar)
$247.50 $174.00 $1,802.50 $12,528.00 $20,749.50
$2,081.25
$37,582.75

A supplemental Tarson certification was submitted in support of the application of additional fees in the amount of $13,963.50 on account of 32.1 hours Tarson expended preparing additional support for Plaintiffs’ fee application, including drafting Plaintiffs’ reply brief and certifications. Tarson also withdrew $4,695.50 from the initial request of D&P and the Rutgers Clinic.
The hours, rates and total fees requested initially on account of work of Rutgers Legal Clinic personnel were as follows.2

2 Ms. Venetis is Clinical Professor of Law, Clinical Scholar and Co-Director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers Law School. Messrs. Lambert, Orr and Parr were Rutgers Law School students working under the direction of Ms. Venetis.
3

Penny Venetis Reynold Lambert Asaf Orr Nicholas Parr Total

183 hours @ $400 225 hours @ 120 15.25 hours @ 120 43.75 hours @ 120

$73,200.00 $27,000.00 $1,830.00
$5,250.00 $107,280.00

A supplemental Venetis certification was submitted in support of the Rutgers Clinic’s application for an additional fee in the amount of $7,000 on account of her work expended preparing the response to Defendants’ opposition to the fee application.
Defendants challenge the application as “grossly unreasonable and even abusive given the limited scale of the issues for which Plaintiffs were granted fee shifting.” (Defendants’ Brief at 1-2). Defendants overlook the context in which this fee award was granted. Defendants had engaged in spoliation of evidence in connection with an important expert witness in this extraordinarily complex case which consumed ten years of motions and discovery. The nature of the case is disclosed in the numerous opinions which it has spawned and, in particular, in the court’s June 25, 2007 Daubert opinion in which the spoliation issue arose in connection with the admission of Dr. Grassian’s expert testimony. I have examined the time sheets of each lawyer and student who performed services in connection with the discovery motion and the application for fees, and, extensive as those labors were, in the context of this unusual case, they were reasonably necessary.
Besides their general objection to the totality of the fee request, Defendants raise specific objections. The first such objection is to the rates that the lawyers and students apply in pursuing the application, arguing that “Plaintiffs seek billing rates that far exceed those prevailing in New

4

Jersey . . . and it would be unreasonable to award attorney’s (sic) fees for the nonessential work performed by law students in this case as part of an educational clinical program.” (Defendants’ Brief at 2). Defendants urge that Plaintiffs’ attorneys should be compensated at the rate of $250 for partners, $125 for associates, $85 for paralegals and $0 for law students.
It required unusual legal expertise to litigate this case. Ms. Venetis during her many years litigating sophisticated civil rights and other complex cases had this expertise. The D&P law firm had particular expertise in the field of the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”), which was an important component of this case, and it had the legal and financial resources to enable it to engage in this litigation on a pro bono basis, with little expectation of ever recovering anything on account of the legal services it performed and the heavy expenditures it incurred. The particular motion that occasioned this attorneys’ fee award was integral to the overall complex case, and the rates should not fluctuate as the case moves from one phase to another. The differing degrees of skill required are reflected in the experience of the attorneys or students assigned to a task.
Defendants are in error when they argue that the attorney rates should be those that prevail generally in New Jersey. Rather the rates must be those charged by law firms in the Newark metropolitan area that engage in difficult, sophisticated litigation. Ms. Venetis, whose role is comparable to that of a senior partner at such a law firm, has presented data fully supporting her $400 hourly rate. She has submitted certifications of senior attorneys at major New Jersey firms and other evidence that confirms the reasonableness of that rate.
The rates sought on account of the D&P attorneys are their ususal rates and are comparable to rates of similarly experienced New York City attorneys. The fact that they are
5

performing their services on a pro bono basis in this case is no reason to discount these rates.

A question arises as to whether the D&P rates should be revised to reflect Metropolitan

New Jersey rates, which are somewhat lower than New York City attorney fee rates. Plaintiffs

argue that D&P lawyers “are also entitled to full [New York] fees because their firm is willing to

absorb large costs associated with litigating such a complex matter with the knowledge that their

costs may never be recovered” (Reply Memo at 7). Plaintiffs also contend that for other reasons

D&P is not within the Forum Rates Rule. D&P’s willingness to take on a case such as this

without compensation represents an extraordinary example of public service, but as a matter of

principle it would seem the better practice to apply the forum rate rule.

To accomplish that I will apply the fees awarded to the major Newark law firm of Sills

Cummis in a Rule 37 case, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44225, at *12 - *16. Those fees will be:

Mary Beth Hogan $600

Justin P. Smith

$335

John R. Abel

$300

Drew M. Dorman $235

Derek S. Tarson $235

Laurel B. Lambert $200

With this adjustment the original D&P fee request will be modified to reflect the following award:3

3 Dorman’s time reflects the withdrawal of .7 hours from the original request, and Tarson’s time reflects the withdrawal of 8.5 hours from the original request.
6

LIST OF ATTORNEYS AND PARAPROFESSIONALS

Professional

Role

Year

Billing Rate Total

Graduated (per hour) Hours

Mary Beth Hogan Justin P. Smith Jason R. Abel Drew M. Dorman Derek S. Tarson
Laurel B. Lambert

ATTORNEYS

Partner 1990

600

Associate 1999

335

Associate 2001

300

Associate 2004

235

Associate 2004

235

PARAPROFESSIONALS

Senior Litigation Case 200 Manager

TOTALS

0.3 0.3 3.5 28.1 39.2
9.25
80.65

Total Amount (Lodestar)
$180.00 $100.50 $1,050.00 $6,603.50 $9,212.00
$1,850.00
$18,996.00

Tarson’s supplemental request for compensation for 32.1 hours spent responding to Defendants’ opposition to the fee request will be compensated at the rate of $235 per hour, resulting in an additional award of $7,543.50 instead of $13,963.50. With the adjustments in the attorneys’ fee rates, the total application of D&P on account of attorneys’ fees is $26,539.50.
The $120 rate for compensating Rutgers students seems somewhat excessive, considering that their legal work also represented a part of their legal education. An appropriate rate is $100 per hour. This will result in compensation on account of Rutgers students as follows:

Reynold Lambert Osaf Orr Nicholas Parr

225 hours @ $100 15.25 hours @ $100 43.75 hours @ $100

$22,500.00 $1,525.00 $4,375.00

7

With the request on account of Ms. Venetis remaining at the $400 per hour rate the

original Rutgers Clinic award is $101,600, to which must be added the $7,000 on account of Ms.

Venetis’s work on the response to Defendants’ opposition to the fee application, for a total award

of $108,600.

After those attorney fee adjustments have been made, and subject to consideration of

Defendants’ other objections, the total award is:

D&P attorneys’ fees

$ 26,539.50

D&P expenses

$ 2,668.54

Rutgers Clinic’s attorneys’ fees $108,600.00

Total

$137,808.04

Defendants object to the total time spent for the following tasks as unreasonably

excessive, redundant and unnecessary:

1. Researching and drafting opening and reply briefs (329.9 hours/$61,598.75).

2. Correcting Plaintiffs’ own mistakes (3.7 hours/$1,557).

3. 3.5 hour Grassian re-deposition (99 hours/$34,630).

4. Drafting fee application (68.1 hours/$18,003.50).

5. Drafting letters to Court requesting conference call and outlining dispute (38.95

hours/$15,727).

6. Drafting letter requesting documents (19.95 hours/$8,384), including February 1,

2007, five-page letter regarding Dr. Grassian discovery issues (17.1 hours/$7,223).

7. Faxes, proofreading and duplicating ($1,487.61).

8. Costs in the amount of $2,668.54 (including $872.82 for faxes; $541.20 for

8

proofreading and $73.59 for photocopying on January 11, 2007. Plaintiffs have submitted a reply brief and a supplemental certification of Mr. Tarson in
support of the reasonableness of the time for which compensation is sought. They have been unable to reconcile the figures that Defendants advance, but defend the total hours for which they seek compensation in each category of work or expenditure that Defendants list.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys, students and the case manager spent a total of 249.2 hours preparing the moving papers, as reflected in the original certifications. This included legal research, drafting the opening brief, drafting the notice of motion, and assembling exhibits and preparing them in PDF format for electronic filing. Plaintiffs’ attorneys and case manager expended a total of 56.3 hours preparing the reply papers, including legal research, drafting the reply brief and supporting certification, assembling exhibits and preparing them in PDF format for electronic filing. The time expended for each of these tasks is reasonable and should be compensated. The requested amount of the compensation has been reduced by virtue of the reduction in rate awarded to certain of the attorneys and students.
The time required to redepose Dr. Grassian was augmented by Defendant’s delay in providing an errata sheet for Dr. Grassian’s first deposition, resulting in correspondence and telephone conferences. The total attorney and student time to prepare for and take Dr. Grassian’s renewed deposition was 63.85 hours. This included the time expended studying with care the four drafts of Dr. Grassian’s report and comparing them to the final report, an effort that was rewarded with the discovery that another draft existed, which Defendants produced after the motion for sanctions had been filed. In view of the difficulty in obtaining full compliance with Defendants’ discovery obligations and the importance and complexity of Dr. Grassian’s report
9

and testimony, this preparatory time was not excessive. Nor was the attorney and student time spent at the deposition and engaging in an analysis of its results excessive, as explained in Ms. Venetis’s Supplemental Certification.
To prepare the fee application relating to this six months discovery dispute, students had to sort through time sheets to extract the entries for which recovery was authorized. Parr spent 34 hours searching through two sets of time sheets for all students who worked on the case during the relevant period. D&P’s billing records are computerized, but Mr. Tarson required 5.2 hours to review these records for the relevant entries and 6.9 hours to draft the application. These hours are reasonable.
It is unnecessary to discuss each letter to the court or requesting documents as to which Defendants contend unreasonable time was spent. In her reply memorandum Ms. Venetis adequately explains as to each challenged letter the reasons why it consumed the time asserted. Some were in the nature of briefs; some required reference to other materials when drafting them; many involved critical subjects and required consultation with co-counsel and redrafting.
Mr. Tarson’s Supplemental Certification explains the need for expenses for which D&P seeks reimbursement. For example the December 1, 2006 $779.22 faxing charge resulted from Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter to the court seeking intervention because Defendants had failed to agree to the re-deposition of Dr. Grassian despite the fact that Defendants’ counsel produced documents a month after Dr. Grassian’s deposition. The letter had numerous exhibits and totaled 111 pages. To provide timely notice, Plaintiffs’ faxed the letter to all six of Defendants’ counsel. Faxing 666 pages at $1.17 per page totals the $779.22 fax charge of December 1, 2006.
The drafts of Dr. Grassian’s reports that were not turned over had to be reproduced,
10

incurring charges at the D&P word processing department, and comparing the various newly produced drafts with each preceding draft resulted in the $541.20 proofreading expense. D&P sought its costs for duplicating documents rather than the usual charge for such services.
A review of the original papers filed in support of the application for attorneys’ fees and costs and the supplemental brief and certifications leads to the conclusion that both the time expended and the expenditures incurred were reasonably necessary. The services should be compensated at the rates previously set.
Conclusion Plaintiffs’ motion for an order awarding them attorneys’ fees and expenses will be granted in the total amount of $137,808.04. The court will file an appropriate order.

November 20, 2007

/s/ Dickinson R. Debevoise DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE
U.S.S.D.J.

11

 
 FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

HAWA ABDI JAMA, n/k/a HALI HASHI :

EGAL, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH :

ABU BAKER, CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, :

ABRAHAM KENNEH, SHAMINU

:

NANTEZA, DENNIS RAJI, AGATHA :

SERWAA, and SARAH TETTEH YOWER, :

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES :

INC., n/k/a CORRECTIONAL SERVICES :

CORPORATION, JAMES SLATTERY, :

DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, :

WILLARD STOVALL, and PHILIP

:

JOHNSON,

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________ :

Civ. No. 97-3093(DRD) O P I N I O N

Appearances:

RUTGERS CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION CLINIC By: Penny M. Venetis, Esq. 123 Washington Street Newark, New Jersey 07102

DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP By: Derek S. Tarson, Esq. 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022

Attorneys for Plaintiff

BLANK ROME LLP By: Steven D. Weinstein, Esq.

Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq. Woodland Falls Corporate Park 210 Lake Drive E., Suite 200 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 Attorneys for Defendants
DEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge On November 13, 2007, the jury in this case returned a verdict for plaintiff Hawa Abdi
Jama (“Jama”), awarding her one dollar against two defendants for her claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, and $100,000 on her related pendant state law claims. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (“D&P”)1 and the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic (the “Clinic,” collectively, the “Movants”), attorneys for Jama, bring this application for an order granting certain attorney’s fees and expenses, related to the RFRA claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
I. BACKGROUND This was an action brought by nine plaintiffs (the “Plaintiffs”) against Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. (“Esmor”), John Lima (“Lima”), and others. The checkered history of this case is described in detail in the numerous opinions issued since its inception in 19972. Suffice it to say,
1The judge handling this case has no relationship and never has had any relationship with the law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP.
2See Jama v. U.S. I.N.S., 22 F.Supp.2d 353 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 1998) (Motion to Dismiss); Jama v. U.S. I.N.S., 334 F.Supp.2d 662 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2004) (Summary Judgment); Jama v. U.S.I.N.S., 343 F.Supp.2d 338 (D.N.J. Nov. 10, 2004) (Summary Judgment); Jama v. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., 2005 WL 2901899 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2005) (Motion to Stay Case Pending Appeals); Jama v. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., 2007 WL 1847385 (D.N.J. June 25, 2007) (Daubert Motions); Jama v. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., 2007 WL 4166016
2

the case arose out of the appalling conditions that prevailed at the detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey (the “Elizabeth Center”), managed by Esmor under contract with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. With one exception, the Plaintiffs were persons awaiting hearing on their applications for asylum.
The matter came to trial in September 2007 after more than ten years of expensive, complex litigation3. For most of the litigation, and for all of the trial, Plaintiffs were represented, pro bono, by lawyers and law students associated with the Movants.
A. The Claims and Verdict By the conclusion of the nearly six week trial, all of the plaintiffs, except Jama, had
settled with all the remaining defendants. Four of Jama’s claims went to the jury: (i) violation of Jama’s rights under the RFRA; (ii) violation of the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350; iii) negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision of administrators John Lima and Willard Stovall; and, iv) negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision of Esmor security officers (the “Negligence Claims”). The total amount of damages sought was nearly $5 million, plus punitive damages, including $250,000 sought in statutory damages under RFRA.
On November 13, 2007, the jury returned a verdict, finding no liability against any defendant standing trial under the ATCA or pursuant to the claim of negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision of John Lima and Willard Stovall.
(D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2007) (Attorney’s Fees); Jama v. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., 2008 WL 724337 (D.N.J. March 17, 2008) (Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law).
3Defendant, Willard Stovall, was severed from the case before trial because of his illness. 3

On the RFRA claim the jury found against Esmor and Lima, awarding her one dollar in
damages. On the New Jersey negligence claim, the jury found against Esmor, Slattery, Staley
and Lima, awarding Jama $100,000.
B. Representation of Plaintiffs The Clinic began representing Jama and eight other individuals (collectively “Plaintiffs”),
pro bono, in June 1995, and commenced this litigation on their behalf, in June 1997. D&P
began working on the case, also pro bono, in December 1997. Together, Movants submit that
they have incurred expenses and rendered services valued at a combined total of more than $17.1
million on the case.
Jama, by letter, terminated her relationship with Movants in December, 2007, though
Movants continue to represent Jama for purposes of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and for purposes of this fee application4.
II. DISCUSSION The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the application of the “American Rule” that
“each party in a lawsuit ordinarily shall bear its own attorney's fees unless there is express
statutory authorization to the contrary.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct.
1933, 1937 (1983) (citing Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 95
4Defendants, by sur-reply, contend that the Movants lack standing to make this application considering Ms. Jama’s termination of her relationship with Movants. The argument is unavailing for two reasons. First, it is not insignificant that Movants continue to represent Jama in a critical, dispositive post-trial motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Second, the court sees no danger of a conflict of interest arising as the result of this application. See Mayberry v. Walters, 862 F.2d 1040, 1043 (3d Cir. 1988) (Holding that the attorney “had standing to maintain her petition in the district court, recognizing that in reality her petition is to be judged as though it were the petition of the client” since there was no apparent conflict of interest).
4

S.Ct. 1612 [1975] [Denying attorney’s fees to a civil rights plaintiff]) . Following the court’s decision in Alyeska Pipeline, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, authorizing the district courts to award a reasonable attorney's fee to prevailing parties in civil rights litigation. Id. The purpose of § 1988 is to ensure “effective access to the judicial process” for persons with civil rights grievances. Id. (citing H.R.Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 1 [1976]). The court held that “[a] prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.’ ” S.Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 4 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5912 (quoting Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400, 402 [1968]) A. Fee Shifting Under § 1988
In this case, Defendants argue that Jama’s one-dollar award and pendant state-law award do not entitle her to damages under § 1988 because the facts supporting Jama’s state-law claims were “completely different” from those giving rise to her RFRA claims. Defendants contend that Jama’s nominal damages award on her RFRA claim does not make her a prevailing party for feeshifting purposes. Movants argue that much of the same conduct which gave rise to Plaintiffs’ RFRA claims also gave rise to the pendant Negligence Claims, and that Movants are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under § 1988.
A plaintiff prevails “when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff." P.N. v. Clementon Bd. of Educ., 442 F.3d 848, 855 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111-12 [1992]). "[P]laintiffs may be considered 'prevailing parties' for attorney[s'] fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in
5

litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit." Clementon,
442 F.3d at 855 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 [1983]). In this case, Jama
has secured: (1) nominal damages and a favorable judgment on the merits of her RFRA claims,
and (2) substantial damages and a favorable judgment on the merits of her related state-law
claims. These achievements clearly result in both a modification of the Defendants’ behavior,
and a benefit for the prevailing party. See Bridges v. Eastman Kodak Co., 102 F.3d 56, 58 (2d Cir. 1996)5 (citing Farrar, 506 U.S. at 111-12 [1992]).
The Farrar Court found that the plaintiff in that case was not entitled to attorney’s fees
because he sought compensatory damages, but received no more than nominal damages. Id. 506
U.S. at 115. Whether a plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees depends upon “the degree of
plaintiff’s overall success.” Id. at 114. Justice Ginsburg, writing a concurring opinion,
summarized why plaintiff Farrar was not entitled to attorney’s fees:
If ever there was a plaintiff who deserved no attorney's fees at all, that plaintiff is Joseph Farrar. He filed a lawsuit demanding 17 million dollars from six defendants. After 10 years of litigation and two trips to the Court of Appeals, he got one dollar from one defendant. As the Court holds today, that is simply not the type of victory that merits an award of attorney's fees.
5In Bridges, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the application for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), rather than § 1988, but the analysis is precisely the same. See S.Rep. No. 1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 3-4, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5908, 5912; see also Walker v. Anderson Elec. Connectors, 944 F.2d 841, 846 n. 10 (11th Cir.1991). Cases decided under § 1988 (and other similar attorney's fees provisions) “‘therefore are authoritative in the Title VII context,’ ” Reed v. A.W. Lawrence & Co., 95 F.3d 1170, 1183 n. 16 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Lyte, 950 F.2d at 103); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939 n. 7 (1983).
6

Id. at 116. Although the instant litigation has lasted more than a decade, and involved claims for damages greater than the amount the jury ultimately awarded, Jama’s award of more than $100,000 represents a substantial success, and clearly distinguishes this case from Farrar.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Farrar, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case similar to the one at bar, finding that the plaintiffs’ victory on the merits of their Title VII claim, together with their win and award of damages on the merits of a related state-law claim, made them “‘prevailing part[ies] eligible for attorney’s fees and costs . . .” Bridges, 102 F.3d at 59. In Bridges, the plaintiffs did not win any damages on their federal law claim because they failed to prove compensable damages, and because of the court’s decision to avoid doublerecovery after plaintiffs were awarded significant damages on their related state-law claims. Id.
The outcome was similar in the instant case, with Jama prevailing on her RFRA claim and on her pendant Negligence Claims, but winning only nominal damages on her RFRA claim. The jury here was not in a position to clarify whether it had concluded that Jama had simply not proven any compensable injury due to infringement of her religious freedom, or whether the result reflected the jury’s inability to distinguish between those and other injuries Jama suffered, leading the jury to bundle all of Jama’s injuries into one substantial award under Jama’s Negligence Claims. The court finds that the evidence strongly suggests that the jury’s award on the Negligence Claims included compensation for injuries caused by RFRA-related conduct, since the RFRA-related conduct was such a significant part of Jama’s Negligence Claims.
To be sure, as the Bridges Court noted, Plaintiffs pressing federal civil rights claims often combine these claims with related state-law claims, resulting in many permutations and combinations of relief. As the court explained in Bridges,
7

[t]he plaintiff may succeed on all, some, or none of her federal claims, while succeeding on all, some, or none of her state claims. On each winning claim, the plaintiff may achieve several forms of relief ( e.g., money damages, nominal damages, injunctions compelling or preventing certain future action, or declaratory relief). Accounting for full or partial settlements, alternative holdings, and reversals on appeal, it often becomes difficult to discern when a plaintiff has “prevailed.” Id. at 58. But, in that case, the court held that in light of the fact that the claims were based upon the same conduct, “plaintiff who received only nominal damages on her federal constitutional claim, but substantial damages on a related state-law . . . claim, was eligible for attorney's fees on the basis of her state-law-claim success.” Id., 102 F.3d at 59 (citing, Milwe v. Cavuoto, 653 F.2d 80, 84 [2d Cir. 1981]). In Bridges, the plaintiff’s state and federal causes of action mirrored one another, and the damages on the pendant state-law cause of action were designed to compensate for the very injuries giving rise to the federal claim. Thus, success on the pendant state-law cause of action clearly constituted success on the federal civil rights claims. Here, the pendant Negligence Claims were based upon additional conduct unrelated to the RFRA claims; however, in light of the evidence, the court finds that a substantial portion of the jury’s $100,000 award on Jama’s state law claims (the “Award Ratio”) reflects damages which Jama sustained as the result of the infringement of her religious rights (caused by the negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision upon which the Negligence Claims are based). A significant portion of the evidence Jama presented at trial related to her religious background and to damages she claimed to have sustained while detained at the Elizabeth Facility. Jama was a devout Muslim, as were many other detainees. She and others presented extensive evidence that her ability to practice her religion at the Elizabeth Facility was
8

substantially burdened. Her attempts to pray in the way dictated by her religion were interfered with by the guards. With no justification or reason, the guards snatched her covering from her head as she prayed. When she was seated on the floor praying, guards grabbed her and threw her on her bed. Guards threw her Koran into the garbage and permitted dogs to sniff it during dorm searches. There were totally unnecessary naked strip searches and other occasions Jama’s naked body was exposed to common view, a grievous offense to a Muslim woman. There was ample evidence that these practices were highly offensive to Muslim believers.
The evidence showed that Muslim detainees had to eat pork, and a kitchen worker testified that, on occasion, there were no substitute foods for those who did not eat pork. The only cleric to whom Jama was given access was a priest who urged her to pray to Jesus. The offensive practices, about which numerous complaints were made to prison authorities, were long-lasting and widespread, and Jama specifically remonstrated with Lima about them. Lima received communications from Stovall and Jama’s attorney about interference with her prayer and her exposure to food that violated her religion. There is considerable evidence that the conduct of Esmor and Lima substantially burdened Jama’s religious freedom such that, indeed, it is difficult to imagine that a significant portion of the jury’s award was not based upon RFRArelated conduct.
Based upon the evidence, the court finds that between 33% and 50% of the jury’s Negligence Claims award of $100,000 was designed as compensation for Jama’s RFRA-related injuries. Under the Farrar and Bridges frameworks, this finding renders Jama a prevailing party for attorney’s fees purposes under § 1988.
In opposing the application for fees, Defendants rely heavily on Farrar’s statement that:
9

In a civil rights suit for damages . . . the awarding of nominal damages . . . highlights the plaintiff's failure to prove actual, compensable injury. Whatever the constitutional basis for substantive liability, damages awarded in a § 1983 action ‘must always be designed ‘to compensate injuries caused by the [constitutional] deprivation.’ When a plaintiff recovers only nominal damages because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief, the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all. Id., 506 U.S. at 115 (citations omitted). The court finds this warning inapplicable. The Farrar Court was concerned that the “litigation accomplished little beyond giving petitioners ‘the moral satisfaction of knowing that a federal court concluded that [their] rights had been violated’ in some unspecified way.” Id. at 114 (quoting Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 762 [1987]). Unlike the plaintiffs in Farrar and Hewitt, in this case, Jama achieved substantial success and a significant monetary award on her related pendant state-law claims. Indeed, Jama obtained exactly what the Hewitt Court required: a favorable judgment requiring Defendants to pay damages. Hewitt, 482 U.S. at 761. In further support of their arguments, Defendants contend that several other cases cited by Movants, including Allen v. Dist. of Columbia, 503 A.2d 1233 (D.C. App. 1986), Bonner v. Guccione, 178 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1999), Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 914 (2d Cir. 1997), and Milwe v. Cavuoto, 653 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1981), do not comport with Movants’ application. In Allen, the court directed that attorney’s fees should be awarded to plaintiff, even though he was awarded no damages on his federal civil rights claim, because he was awarded significant damages on his pendant assault claim which was based upon “the same nucleus of facts as his substantial constitutional claim.” Id. at 1236-77. Defendants argue that “the facts
10

giving rise to Ms. Jama’s negligent hiring claims were completely different from those giving rise to her RFRA claims.” This argument is unavailing since certainly some substantial portion of the jury’s verdict on the Negligence Claims reflected injuries caused by the same conduct which implicated RFRA.
In Bonner, the plaintiff failed to obtain either an enforceable judgment or settlement agreement against the defendants on her Title VII cause of action, and the court refused to award attorney’s fees. Id., 178 F.3d at 594. Defendants argue, unconvincingly, that Bonner amounts to a Second Circuit mandate against allowing federal fee-shifting based upon the success of pendant state-law claims. Defendants also point to the court’s statement that fee-shifting could not be implicated in a case in which the federal claim--whether constitutional or statutory--has been actually decided. Id. at 595. Defendants argue that since Jama’s RFRA claim was “actually decided” (in her favor), Movants cannot seek fees based upon success on Jama’s Negligence Claims. This contention is without merit. Even a cursory reading of Bonner reveals that the court intended to foreclose the awarding of attorney’s fees only in those cases in which a federal civil rights claim has been “actually decided” adversely to the party seeking fees. Id.
Similarly, Lightfoot is inapposite. In that case, only the plaintiff’s state-law claim survived summary judgment and went to trial, but plaintiff did not succeed on the merits of his federal claim. Id., 110 F.3d at 913. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, explaining that “attorney's fees are available in cases in which the plaintiff prevails on a wholly statutory, non-civil rights claim pendent to a substantial constitutional claim” the merits of which have been decided in his favor. Id. at 914 (citing Milwe, 653 F.2d at 84.) In the instant case, Jama has achieved victory on her federal claim as evidenced by her victory on the merits of that
11

claim together with her substantial damages award on the pendant Negligence Claims. Finally, Defendants, citing Milwe, argue that Jama’s successful state-law negligence
claims are not “wholly statutory,” and therefore is not relevant to this fee-shifting analysis. This argument is also unavailing. Although the Milwe Court noted that the fee-shifting statute could apply in cases “in which the plaintiff prevails on a wholly statutory, non-civil rights claim pendent to a substantial constitutional claim,” the Court did not intend to exclude common law claims. Id., 653 F.2d at 84 (citing Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 132 [1980]). The issue before the Maher Court was whether Congress was acting within its enforcement power, under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, in “allowing the award of fees in a case in which the plaintiff prevails” on pendant claims which were non-constitutional, or “wholly statutory” claims. Id., 448 U.S. at 132. The Court found that Congress was within its power. Id. A reading of Maher reveals that the term “wholly” was designed not to exclude common law claims–indeed, the distinction between common law and statutory claims was not at issue–but rather to include claims lacking a constitutional component, i.e., those that are “wholly statutory.” Id. And, as Movants point out, federal courts have upheld awards of attorney’s fees based upon a plaintiff’s success on pendant state common law causes of action. See Milwe, 653 F.2d 80, and Allen, 503 A.2d 1233. Thus, the fact that Jama’s pendant Negligence Claims, for which the jury awarded her $100,000, were common law causes of action, rather than “wholly statutory” claims, is not relevant. B. Limitation of Award
In deciding the amount of the attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded, the court must heed the Supreme Court’s warning in Farrar, that “if ‘a plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited
12

success, the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount.’” Id., 506 U.S. at 114 (quoting Hensley, supra, 461 U.S. at 436). In view of any limitations of success, the court must engage “in [a] measured exercise of discretion.” Id.
A district court has broad discretion in determining the amount of an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, and the “results obtained” are an important factor in determining the final amount of an award of attorney’s fees. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. Where the attorneys for the prevailing party have “obtained excellent results,” counsel should “recover a fully compensatory fee,” which normally encompasses “all hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” Id. at 435. If, however, the prevailing party “has achieved only partial or limited success,” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436, then the Court “can reduce the hours claimed by the number of hours spent litigating claims on which the party did not succeed and that were distinct in all respects from claims on which the party did succeed,” Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1183 (3d Cir. 1990).
The court finds that Movants indeed “obtained excellent results” for Jama on her RFRA claims; however, the court will not grant fees and expenses beyond the extent of Jama’s success on her RFRA claims. Since the Movants have already reduced the total amount of fees and expenses requested to reflect only efforts made on religious freedom issues (the “Cost Ratio”), the only question is whether the Cost Ratio is wholly excessive compared to the Award Ratio.
Movants have provided a detailed account of the time and expenses comprising the Cost Ratio, and argue that they are entitled to compensation for the same. Applying the rates and hours which Movants have submitted, Movants request is about 25.5% of the total fees and expenses for the entire litigation. Defendants present their own computations which lead to a
13

Cost Ratio calculation somewhat lower than the one Movants proffer. Defendants’ specific objections concerning the number of hours attributable to RFRA will be addressed, infra, but generally, there is no limiting characteristic of Jama’s success on the RFRA claims which would render Movants’ request unreasonably large.
Under Farrar, attorney’s fees should be limited by the extent of plaintiff’s success on her federal civil rights claim. Id., 506 U.S. at 114. The Cost Ratio under Movants’ formula (25.5%) is certainly less than the Award Ratio (33%-50%). This means that the extent of Jama’s success obtaining relief for her RFRA-related injuries (relative to compensation for her other injuries) exceeds the proportion of total costs Movants wish to claim as RFRA-related costs. In view of this comparison of ratios, the court will not further adjust the fees and expenses requested. Thus, Movants are entitled to all fees and expenses related to the RFRA claim not otherwise found to be excessive or unreasonable. C. Lodestar Analysis
“The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). “The product of this calculation is called the lodestar,” Apple Corps. v. Int’l Collectors Soc’y, 25 F. Supp. 2d 480, 484 (D.N.J. 1998), and it “provides an objective basis on which to make an initial estimate of the value of a lawyer’s services,” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. “The lodestar is strongly presumed to yield a reasonable fee.” Washington v. Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1035 (3d Cir. 1996).
The party seeking an award of attorney’s fees bears the burden of establishing the
14

reasonableness of both the hours worked and rates claimed. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; Apple
Corps., 25 F. Supp. 2d at 484. Once the attorney’s fee applicant has produced satisfactory
evidence,6 the burden shifts to “the party opposing the fee to contest the reasonableness of the
hourly rate requested or the reasonableness of the hours expended.” Apple Corps., 25 F. Supp.
2d at 485. “If the party opposing the fee petition meets its burden of proving that an adjustment
is necessary, the court has wide discretion to adjust the attorneys’ fee.” Id.
Once the lodestar has been computed, the “court can adjust the lodestar downward if the
lodestar is not reasonable in light of the results obtained.” Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177,
1183 (3d Cir. 1990). A court, however, may not “decrease a fee award based on factors not
raised at all by the adverse party.” Id.
Since the Cost Ratio, under the Movants’ calculation, is less than the Award Ratio, i.e.,
the Movants’ alleged fees and expenses reflect a cost effective representation vis-a-vis Jama’s
religious rights, the court is inclined to look favorably upon the Movants’ calculations.
(a) Reasonableness of Hours Expended
6 Local Civil Rule 54.2(a), which governs motions for attorney’s fees, requires “an attorney seeking compensation for services or reimbursement of necessary expenses” to file with the Court an affidavit which sets forth:
(1) the nature of the services rendered, the amount of the estate or fund in court, if any, the responsibility assumed, the results obtained, any particular novelty or difficulty about the matter, and other factors pertinent to the evaluation of the services rendered;
(2) a record of the dates of services rendered; (3) a description of the services rendered on each of such dates by each person of that
firm including the identity of the person rendering the service and a brief description of that person’s professional experience; (4) the time spent in the rendering of each of such services; and (5) the normal billing rate for each of said persons for the type of work performed; within 30 days of the entry of judgement or order. L. Civ. R. 54.2(a).
15

The first step in calculating the lodestar is determining whether the number of hours expended was reasonable. Any “hours that were not reasonably expended” must be excluded from the fee calculation. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. “Hours are not reasonably expended if they are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Rode, 892 F.2d at 1183.
The total number of attorney hours may also be reduced when “the documentation of hours is inadequate.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. The fee petition must be “specific enough to allow the district court to determine if the hours claimed are unreasonable for the work performed,” Washington v. Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1037 (3d Cir. 1996), and should include “fairly definite information as to the hours devoted to various general activities,” Rode, 892 F.2d at 1190. It is not necessary, however, “to know the exact number of minutes spent nor the precise activity to which each hour was devoted nor the specific attainments of each attorney.” Id.
Movants’ request is supported in meticulous detail by the certifications of Derek S. Tarson, Esq., of D&P, and Penny M. Venetis, Esq., of the The Clinic, in which the hours and tasks of the attorneys and students who worked on RFRA-related aspects of the case are set forth. Many of the costs of the litigation were born for items not clearly or directly related to RFRA. Movants offer a solution to this problem in the form of a system by which they have determined what percentage of the hours spent on various tasks should be attributed to work on Jama’s RFRA claims. Under the Movants’ scheme, various tasks and expenses are categorized and weighted. The weights for each category correspond to the extent to which fees and expenses in a given category related to the RFRA claims. By combining all of the weighted totals, a total number of hours can be found for each professional who worked on the case.
16

Defendants submit two forms of objections regarding the hours claimed by the Movants. First, the Defendants argue that the Movants’ formula for determining the percentage of billed hours which should be attributed to the work on Jama’s RFRA claims is unreasonable. Defendants submit that the percentage of pages of trial and deposition transcripts is the best measure of the cost-significance of the RFRA claims, rather than the percentage of pages of briefs (the Movants’ method). As noted, supra, the Movants’ requested proportion of the total of claimed fees and expenses–25.5%–is less than the Award Ratio of 33%-50%, so the court views the Movants’ calculations with favor. Second, while duly noted, Defendants proposed calculation method is merely an argument, and not “evidence,” and the court finds that the Movants’ method likely leads to an accurate estimate of the actual proportion of fees and expenses related to RFRA. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Movants are in the best position to determine the formula for calculating the portion of their own work which can be attributed to the RFRA claims. Without evidence to the contrary, the court sees no reason, in this instance, to doubt the accuracy of Movants’ method of estimation.
The Defendants also present numerous specific objections to various fees and expenses enumerated in Movants’ original application, which Defendants argue were outside the scope of the representation of Jama in her pursuit of relief under RFRA, or were otherwise unreasonable. One group of objections addresses hours billed for tasks which Defendants argue were related to Movants’ own mistakes and edification, including technical difficulties with software, various travel and meal expenses, a conflict with Jama, a misplaced document, software training, case management, time spent on the INS case, and reimbursement for a hotel stay to cover an unrelated IPO/sale. In a supplemental submission, Movants respond to each of these objections
17

and concede to several of them, reducing the total requested fees and expenses accordingly. The court has examined each of the remaining objections and finds that none of them has merit.
Another group of objections addresses expert and deposition costs and other fees which Defendants claim are unrelated to RFRA. Movants have responded to each of these objections, and the court has examined the arguments and evidence submitted by both sides. None of these objections has merit.
Finally, the Defendants argue that many of the Movants billed hours were repetitive or excessive, including many of the hours billed for pre-trial and trial-related tasks. Again, the court has reviewed the objections and evidence, and the court concludes that the hours claimed by the Movants are reasonable.
Thus, the court concludes that all of the hours shown by counsel’s billing records are reasonable and related to RFRA, and the court will include all of the hours in the lodestar calculation.
(b) Reasonableness of the Hourly Rate D&P sets forth the following hourly rates for its lawyers and other staff:

Employment Position/Level of Experience Partner Senior Associate Fifth-year Associate Fourth-year Associate Third-year Associate Second-year Associate First-year Associate

Rate $600 $335 $300 $265 $235 $215 $205

18

Summer Associate

$100

Senior Paralegal/Case Manager

$200

Law Librarians

$150

Litigation Support Staff

$125

Other Legal Assistants

$80

The Clinic asserts that the reasonable hourly rate for Ms. Venetis’s time is $400. A “reasonable hourly rate is calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the
community.” Smith v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 107 F.3d 223, 225 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting Washington, 89 F.3d at 1035). “The starting point in determining a reasonable hourly rate is the attorneys’ usual billing rate, but this is not dispositive.” Public Interest Research Group v. Windall, 51 F.3d 1179, 1185 (3d Cir. 1995).
The court applied the appropriate case law and conducted a thorough analysis in a previous fee application in this same case, see Jama v. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., 2007 WL 4166016, *1 (D.N.J. 2007), and determined that these rates are reasonable. Still, the Defendants argue that the rates proposed by Movants are excessive, and should be reduced to reflect what the Defendants argue are reasonable market rates in Newark. Movants contend that the rates they requested in the fee application are consistent with the earlier decision of this court in this case, and they are not unreasonable considering the market.
Defendants posit that the earlier fee decision involved a different balance of equities because the previous fees award followed a discovery dispute in which the Defendants were found to have improperly withheld a particular document. The court disagrees. As the Movants note, the amount awarded in the previous fee application does not reflect rates which the court

19

found to be generous, nor were the rates punitively exaggerated. Instead, without regard to the basis giving rise to the award, the court applied these rates to the lodestar because the court determined that they are reasonable rates. The formula for determining what is reasonable is the same for this fee applications as for the previous one. Thus, the court concludes that the hourly rates submitted by the Movants are reasonable.
(c) Lodestar Calculation Having concluded that the Movants’ submissions regarding the number of hours spent on the RFRA-related portion of this case are reasonable, and that the hourly rates submitted by the Movants are reasonable, the lodestar will be calculated by multiplying the hours submitted for each professional by the rate listed for the respective professional. The product of these numbers yields a total lodestar figure of $642,398.57. The Court will award this amount to Movants as attorney’s fees. D. Attorney’s Fees Owed by Slattery and Staley Although Defendants’ counsel does not request separate treatment of each defendant, the Court finds that the separate treatment is appropriate and necessary. The jury found only Esmor and Lima liable under RFRA, so Jama was not successful on her RFRA claims against defendants Slattery and Staley. Therefore, defendants Slattery and Staley are not liable for any attorney’s fees.
20

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Movants are entitled to attorney’s fees and expenses in the amount of $642,398.57.

Dated:

April 23, 2008

/s/ Dickinson R. Debevoise DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE, U.S.S.D.J.

21

 
 Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 1 of 68
12BF,CLOSED,RULE16,SCHEDO
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Newark) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:97−cv−03093−DRD−MAS

JAMA, et al v. ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVS., INC., et al Date Filed: 06/16/1997

Assigned to: Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise

Date Terminated: 12/07/2007

Referred to: Magistrate Judge M. A. Shipp

Jury Demand: Defendant

Demand: $0

Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other

Case in other court: Third Circuit, 05−01160

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

03−03096

Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Plaintiff

HAWA ABDI JAMA also known as HALI HASHI EGAL

represented by DREW MATTHEW DORMAN DEBEVOISE &PLIMPTON LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10022 212−909−6606 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

FRANK ASKIN CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION CLINIC RUTGERS LAW SCHOOL 123 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK, NJ 07102 (973) 353−5687 Email: faskin@kinoy.rutgers.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DEREK SHERMAN TARSON 249 SOUTH BLVD. NYACK, NY 10960 845−405−1309 Email: dtarson@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ABU BAKAR

represented by DREW MATTHEW DORMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DEREK SHERMAN TARSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JOSEPH ACKAH TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 2 of 68

Plaintiff
BENJAMIN ANANG TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
KWEKU AWOTWE TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
YVETTE NSUKAMI BADJOKO TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
GONZALO CRESPO TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JOSEPH DEBRAH TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CECILIA KOU JEFFREY

represented by DREW MATTHEW DORMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DEREK SHERMAN TARSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH

represented by DREW MATTHEW DORMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DEREK SHERMAN TARSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 3 of 68

ABRAHAM KENNETH

represented by DREW MATTHEW DORMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DEREK SHERMAN TARSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
NAGENDRAN MANOHARAN TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
THOMAS KYEU MANU TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DENNIS RAJI

represented by DREW MATTHEW DORMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DEREK SHERMAN TARSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SHAMINU NANTEZA

represented by DREW MATTHEW DORMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DEREK SHERMAN TARSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff AGATHA SERWAA

represented by DREW MATTHEW DORMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 4 of 68

FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DEREK SHERMAN TARSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JASMEL SINGH TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
FOLORUNSHO WASIU ALIBI TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SARAH TETTEH YOWER

represented by DREW MATTHEW DORMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DEREK SHERMAN TARSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CHARLES ADDAI TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by FRANK ASKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE TERMINATED: 06/05/2007
Defendant ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC. TERMINATED: 12/07/2007 also known as CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION

represented by SUSAN C. CASSELL 419 LUCILLE COURT RIDGEWOOD, NJ 07450 201−445−3894 Fax: 201−445−3894 Email: CASSELL.SUSAN@GMAIL.COM LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JEFFREY L. CHASE CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD &RUBIN LLC 354 EISENHOWER PARKWAY LIVINGSTON, NJ 07039 973−535−8840

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 5 of 68

TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Email: jchase@herzfeld−rubin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH N. CORDARO BLANK ROME LLP THE CHRYSLER BUILDING 405 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10174 212−885−5000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEVEN D. WEINSTEIN BLANK ROME, LLP WOODLAND FALLS CORPORATE PARK 210 LAKE DRIVE EAST SUITE 200 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002 (856) 779−3600 Email: weinstein@blankrome.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KIRA FEENY SPAMAN BLANK ROME LLP 210 LAKE DRIVE EAST SUITE 200 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002 (856) 779−3600 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KIT APPLEGATE 53 Oxford Circle Southampton, NJ 08088 (856) 986−4955 Fax: (856) 872−4500 Email: ka@kitapplegatelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DAVID C. KISTLER BLANK ROME, LLP ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. LLEWELLYN MATHEWS EAST GATE CENTER 309 FELLOWSHIP ROAD SUITE 200 MT. LAUREL, NJ 08054 609−519−7744 Fax: 609−257−4110 Email: jlmathews@jlmesq.com TERMINATED: 05/15/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOHN DOE McCLEAN TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

represented by EDWARD R. MURPHY LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. DUNN, LLC TWO EXECUTIVE CAMPUT, SUITE 402 2370 ROUTE 70 WEST CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 6 of 68

856−317−9640 Email: Edward.Murphy@MJDunnLaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NORMAN UZZLE TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

represented by EDWARD R. MURPHY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

ELIZABETH A. DALBERTH The Law Offices Of Michael J. Dunn Two Executive Campus Suite 402 2370 Route 70 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002 (856) 317−9640 Fax: (856) 910−1480 Email: elizabeth.dalberth@mjdunnlaw.com TERMINATED: 05/11/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MICHAEL D. ROZOS TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

represented by EDWARD R. MURPHY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
JOHN DOE BOYER TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JOHN DOE FREISS TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JOHN DOE SILVA TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

Defendant
JAMES SLATTERY TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

represented by JEFFREY L. CHASE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH N. CORDARO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEVEN D. WEINSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KIRA FEENY SPAMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 7 of 68

Defendant AARON SPIESMAN TERMINATED: 10/04/2007
Defendant WILLARD STOVALL TERMINATED: 12/26/2007
Defendant

KIT APPLEGATE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. LLEWELLYN MATHEWS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JEFFREY L. CHASE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEVEN D. WEINSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSEPH N. CORDARO BLANK ROME LLP 405 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10174 212−885−5000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KIRA FEENY SPAMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KIT APPLEGATE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. LLEWELLYN MATHEWS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KEITH J. MILLER ROBINSON, WETTRE &MILLER LLC ONE NEWARK CENTER 19TH FLOOR NEWARK, NJ 07102 (973) 690−5400 Fax: (973) 466−2760 Email: kmiller@rwmlegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEVEN L. LAPIDUS ROBINSON, LAPIDUS &LIVELLI Two Penn Plaza East NEWARK, NJ 07105−5369 973−690−5400 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 8 of 68

JOHN LIMA TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

represented by JOSEPH N. CORDARO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEVEN D. WEINSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KIRA FEENY SPAMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KIT APPLEGATE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DAVID C. KISTLER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. LLEWELLYN MATHEWS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JAMES POULAND TERMINATED: 10/29/1998

represented by CHARLES E. POWERS , JR. HARWOOD, LLOYD, ESQS. 130 MAIN STREET HACKENSACK, NJ 07601 201−487−1080 Email: cpowers@harwoodlloyd.com TERMINATED: 10/29/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DIANE McCLURE TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

represented by BRUCE E. BARRETT MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN, ESQS. 100 Century Parkway Suite 200 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 856−727−6015 Fax: 856−727−6010 Email: bbarrett@margolisedelstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RICHARD BARRY STROSNIDER LAW OFFICES OF J. MARK PECCI, II UNITED PLAZA 30 SOUTH 17TH STREET SUITE 2010 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103−4098 (215) 448−3325 Email: barry.strosnider@cna.com TERMINATED: 03/21/2005

Defendant
RICHARD STALEY TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

represented by JEFFREY L. CHASE (See above for address)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 9 of 68
TERMINATED: 01/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSEPH N. CORDARO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEVEN D. WEINSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KIRA FEENY SPAMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KIT APPLEGATE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. LLEWELLYN MATHEWS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant JOHN DOE BROWN TERMINATED: 09/24/1997
Defendant JOHN DOE BROWNDIE TERMINATED: 09/24/1997
Defendant JANE DOE CLARK TERMINATED: 09/24/1997
Defendant JOHN DOE EDIDER TERMINATED: 09/29/2004
Defendant JOHN DOE FEDER TERMINATED: 09/29/2004
Defendant JOHN DOE FIGEL TERMINATED: 09/24/1997
Defendant JOHN DOE GARCIA TERMINATED: 09/24/1997
Defendant JOHN DOE GILL TERMINATED: 09/24/1997
Defendant

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 10 of 68

JOHN DOE HAWKINS TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JOHN DOE HAYES TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

Defendant
JOHN DOE HIGGS TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

represented by GLORIA B. CHERRY BRAFF, HARRIS &SUKONECK 570 WEST MT. PLEASANT AVENUE SUITE 200 PO BOX 657 LIVINGSTON, NJ 07039 (973) 994−6677 Fax: (973) 994−1296 Email: gbcherry@bhs−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOHN DOE HUGHES TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JOHN DOE HUNTER TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JOHN DOE JACKSON TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JOHN DOE JOHNSON TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JOHN DOE KUTZ TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

Defendant
JOHN DOE MELENDEZ TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JANE DOE MICHELLE TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

Defendant
JOHN DOE MOHAMMED TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

Defendant
JOHN DOE NKENKE TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 11 of 68

JANE DOE PHIL TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

Defendant
JOHN DOE SNEED TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JOHN DOE STRATFORD TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JOHN DOE VANDERPOOR TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JOHN DOE WILLIAMS TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

Defendant
JOHN DOE WILSON TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

Defendant
JOHN DOE WALLINGTON TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

represented by JOHN DOE WALLINGTON 67 HUMPHREYS AVENUE APARTMENT 1 BAYONNE, NJ 07002 PRO SE

Defendant
JOHN and JANE DOES 1−50 TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

represented by BRIAN C. HARRIS BRAFF, HARRIS &SUKONECK, ESQS. 570 W. MT. PLEASANT AVENUE PO BOX 657 LIVINGSTON, NJ 07039 (973) 994−6677 Email: bcharris@bhs−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
WILLIAM HIGGS TERMINATED: 01/04/2002

represented by BRIAN C. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
UNITED STATES TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

represented by SUSAN C. CASSELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JAMES STRATFORD TERMINATED: 07/13/2004

Defendant

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 12 of 68

JOHN AND JANE DOE 1

Defendant
DORIAN HUNTER TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

Defendant
MICHAEL MELENDEZ TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

Defendant
DORIAN HUNTER TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

Defendant
MICHAEL MELENDEZ TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

Defendant
ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC. TERMINATED: 08/09/2010

represented by KIT APPLEGATE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DAVID C. KISTLER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JAMES SLATTERY TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Defendant
RICHARD STALEY TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

represented by KIT APPLEGATE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOHN LIMA TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

represented by KIT APPLEGATE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DAVID C. KISTLER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ESTATE OF RICHARD STALEY, THE TERMINATED: 08/09/2010

Amicus Professors of International Law

represented by LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG GIBBONS, PC ONE GATEWAY CENTER NEWARK, NJ 07102−5310 (973) 596−4731 Email: llustberg@gibbonslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 13 of 68

V. Interested Party Debevoise &Plimpton LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Interested Party Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic Attorneys for Plaintiffs Interested Party SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP Interested Party BLANK ROME LLP Defendant DAVID MCLEAN TERMINATED: 12/19/1997
Defendant EARLINE D. BOYER TERMINATED: 12/19/1997
Defendant ALAN FREISS TERMINATED: 12/19/1997
Defendant KEVIN T. BRODIE TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

represented by DEREK SHERMAN TARSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELIZABETH A. DALBERTH (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by EDWARD R. MURPHY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED ELIZABETH A. DALBERTH (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by EDWARD R. MURPHY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED ELIZABETH A. DALBERTH (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BRIAN C. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY GLORIA B. CHERRY (See above for address)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 14 of 68

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
IRVING BROWN TERMINATED: 07/13/2004

represented by GERALD DAVID SIEGEL LAW OFFICES SIEGEL &SIEGEL, P.C. 666 PLAINSBORO ROAD BUILDING 100 SUITE 1F PLAINSBORO, NJ 08536 (609) 799−6066 Email: gsiegel@nj−negligencelawyer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
TOMMIE L. BROWN TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

represented by BRIAN C. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

GLORIA B. CHERRY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
CATRINA CLARK TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

Defendant
LEONARD EADY TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

Defendant
FRANK FIGEL TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

Defendant
LUIS GARCIA TERMINATED: 02/05/2003

Defendant
DARRELL GILL TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

Defendant
WINFRED HAWKINS TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

Defendant
ISAIAH HUGHES TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

Defendant
DORIAN HUNTER TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

represented by JEFFREY M KADISH Golden Rothschild Spagnola Lundell Boylan &Garubo, P.C. 1011 Route 22 West Suite 300 P.O. Box 6881

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 15 of 68

Bridgewater, NJ 08807 973−722−6300 Fax: 973−722−0029 Email: jkadish@grsl.com TERMINATED: 02/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
WILLIE O. HUNTER TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

represented by VICTOR A. ROTOLO ROTOLO AND MIDLIGE 2200 ROUTE 31 SUITE 12 LEBANON, NJ 08833 (908) 735−0330 Email: varlaw@earthlink.net TERMINATED: 02/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
MICHAEL JACKSON TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

represented by VICTOR A. ROTOLO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant PHILLIP JOHNSON

represented by BRIAN C. HARRIS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GLORIA B. CHERRY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MICHAEL MELENDEZ TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

represented by JEFFREY M KADISH (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
OKAY NKENKE TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

represented by BRIAN C. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

GLORIA B. CHERRY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ROBERT SNEAD TERMINATED: 02/14/2005

represented by BRIAN C. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

GLORIA B. CHERRY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 16 of 68

Defendant
COREY STRATFORD TERMINATED: 07/13/2004

Defendant
MICHAEL TATE TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

Defendant
AUGUSTUS VANDERPUYE TERMINATED: 09/29/2004

Defendant
WILLIAM WALLINGTON TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

represented by DOUGLAS F. CIOLEK REISEMAN ROSENBERG &PFUND 201 LITTLETON ROAD MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 973−206−2500 Email: dciolek@rrplaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NORMAN WILLIAMS TERMINATED: 01/04/2002

represented by BRIAN C. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GLORIA B. CHERRY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

represented by SUSAN C. CASSELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED TERMINATED: 02/14/2005
Cross Claimant JOHN DOE McCLEAN TERMINATED: 09/24/1997

represented by JEFFREY L. CHASE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID C. KISTLER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by EDWARD R. MURPHY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 17 of 68

Cross Claimant
NORMAN UZZLE TERMINATED: 12/19/1997

represented by EDWARD R. MURPHY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
MICHAEL D. ROZOS TERMINATED: 12/19/1997

represented by EDWARD R. MURPHY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
EARLINE D. BOYER TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

represented by EDWARD R. MURPHY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant ALAN FREISS

represented by EDWARD R. MURPHY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant
ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

represented by JEFFREY L. CHASE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DAVID C. KISTLER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
IRVING BROWN TERMINATED: 07/13/2004

represented by GERALD DAVID SIEGEL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/16/1997
06/16/1997
06/16/1997 06/16/1997 06/18/1997

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed FILING FEE $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 241777 (dr) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/17/1997)
2 APPLICATION/MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADMIT PENNY M. VENETIS ESQ. AND MARTIN GLENN, ESQ PRO HAC VICE esq. (dr) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/17/1997)
3 AFFIDAVIT of FRANK ASKIN on Re: In Support of Pro Hac Vice Application (dr) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/17/1997)
4 NOTICE of Allocation and Assignment filed. Magistrate STANLEY R. CHESLER (dr) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/17/1997)
SUMMONS issued for dft., INS ( 60 Days) (Mailed to Counsel) (cs) (Entered: 06/18/1997)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 18 of 68

06/18/1997
06/18/1997 08/25/1997 09/02/1997 09/04/1997 09/11/1997 09/23/1997
09/30/1997 10/06/1997 10/06/1997 10/08/1997

SUMMONS(ES) issued for dfts., JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE BOYER, JOHN DOE FREISS, JOHN DOE SILVA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, JAMES POULAND, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, JOHN DOE BROWN, JOHN DOE BROWNDIE, JANE DOE CLARK, JOHN DOE EDIDER, JOHN DOE FEDER, JOHN DOE FIGEL, JOHN DOE GARCIA, JOHN DOE GILL, JOHN DOE HAWKINS, JOHN DOE HAYES, JOHN DOE HIGGS, JOHN DOE HUGHES, JOHN DOE HUNTER, JOHN DOE JACKSON, JOHN DOE JOHNSON, JOHN DOE KUTZ, JOHN DOE MELENDEZ, JANE DOE MICHELLE, JOHN DOE MOHAMMED, JOHN DOE NKENKE, JANE DOE PHIL, JOHN DOE SNEED, JOHN DOE STRATFORD, JOHN DOE VANDERPOOR, JOHN DOE WILLIAMS, JOHN DOE WILSON, JOHN DOE WALLINGTON ( 20 Days) (Mailed to Counsel) (cs) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
5 ORDER granting [2−1] application ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (ej) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/19/1997)
6 APPLICATION by INS and Clerk's Order extending time to answer. Answer due 9/22/97 for INS (ej) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/26/1997)
7 STIPULATION and ORDER Re: answers to complt. &interrog., etc. ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (ej) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/04/1997)
8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: why an order should not be entered purs to Local Rule 12(A) of the USDC, granting motion of pltfs to serve interrogatories on deft. INS Show Cause Hearing set for 8:30 9/11/97 ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (DD) (Entered: 09/08/1997)
9 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: Howard Rappaport; Minutes of: 09/11/97; The following actions were taken, granting [8−1] order. Court transcript to serve as Order. By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (ej) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/12/1997)
10 AMENDED COMPLAINT by HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE, YVETTE NSUKAMI BADJOKO, GONZALO CRESPO, JOSEPH DEBRAH, CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, NAGENDRAN MANOHARAN, THOMAS KYEU MANU, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, JASMEL SINGH, FOLORUNSHO WASIU ALIBI, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, CHARLES ADDAI , amending [1−1] complaint against DAVID MCLEAN, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, KEVIN T. BRODIE, IRVING BROWN, TOMMIE L. BROWN, CATRINA CLARK, LEONARD EADY, FRANK FIGEL, LUIS GARCIA, DARRELL GILL, WINFRED HAWKINS, ISAIAH HUGHES, DORIAN HUNTER, WILLIE O. HUNTER, MICHAEL JACKSON, PHILLIP JOHNSON, MICHAEL MELENDEZ, OKAY NKENKE, ROBERT SNEAD, COREY STRADFORD, MICHAEL TATE, AUGUSTUS VANDERPUYE, WILLIAM WALLINGTON, NORMAN WILLIAMS (ej) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (mn, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/24/1997)
11 Notice of MOTION for DANIEL V. GSOVSKI, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, w/SILB &Certificate of Service. ( PO Subm) (ej) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/30/1997)
12 APPLICATION/MOTION by deft., INS for extension of time to answer; w/cert. of serv. {Brief/PO subm} {copy sent to DRD} (DD) Modified on 10/07/1997 Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/07/1997)
13 ORDER granting [11−1] motion for DANIEL V. GSOVSKI, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (bl) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/07/1997)
14 ORDER granting [12−1] application for extensiton of time to 10/14/97 to answer( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (bl) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/10/1997)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 19 of 68

10/08/1997 10/14/1997 10/14/1997 10/14/1997 10/15/1997 10/27/1997 10/28/1997 10/30/1997 11/05/1997 11/06/1997 11/06/1997 11/06/1997 11/10/1997 11/12/1997 11/17/1997 11/18/1997

15 ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT and CROSSCLAIM by INS against ESMOR CORRECTIONAL (bl) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/14/1997)
16 Letter/APPLICATION by pltfs requesting an extension of time by 30 days the 120−day time limit for service of process for the remaining unserved defts w/cert of service attached (copy to DRD) (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/15/1997)
17 DECLARATION of Penny Venetis in support of application to extime time to serve remaining defts w/exhibits attached (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/15/1997)
18 ORDER, extending time for pltf to effect service, w/in 30 days ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (sr) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/15/1997)
19 ANSWER by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY to amended complaint (ej) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/17/1997)
20 ORDER, resetting answer due for 11/8/97 for dfts., NORMAN WILLIAMS, for PHILLIP JOHNSON, for JOHN DOE HIGGS ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) n/m (cs) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/28/1997)
21 APPLICATION by WILLARD STOVALL and Clerk's Order extending time to answer. Answer due 11/12/97 for WILLARD STOVALL (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/29/1997)
22 DECLARATION of DAVID DON on behalf of INS Re: search to identify "John Doe Silva" (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/31/1997)
23 ANSWER to Complaint by WILLIE O. HUNTER, MICHAEL JACKSON (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (mn, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/06/1997)
24 ANSWER by WILLIAM HIGGS to amended complaint; demand for damages, jury demand &cert. of service. (mn) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (mn, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/07/1997)
25 ANSWER by NORMAN WILLIAMS to amended complaint; demand for damages, jury demand &cert. of service. (mn) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (mn, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/07/1997)
26 ANSWER by PHILLIP JOHNSON to amended complaint; demand for damages, jury demand &cert. of service. (mn) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (mn, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/07/1997)
27 STIPULATION and ORDER, extending time to answer crossclaims , answer due for 11/18/97 for ESMOR CORRECTIONAL ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/12/1997)
28 AMENDED ANSWER to the first amended Complaint by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY : amends [19−1] complaint answer (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/14/1997)
29 ANSWER by JOHN DOE 1(Edward Krous) to amended complaint; jury demand; demand for damages (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/18/1997)
30 Notice of MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , improper venue; failure to state a claim and failure to properly plead , for TOM DIRICKSON to appear pro hac vice by dft., JAMES BRIAN POULAND Motion hearing set for 12/22/97 on [30−1] motion, set for 12/22/97 on [30−2] motion, set for 12/22/97 on [30−3]

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 20 of 68

11/18/1997 11/19/1997 11/20/1997 11/21/1997
11/21/1997 11/21/1997 11/21/1997 11/21/1997 11/21/1997
11/25/1997 11/25/1997 12/01/1997 12/03/1997 12/17/1997
12/19/1997
12/19/1997

motion w/cert of svc. (cs) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/18/1997)
31 ORDER, scheduling conference for 1:30 1/7/98 ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/19/1997)
32 ANSWER by JAMES POULAND to amended complaint; jury demand (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/20/1997)
33 LETTER By IRVING BROWN in opposition re paragraph 27 of complaint concerning Guard Brown videotape (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/21/1997)
34 Notice of MOTION for A. DAVID CARLSON, ESQ. &NATHAN M. RYER, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice by JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, Motion hearing set for 12/22/97 on [34−1] motion , SILB, proof of serv (PO Subm) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/26/1997)
35 AFFIDAVIT of A. DAVID CARLSON on Re: [34−1] motion for A. DAVID CARLSON, ESQ. &NATHAN M. RYER, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/26/1997)
36 AFFIDAVIT of NATHAN M. RYMER on Re: [34−1] motion for A. DAVID CARLSON, ESQ. &NATHAN M. RYER, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/26/1997)
37 AFFIDAVIT of EDWARD R. MURPHY on Re: [34−1] motion for A. DAVID CARLSON, ESQ. &NATHAN M. RYER, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/26/1997)
38 ANSWER by JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS to amended complaint (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/26/1997)
38 CROSSCLAIM by JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS agst ESMOR (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (see hyper linked document no. 38) (Entered: 11/26/1997)
ANSWER by ESMOR to third party complt of INS (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/01/1997)
39 COUNTERCLAIM by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL agst INS (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/01/1997)
40 ORDER, extending time , answer due for 12/5/97 for WILLARD STOVALL ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/03/1997)
41 ANSWER by WILLARD STOVALL to amended complaint (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/04/1997)
42 STIPULATION and ORDER, extending time , answer due for 12/16/97 for DIANE McCLURE or within time INS be required to answer, whichever date is later ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/18/1997)
43 NOTICE of substitution by UNITED STATES in place of DAVID McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE BOYER, ALAN FREISS pursuant to FEDERAL EMPLOYEES LIABILITY REFORM AND TORT COMPENSATION ACT (pv) Modified on 12/23/1997 Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/23/1997)
44 Notice of MOTION to dismiss or for summary judgment by INS, Motion hearing set for 1/12/98 on [44−1] motion, set for 1/12/98 on [44−2] motion , proof of serv (Brief/PO Subm) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ).

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 21 of 68

12/22/1997
12/22/1997
12/22/1997 12/22/1997 12/22/1997 12/22/1997 12/29/1997 01/08/1998 01/08/1998 01/08/1998 01/12/1998
01/16/1998 01/20/1998 02/03/1998 02/04/1998 02/09/1998

(Entered: 12/23/1997)
45 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 12/22/97; The following actions were taken, granting [30−1] motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction granting [30−2] motion improper venue; failure to state a claim and failure to properly plead granting [30−3] motion for TOM DIRICKSON to appear pro hac vice By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/23/1997)
46 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ; Minutes of: 12/22/97; The following actions were taken, granting [34−1] motion for A. DAVID CARLSON, ESQ. &NATHAN M. RYER, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/23/1997)
47 ORDER, for A. David Carlson, Esq. &Nathan M. Rymer, Esq. to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/23/1997)
48 STIPULATION and ORDER, dismissing deft, POULARD ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/23/1997)
49 ANSWER by DORIAN HUNTER, MICHAEL MELENDEZ to amended complaint; jury demand; demand for damages (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/23/1997)
50 NOTICE by INS requesting the court to substitutethe original signed declaration of Robert E. Dalton in place of the copy, which is found as Exhibit No. 2, etc. filed on 12/19/97 w/ cert of service attached (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/24/1997)
51 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by DIANE McCLURE.(mn, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
53 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by INS of motion to dismiss, etc (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/09/1998)
54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by INS of initial disclosure statement (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/09/1998)
52 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of scheduling order sent to counsel (mn, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
55 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: none; Minutes of: 1/12/98; The following actions were taken, adjourning motion hearing on [44−1] motion to dismiss by INS for 2/23/98, adjourning motion hearing on [44−2] motion for summary judgment by INS for 2/23/98 By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/14/1998)
56 ANSWER by dft., INS to [39−1] counter claim of dft., ESMOR w/cert of svc (cs) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/20/1998)
57 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Status conference 10:00 4/3/98 ; directing INS to re−serve motion todismiss, opposition due l/30/98, etc. ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/22/1998)
58 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by INS of first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/05/1998)
59 Notice of MOTION for LARRY S. REICH, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, Motion hearing set for 3/9/98 on [59−1] motion , certf of LARRY S. REICH &proof of serv (PO Subm) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/05/1998)
60 STIPULATION and ORDER adjourning motion to dismiss by INS to 4/27/98 &setting briefing schedule ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (pv)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 22 of 68

02/23/1998
02/27/1998 02/27/1998 02/27/1998 03/05/1998 03/09/1998 03/09/1998 03/10/1998 03/10/1998 03/19/1998 03/23/1998
03/25/1998 04/07/1998 04/07/1998 04/08/1998 04/13/1998

Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/11/1998)
61 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: none; Minutes of: 2/23/98; The following actions were taken, adjourning motion hearing on [44−1] motion to dismiss by INS for 4/27/98, adjourning motion hearing on [44−2] motion for summary judgment by INS for 4/27/98 By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (pv) Modified on 05/06/1998 Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/24/1998)
62 Notice of MOTION to dismiss complaint by JAMES POULAND, Motion hearing set for 3/23/98 on [62−1] motion (Brief/PO Subm) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/03/1998)
63 AFFIDAVIT of JAMES POLAND on Re: [62−1] motion to dismiss complaint (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/03/1998)
64 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by JAMES POULAND of motion to dismiss, etc (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/03/1998)
65 AMENDED ANSWER to Amended Complaint by LUIS GARCIA, WILLIE O. HUNTER, MICHAEL JACKSON : amends; jury demand; demand for damages (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/06/1998)
66 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 3/9/98; The following actions were taken, At call granting [59−1] motion for LARRY S. REICH, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/10/1998)
67 ORDER granting [59−1] motion for LARRY S. REICH, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/11/1998)
68 DECLARATION in OPPOSITION of PENNY M. VENETIS Re: motion to dismiss (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/11/1998)
69 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of pltfs memorandum of law in opposition, etc (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/11/1998)
70 Notice of MOTION for admission of Thomas Wolf, Esq. to appear pro hac vice by DIANE McCLURE, Motion hearing set for 4/13/98 on [70−1] motion . (mn) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/20/1998)
71 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: none; Minutes of: 03/23/98; The following actions were taken, setting motion hearing on [62−1] motion to dismiss complaint by JAMES POULAND for <date not set> By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/24/1998)
72 STIPULATION and ORDER, Motion hearing set for 5/11/98 for [62−1] motion to dismiss complaint ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/26/1998)
73 ANSWER to First Amended Complaint by ROBERT SNEAD; jury demand; demand for damages (femp) Modified on 04/07/1998 Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/07/1998)
75 LETTER Re: out of state atty appearance by A. DAVID CARLSON AND NATHAN RYMER on behalf of INS OFFICIALS FRIESS, UZZLE, ROZOS, BOYER, MCLEAN (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/08/1998)
74 ANSWER by TOMMIE L. BROWN to amended complaint; jury demand w/demand for damages (sr) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/08/1998)
76 ORDER granting [70−1] motion for admission of Thomas Wolf, Esq. to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/14/1998)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 23 of 68

04/13/1998 04/21/1998 04/27/1998 04/27/1998 05/01/1998 05/04/1998
05/04/1998
05/04/1998
05/04/1998 05/11/1998

77 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 04/13/98; The following actions were taken, At call for granting [70−1] motion for admission of Thomas Wolf, Esq. to appear pro hac vice; Motion unopposed By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/15/1998)
81 TRO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Re: further staying deportation of Ms. Agatha Serwaa Show Cause Hearing set for 5/4/98 ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/04/1998)
78 DECLARATION of LUCINDA A. LOVE on behalf of INS Re: opposition to continuation of temporary restraining order staying deportation of Agatha Serwaa (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/28/1998)
79 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by INS of opposition to continuation of temporary restraining order staying deportation of Agatha Serwaa (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/28/1998)
80 ORDER, extending time to answer for dft, WILLIAM WALLINGTON until 6/1/98 ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/01/1998)
82 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of PENNY M. VENETIS on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE, YVETTE NSUKAMI BADJOKO, GONZALO CRESPO, JOSEPH DEBRAH, CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, NAGENDRAN MANOHARAN, THOMAS KYEU MANU, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, JASMEL SINGH, FOLORUNSHO WASIU ALIBI, SARAH TETTEH YOWER Re: OTSC (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/05/1998)
83 DECLARATION of TINA F. ANTONAKAKIS on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE, YVETTE NSUKAMI BADJOKO, GONZALO CRESPO, JOSEPH DEBRAH, CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, NAGENDRAN MANOHARAN, THOMAS KYEU MANU, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, JASMEL SINGH, FOLORUNSHO WASIU ALIBI, SARAH TETTEH YOWER Re: in supp pltf's motion to stay (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/05/1998)
84 AFFIDAVIT of MIRTHA J. OSPINA on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE, YVETTE NSUKAMI BADJOKO, GONZALO CRESPO, JOSEPH DEBRAH, CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, NAGENDRAN MANOHARAN, THOMAS KYEU MANU, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, JASMEL SINGH, FOLORUNSHO WASIU ALIBI, SARAH TETTEH YOWER Re: in supp of pltf's motion to stay (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/05/1998)
85 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 05/04/98; The following actions were taken, granting [81−1] order to show cause and TRO; Ordered week of 5/18/98 be made available to interview Agatha Serwaa; Ordered depo set for 5/27/98; Ordered that a receipt of notice allow 10 days before deportation; Opinion read into record; Order to be submitted by pltf By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/05/1998)
86 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 5/11/98; The following actions were taken, [44−1] motion to dismiss taken under advisement, [44−2] motion for summary judgment taken under advisement By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/12/1998)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 24 of 68

05/18/1998 05/18/1998 05/18/1998 05/19/1998 06/02/1998 06/04/1998 09/09/1998 09/09/1998 09/14/1998 09/14/1998 09/14/1998 09/17/1998 09/17/1998 09/18/1998 09/24/1998
09/24/1998

87 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RE: pltf's memorandum of law in response to deft James Poland's motion to dismiss served upon counsel of record (sr) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/18/1998)
88 ORDER continuing injunction staying deportation of AGATHA SERWAA; scheduling her depo for 5/27/98, etc ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/19/1998)
90 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by INS of reply in supp of its Motion to Dismiss (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/20/1998)
89 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 5/4/98 (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/19/1998)
91 ANSWER to Complaint by WILLIAM WALLINGTON; jury demand (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/03/1998)
92 COURT'S LETTER directing that all gathered discovery materials be submitted w/in 30 days from 6/8/98, etc (Signed by Judge Debevoise) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/05/1998)
93 Notice of MOTION for production of documents by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, Motion set for 10/13/98 on [93−1] motion cert of srvc. (Brief/PO Subm) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/14/1998)
93 AFFIRMATION of DANIEL V. GSOVSKI, ESQ. on behalf of ESMOR CORRECTIONAL Re: [93−1] motion for production of documents (femp) (this document is included in the above Notice of Motion entry, doc. #93) (Entered: 09/14/1998)
94 Notice of MOTION for leave to file answer out of time , to vacate any default entered by IRVING BROWN, Motion set for 9/14/98 on [94−1] motion, set for 9/14/98 on [94−2] motion of srvc. (CILB /PO Subm) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/16/1998)
94 CERTIFICATION of GERALD D. SIEGEL on behalf of IRVING BROWN Re: [94−1] motion for leave to file answer out of time, [94−2] motion to vacate any default entered (femp) Modified on 09/16/1998 This certification is included in the above Notice of motion, doc.#94) (Entered: 09/16/1998)
95 ORDER granting [94−1] motion for leave to file answer out of time w/in 20 days of the date hereof granting [94−2] motion to vacate any default entered; etc ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/16/1998)
96 RESPONSE by INS in opposition to [93−1] motion for production of documents (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/18/1998)
97 DECLARATION of LUCINDA A. LOVE on behalf of INS Re: [96−1] opposition response (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/18/1998)
98 NOTICE of JOINDER by JAMES POULAND, WILLIAM WALLINGTON to Esmor's motion to compel production of certain documents (copy to DRD) (pv) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/21/1998)
99 RESPONSE by HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE, YVETTE NSUKAMI BADJOKO, GONZALO CRESPO, JOSEPH DEBRAH, CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, NAGENDRAN MANOHARAN, THOMAS KYEU MANU, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, JASMEL SINGH, FOLORUNSHO WASIU ALIBI, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, CHARLES ADDAI in opposition to [93−1] motion for production of documents (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/25/1998)
100 AFFIDAVIT of PENNY M. VENETIS on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE, YVETTE NSUKAMI BADJOKO, GONZALO CRESPO, JOSEPH DEBRAH,

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 25 of 68

09/25/1998 09/25/1998 09/28/1998 09/28/1998 09/28/1998 09/28/1998 10/01/1998 10/01/1998
10/05/1998 10/20/1998 10/22/1998 10/26/1998

CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, NAGENDRAN MANOHARAN, THOMAS KYEU MANU, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, JASMEL SINGH, FOLORUNSHO WASIU ALIBI, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, CHARLES ADDAI Re: [93−1] motion for production of documents (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/25/1998)
101 ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT; jury demand; demand for damages and CROSSCLAIM by IRVING BROWN 9/22/97 (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/25/1998)
101 ANSWER by JOHN DOE JACKSON to any crossclaims (femp) (Entered: 09/25/1998)
102 Notice of MOTION for MARVIN C. MOOS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice by NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, DAVID MCLEAN, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, Motion set for 10/26/98 on [102−1] motion . (SILB/PO Subm) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/28/1998)
103 AFFIDAVIT of EDWARD R. MURPHY, ESQ. on behalf of NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, DAVID MCLEAN, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS Re: [102−1] motion for MARVIN C. MOOS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/28/1998)
104 AFFIDAVIT of MARVIN C. MOOS, ESQ. on behalf of NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, DAVID MCLEAN, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS Re: [102−1] motion for MARVIN C. MOOS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/28/1998)
105 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: none; Minutes of: 09/28/98; The following actions were taken, At call for hrg on [93−1] motion for production of documents taken under advisement purs to R78 By Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/02/1998)
107 OPINION ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/06/1998)
108 ORDER granting INS motion to dismiss all claims brought against it under the "ATCA" or otherwise based upon customary international law, claims brought against it under the "FTCA", claims brought against it arising out of the NJ Constitution and claims deriving from contract b/w INS and ESMOR, each of said clms is dismissed; denying INS motion to dismiss claims arising under "RFRA"; amending first amd cmp to name US as the dft on pltf's FTCA claims in place of INS, deeming US to have moved to dismiss FTCA clms; granting US motion to dismiss FTCA clms w/exception to the property clms of pltfs who submitted admin property loss clms; denying motion of INS officials to dismiss clms under ATCA, RFRA, FLSA w/out prejudice to renewal of motion after completion of discovery; granting motion of INS officials to dismiss clms agnst them under the NJ tort and constitutional law; denying motion of ESMOR dfts to dismiss clms under ATCA, RFRA, Thirteenth Amendment and FLSA w/out prejudice to renewal of motion after completion of discovery ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/08/1998)
106 ANSWER by DIANE McCLURE to crossclaims of dft IRVING BROWN (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/06/1998)
109 ORDER amending opinion of 10/1/98 Re: to correct listing of O'MELVENY &MYERS LLP on page 2 ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/21/1998)
110 ORDER granting [93−1] motion for production of documents ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/26/1998)
111 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: S. Rizman; Minutes of: 10/26/98; The following actions were taken, At call for granting [102−1] motion

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 26 of 68

10/26/1998 10/28/1998 10/29/1998
11/04/1998 12/22/1998
12/22/1998 12/22/1998 12/22/1998 12/22/1998 12/22/1998 12/22/1998 12/22/1998 12/22/1998 12/22/1998

for MARVIN C. MOOS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice; Order submitted. By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/27/1998)
112 ORDER granting [102−1] motion for MARVIN C. MOOS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice, etc ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/27/1998)
113 STIPULATION and ORDER, dismissing action as to dft JAMES POLAND ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/29/1998)
114 ORDER, consolidating case w/ 98−1282 for discovery purposes only , status conference for 1:00 1/12/99 ; directing service and responses to interrogatories and document requests; directing that INS will not deport any pltfs w/out written and oral notice to counsel and allowing them the opportunity to seek a stay of deportation; there shall be no pty discovery b/w INS and any other dft until further Order of the Court; directing counsel for ESMOR to forward to pltfs' counsel in BROWN a proposed form of class notice by 10/27/98 if they cannot agree on this they shall appear before the Court for a conference on 11/19/98 at 3:00pm ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/02/1998)
118 LETTER by Jeffrey M. Kadich, Esq. on behalf of James Stradford requesting the court to hold off on the entry of default on Corey Stradford until the name of the deft is clarified on whether it is James or Corey Stradford, etc. (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/05/1999)
115 REQUEST BY HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE, YVETTE NSUKAMI BADJOKO, GONZALO CRESPO, JOSEPH DEBRAH, CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, NAGENDRAN MANOHARAN, THOMAS KYEU MANU, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, JASMEL SINGH, FOLORUNSHO WASIU ALIBI, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, CHARLES ADDAI FOR DEFAULT AGAINST KEVIN T. BRODIE, CATRINA CLARK, LEONARD EADY, DARRELL GILL, WINFRED HAWKINS, OKAY NKENKE, COREY STRADFORD, MICHAEL TATE for failure to appear (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/30/1998)
116 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to KEVIN T. BRODIE 10/14/98 Answer due on 11/3/98 for KEVIN T. BRODIE (femp) (Entered: 12/30/1998)
116 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to CATRINA CLARK 10/13/97 Answer due on 11/2/97 for CATRINA CLARK (femp) (Entered: 12/30/1998)
116 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to LEONARD EADY 10/13/97 Answer due on 11/2/97 for LEONARD EADY (femp) (Entered: 12/30/1998)
116 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to DARRELL GILL 10/5/97 Answer due on 10/25/97 for DARRELL GILL (femp) (Entered: 12/30/1998)
116 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to WINFRED HAWKINS 10/4/97 Answer due on 10/24/97 for WINFRED HAWKINS (femp) (Entered: 12/30/1998)
116 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to OKAY NKENKE 10/29/97 Answer due on 11/18/97 for OKAY NKENKE (femp) (Entered: 12/30/1998)
116 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to COREY STRADFORD 9/29/97 Answer due on 10/19/97 for COREY STRADFORD (femp) (Entered: 12/30/1998)
116 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to MICHAEL TATE 10/3/97 Answer due on 10/23/97 for MICHAEL TATE (femp) (Entered: 12/30/1998)
116 AFFIDAVIT of PENNY M. VENETIS on behalf of pltfs Re: [115−1] default requested (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/30/1998)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 27 of 68

12/30/1998 12/30/1998 02/17/1999
02/17/1999 03/10/1999
03/18/1999 03/22/1999 03/23/1999 05/06/1999 05/06/1999 05/06/1999 05/06/1999 05/06/1999 05/06/1999 05/06/1999 05/06/1999

DEFAULT ENTERED as to KEVIN T. BRODIE, CATRINA CLARK, LEONARD EADY, DARRELL GILL, WINFRED HAWKINS, OKAY NKENKE, COREY STRADFORD, MICHAEL TATE for failure to appear (femp) (Entered: 12/30/1998)
117 NOTICE of APPEARANCE/SUBSTITUTION of COUNSEL by INS Re: substituting DAPHENE R. MCFERREN for LUCINDA M. LOVE (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/04/1999)
119 CONSENT ORDER, vacating default entered against OKAY NKENKE , for OKAY NKENKE for leave to file answer to first amended complaint ; directing dft not to challenge the service of process upon him ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/17/1999)
120 ANSWER by OKAY NKENKE to first amended complaint; jury demand; demand for damages (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/17/1999)
121 ORDER directing dft INS to serve a confidentiality agreement upon all parties w/in one week of date hereof; all outstanding doc production to be completed by 4/30/99; directing that all outstanding discovery ntcs, requests, demands or interrog are to be responded to by 3/8/99; settlement conference for 7/13/99 at 2:00pm; etc ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/18/1999)
Deadline updated; settlement conference for 2:00 7/13/99 (femp) (Entered: 03/18/1999)
122 NOTICE by JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE BOYER, JOHN DOE FREISS Re: change of atty address (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/23/1999)
123 ORDER directing that certain docs previously withheld from discovery be produced ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/24/1999)
124 CERTIFICATION of HAWA ABDI JAMA on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA Re: consent to permit law students defend depos (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/07/1999)
125 CERTIFICATION of DENNIS RAJI on behalf of DENNIS RAJI Re: consent to permit law students to defend depos (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/07/1999)
126 CERTIFICATION of ABU BAKAR on behalf of ABU BAKAR Re: consent to permit law students to defend depos (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/07/1999)
127 CERTIFICATION of ABRAHAM KENNEH on behalf of ABRAHAM KENNETH Re: consent to permit law students to defend depos (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/07/1999)
128 CERTIFICATION of PENNY M. VENETIS Re: seeking Court's permission for law students to defend clients' depos (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/07/1999)
129 CERTIFICATION of SEAN MACK Re: law student seeking permission to defend depos (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/07/1999)
130 CERTIFICATION of LAURIE STRIDE Re: law student seeking permission to defend depos (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/07/1999)
131 CERTIFICATION of CURTIS TAO Re: law student seeking permission to defend depos (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/07/1999)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 28 of 68

05/06/1999 06/07/1999 06/09/1999 06/28/1999 06/28/1999 06/28/1999 06/28/1999 07/07/1999 01/03/2000
01/03/2000 02/03/2000
02/03/2000
02/15/2000 02/28/2000
03/07/2000

132 CERTIFICATION of FLOR BERMUDEZ Re: law student seeking permission to defend depos (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/07/1999)
133 APPLICATION/MOTION for a protective order by INS (copy to DRD w/ proposed stipulation and order) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/08/1999)
134 STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/10/1999)
135 APPLICATION/MOTION for leave to admit TINA F. ANTONAKAKIS, ESQ. pro hac vice (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/28/1999)
136 CERTIFICATION of MICHAEL J. HOLDEN, ESQ. on behalf of pltfs Re: [135−1] application for pro hac vice admission of TINA ANTONAKAKIS, ESQ. (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/28/1999)
137 DECLARATION of TINA F. ANTONAKAKIS, ESQ. on behalf of pltfs Re: [135−1] application for pro hac vice admission (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/28/1999)
138 ORDER, for TINA F. ANONAKAKIS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Judge William G. Bassler ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/28/1999)
139 ORDER, settlement conference for 10:00 8/31/99 ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/07/1999)
ORDER, advising the Court that DaSilva wishes to opt out of the class action in Brown; scheduling a hearing for oral argument as to written discovery on 2−22−00 at 3:00p.m.; deposition may comence on 2−1−00 and setting status conference for 3:00 7/11/00 original filed in 96cv3755 ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) n/m (aa) Modified on 01/06/2000 (Entered: 01/06/2000)
ORDER,re: discovery (original in 96cv3755 ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Modified on 01/06/2000 (Entered: 01/06/2000)
140 Notice of MOTION for A. David Carlson to withdraw as attorney by NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, DAVID MCLEAN, Motion set for 2/28/00 on [140−1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) w/certificate of service. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/07/2000)
141 CERTIFICATION of Edward R. Murphy &A. David Carlson on behalf of NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, DAVID MCLEAN, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS Re: [140−1] motion for A. David Carlson to withdraw as attorney (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/07/2000)
142 ORDER, for discovery conference on 3/14/00 at 9:00 a.m., at that conference the Court will impose a schedule for fact depositions. Depositions shall be conducted 5 days per week ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/16/2000)
143 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ; Minutes of: 2/28/00; The following actions were taken, at call for hearing on [140−1] motion for A. David Carlson to withdraw as attorney taken under advisement pursuant to R78 By Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/02/2000)
144 CERTIFICATION of Penny M. Venetis on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE, YVETTE NSUKAMI BADJOKO, GONZALO CRESPO, JOSEPH DEBRAH, CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, etal. Re: in support of a request to sever discovery in Jama from discovery in Brown v. Esmor Correctional Services. (aa) Additional

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 29 of 68

03/24/2000
03/24/2000 04/06/2000 04/06/2000 04/06/2000 04/10/2000 04/10/2000 04/10/2000 04/10/2000 04/10/2000 04/24/2000 05/05/2000 05/10/2000 06/01/2000 06/01/2000

attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/08/2000)
145 ORDER granting [140−1] motion for A. David Carlson to withdraw as attorney; Nathan M. Rymer, Esq. &Marvin C. Moos, Esq. to be admitted as pro hac vice counsel for dfts. ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (original in 96−3755) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/27/2000)
146 DISCOVERY SCHEDULING ORDER setting deposition schedule; scheduling conference 8/4/00 10:00 ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/27/2000)
147 Notice of MOTION for Harwood Lloyd, LLC to withdraw as attorney by WILLIAM WALLINGTON, Motion set for 4/24/00 on [147−1] motion . (PO Subm)w/certificate of service. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/06/2000)
148 AFFIDAVIT of Douglas F. Ciolek, Esq. on behalf of WILLIAM WALLINGTON Re: [147−1] motion for Harwood Lloyd, LLC to withdraw as attorney (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/06/2000)
149 NOTICE of firm name change of pro hac vice counsel by MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE BOYER, JOHN DOE FREISS, NORMAN UZZLE, JOHN DOE McCLEAN (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/07/2000)
150 AFFIDAVIT of Penny M. Venetis on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE etal. Re: in support of the motion to admit Michael J.D. Sweeney pro hac vice. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/11/2000)
151 ORDER, for Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq. to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/11/2000)
152 ORDER, for Chastiti N. Horne Esq. , Annouchka M. Oppinger Esq., &David P. O'Neal Esq. to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/11/2000)
153 AFFIDAVIT of Anouchka M. Oppinger, Chastiti N. Horne &David P. O'Neal on behalf of MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE BOYER, JOHN DOE FREISS, NORMAN UZZLE, JOHN DOE McCLEAN Re: Pro hac vice admission (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/11/2000)
154 ORDER, for protective order for any information produced in discovery ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/11/2000)
155 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ; Minutes of: 4/24/00; The following actions were taken, [147−1] motion for Harwood Lloyd, LLC to withdraw as attorney taken under advisement pursuant to R78 By Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/27/2000)
156 ORDER regarding videographic recording of depositions ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/08/2000)
157 Letter Order granting [147−1] motion for Harwood Lloyd, LLC to withdraw as attorney; dft. Wallington is now a pro se dft. ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/11/2000)
158 ORDER, for A. David Carlson to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) (Entered: 06/02/2000)
159 AFFIDAVIT of A. David Carlson on behalf of dfts' Michael D. Rozos, Earline Boyer, Alan Friess, David McLean &Norman Ussle Re: in support of pro hac vice admission. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/02/2000)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 30 of 68

06/08/2000
06/15/2000 07/25/2000
07/25/2000 08/14/2000 08/24/2000 08/24/2000 10/03/2000 11/09/2000 11/27/2000
11/29/2000 12/01/2000 12/01/2000 12/06/2000 12/06/2000

160 ORDER for dft. Michael Jackson to provide pltfs' counsel with responsive answers' to pltfs' interrogatories by 6/9/00; dfts. Earline Boyer, Norman Uzzle, and Michael Rozos to provide pltfs' counsel with responsive supplemental answers to pltfs' interrogatories by 6/9/00( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/08/2000)
161 AFFIDAVIT of Penny M. Venetis on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE etal. Re: interrogatory answers (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/16/2000)
162 ORDER, setting status conference for 4:00 9/20/00 all pltfs to identify experts and give dates for purposed expert disclosures by 9/8/00. On 9/20/00 court will address dispositive motions and rebuttal disclosures. Fact discovery closes 11/3/00 ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/25/2000)
163 ORDER TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS Union County Prosecutor to produce all documents requested by the attch'd subpoena by 8/14/00 ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/26/2000)
164 ORDER directing US Dept. of Justice to provide Jama counsel w/last known home addresses of Michael Hanna within 1 day of receipt of this Order ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/15/2000)
165 ORDER for Union County Prosecutor to produce documents( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/24/2000)
166 ORDER scheduling discovery depositions; conference on 9/20/00 at 9:30 a.m.( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/25/2000)
167 ORDER, setting scheduling conference for 5:00 2/5/01 re: discovery ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/05/2000)
168 ORDER, amending [166−1] order; 1/8/01−1/9/01 the deposition of dft. James Slattery will be continued, etc. (Copy −original filed in 98−1282(DRD)( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/09/2000)
169 Notice of MOTION for Faunce P. Devlin to appear pro hac vice by HAWA ABDI JAMA, INS, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, etal. Motion set for 12/26/00 on [169−1] motion . (PO Subm) w/attch'd Affidavit of Sean Mack, Declaration of Faune P. Devlin &certificate of service. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/28/2000)
170 ORDER re: Mr. Frick's deposition shall to be concluded by 1/15/01( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/01/2000)
171 ORDER, for Randee J. Waldman to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/04/2000)
172 DECLARATION of Randee J. Waldman Re: [171−1] order for Randee J. Waldman to appear pro hac vice (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/04/2000)
173 ORDER granting [169−1] motion for Faunce P. Devlin to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (RG) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/07/2000)
174 ORDER, for Kristen K. Sauer to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (RG) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/07/2000)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 31 of 68

12/11/2000
12/11/2000 12/18/2000 12/18/2000 12/18/2000 12/26/2000 01/04/2001 01/08/2001 01/08/2001 01/09/2001 01/10/2001 01/22/2001 01/22/2001

175 Notice of MOTION for David Clay Wilkerson to appear pro hac vice by JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE BOYER, JOHN DOE FREISS, Motion set for 1/8/01 on [175−1] motion silb and cert. of service (PO Subm) (bl) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/19/2000)
179 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: none; Minutes of: 12/11/00; The following actions were taken, granting [169−1] motion for Faunce P. Devlin to appear pro hac vice By Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/20/2000)
176 Notice of MOTION for ANOUCHKA M. OPPINGER to withdraw as attorney by JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE BOYER, JOHN DOE FREISS, Motion set for 1/22/01 on [176−1] motion silb and proof of service . (PO Subm) (bl) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/19/2000)
177 CERTIFICATION of Edward R. Murphy on behalf of MICHAEL D. ROZOS, NORMAN UZZLE, EARLINE D. BOYER, DAVID MCLEAN, ALAN FREISS Re: [176−1] motion for ANOUCHKA M. OPPINGER to withdraw as attorney (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/20/2000)
178 AFFIDAVIT of Anouchka M. Oppinger on behalf of MICHAEL D. ROZOS, NORMAN UZZLE, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, DAVID MCLEAN Re: [176−1] motion for ANOUCHKA M. OPPINGER to withdraw as attorney w/certificate of service. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/20/2000)
180 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 12/26/00; The following actions were taken, Court indicated motion previously granted on 12/11/00 by Judge Hedges [169−1] motion for Faunce P. Devlin to appear pro hac vice By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/26/2000)
181 ORDER granting [175−1] motion for David Clay Wilkerson to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
182 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: none; Minutes of: 1/8/01; The following actions were taken, [176−1] motion for ANOUCHKA M. OPPINGER to withdraw as attorney taken under advisement pursuant to R78 By Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/11/2001)
183 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: none; Minutes of: 1/8/01; The following actions were taken, granting [175−1] motion for David Clay Wilkerson to appear pro hac vice By Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/11/2001)
184 ORDER granting [176−1] motion for ANOUCHKA M. OPPINGER to withdraw as pro hac vice attorney; dfts. will still be represented by the law firm of Murphy and O'Connor, LLP as local counsel ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/11/2001)
185 ORDER granting [175−1] motion for David Clay Wilkerson to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/12/2001)
186 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 1/22/01; The following actions were taken, court indicated motion previously heard by Judge Hedges and granted [175−1] motion for David Clay Wilkerson to appear pro hac vice By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/24/2001)
187 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 1/22/01; The following actions were taken, Court indicated motion previously decided by Judge Hedges and granted [176−1] motion for ANOUCHKA M.

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 32 of 68

01/24/2001 01/30/2001 06/05/2001 06/05/2001 06/26/2001 07/19/2001 08/20/2001
08/20/2001
08/20/2001
08/20/2001 08/20/2001 08/22/2001 09/05/2001 09/05/2001

OPPINGER to withdraw as attorney By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/24/2001)
188 ORDER re: deposition schedules; adjourning 2/5/01 conference to 6/5/01 at 3:00 p.m. ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/29/2001)
189 ORDER allowing dft. Correctional Services Corp. shall be permitted to depose Lorelei Valverde of the INS; setting conference for 6/12/01 at 10:30 ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/01/2001)
190 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, etal. Re: Report of Frances Geteles, Ph.D. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/05/2001)
191 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, etal. Re: Expert Penologist's Report. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/05/2001)
192 NOTICE of change of address for pro hac vice attorney by HAWA ABDI JAMA w/certsvc. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/02/2001)
193 ORDER, setting scheduling order deadlines: Status conference 9:30 2/13/02 ; Dispositive Motion due on or before 3/29/02; setting deposition deadlines (original filed in civ. 96−3755) ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/24/2001)
194 ORDER directing Kevin Brodie appear before this Court on 9/6/01 at 9:30 a.m. (in the Jury Room) to be deposed; of Kevin Brodie fails to appear to be deposed, this Court will recommend that a warrant be issued for his arrest ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/21/2001)
195 ORDER directing William Wallington to appear before this Court on 9/13/01 at 9:30 a.m. (in Jury Room) to be deposed; if he fails to appear to be deposed, this Court will recommend that a warrant be issued for his arrest ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/21/2001)
196 ORDER directing Catrina Clark to appear before this Court on 8/23/01 at 9:30 a.m. (in Jury Room) to be deposed; if Catrina Clark fails to appear to be deposed, this Court will recommend that a warrant be issued for her arrest ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/21/2001)
197 DECLARATION of Penny M. Venetis on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA, et al (ak) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/21/2001)
198 DECLARATION OF SERVICE OF COPY of First Amended Complaint and discovery order, etc. (ak) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/21/2001)
199 ORDER, directing the Office of Hudson County Counsel Dept. of Law to release documents pertaining to deft. William Wallington by 9/1/01 re: subpeona dated 2/16/01 ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (ak) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/24/2001)
200 DECLARATION of Dominick Russo on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG Re: [195−1] order (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/06/2001)
201 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to WILLIAM WALLINGTON 9/5/01 (served via Mrs. Wallington) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/06/2001)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 33 of 68

09/05/2001 10/11/2001
10/11/2001 11/14/2001
11/14/2001 11/15/2001 01/02/2002 01/18/2002
02/26/2002 03/12/2002 03/12/2002 03/25/2002 03/25/2002
04/04/2002

202 NOTICE of substitution of atty. on behalf of Correctional Services Corp. James F. Slattery, John Lima, Richard Stanley and Aaron Speisman−defts. in civ. 98−1282.(incoming atty not local counsel−Letter sent) (mn) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/17/2001)
203 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE &CERTIFICATION OF CONTEMPT: Show Cause Hearing set for 10:00 11/14/01 why he should not be adjudged in contempt &why a bench warrant should not be issued for his arrest ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/12/2001)
204 AFFIDAVIT of Penny M. Venetis on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA, ABU BAKAR, JOSEPH ACKAH, BENJAMIN ANANG, KWEKU AWOTWE, etal. Re: Wallington's failure to appear to be deposed (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/12/2001)
205 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 11/14/01; The following actions were taken, granting [203−1] order why William Wallington should not be adjudged in contempt &why a bench warrant should not be issued for his arrest. Order to be submitted. By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/14/2001)
206 ORDER, resetting scheduling order deadlines: Status conference 10:00 8/6/02 ; etc. ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/19/2001)
WARRANT for arrest as to William Wallington issued. (aa) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
207 STIPULATION and ORDER, dismissing as to dfts. William Higgs &Norman Williams ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise )n/m (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/04/2002)
208 ORDER that WILLIAM WALLINGTON report to Courtroom 5A in the Mattin Luther King Jr. Federal Bldg at 9:30 a.m. on 2/26/02 &2/27/02 to be DEPOSED for 7 hrs. on each of the above−listed dates; the Order of Contempt entered by this Court against Mr. Wallington on 10/11/01 is still in effect; if Mr. Wallington fails to appear to be deposed, a warrent will be issued for his arrest, &he will be held in custody until his deposition is completed ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) n/m (DD) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/22/2002)
209 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: tape; Minutes of: 2/26/02; The following actions were taken, deposition problem. Judge Ordered deposition to continue. By Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/28/2002)
210 CONSENT ORDER, vacating default which was previously entered against dft. Kevin Brodie; extending time within which dft. Kevin Brodie may file a responsive pleading ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/13/2002)
211 ANSWER by KEVIN T. BRODIE to amended complaint; jury demand &demand for damages (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/13/2002)
212 ORDER setting hearing for 5/8/02 at 10:00 a.m., etc. ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (NM) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/01/2002)
213 Notice of MOTION for David O'Neal to withdraw as attorney by MICHAEL D. ROZOS, ALAN FREISS, EARLINE D. BOYER, DAVID MCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, Motion set for 4/22/02 on [213−1] motion w/attch'd Certification of Edward R. Murphy &Affidavit of David O'Neal &certsvc. (SILB/PO Subm) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/01/2002)
214 ORDER granting [213−1] motion for David O'Neal to withdraw as attorney; dfts. will still be represented by the law firm of Murphy &O'Connor, LLP as local counsel ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (aa) Additional

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 34 of 68

04/22/2002 05/06/2002
05/06/2002 05/08/2002 07/17/2002 08/02/2002 08/02/2002 10/25/2002 10/31/2002 11/01/2002 11/07/2002 12/09/2002 12/17/2002 12/17/2002 01/08/2003

attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/05/2002)
215 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 4/22/02; The following actions were taken, granting [213−1] motion for David O'Neal to withdraw as attorney By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/23/2002)
217 Notice of MOTION for Debra E. Ibarra, Esq. to appear pro hac vice by MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, NORMAN UZZLE, DAVID MCLEAN, Motion set for 5/28/02 on [217−1] motion w/attch'd Affidavits of Edward R. Murphy, Esq &Debra E. Ibarra &certsvc. (Brief/PO Subm) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/10/2002)
218 ORDER granting [217−1] motion for Debra E. Ibarra, Esq. to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (NM) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/10/2002)
216 DISCOVERY ORDER compelling William Wallington to appear to be deposed on 5/23/02 9:30 a.m.; if William Wallington fails to appear to be deposed, this Court will recommend that another warrant be issued for his arrest ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (NM) (aa) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
219 COPY OF ORDER, setting various deadlines for production and copying of document; setting discovery due for 11/1/02 in the BROWN and JAMA actions , setting dispositive motion for 11/22/02 and made ret. for 2/10/03 etc. ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (NM) (cs) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
220 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 4/22/02 by Rapid Transcript (DS) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/05/2002)
221 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 5/23/02 by Rapid Transcript (DS) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/05/2002)
222 LETTER by attorney for individual INS defendants w/attch'd copy of proof of service re: subpoenas (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/04/2002)
223 LETTER by attorney for individual INS dfts. w/attch'd proof of service of subpoena to take oral deposition (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/06/2002)
224 ORDER directing dfts. to file appropriate dispositive motions by 1/21/03, etc. ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (NM) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/07/2002)
225 ORDER extending time for class pltfs. and dft. Esmor to conduct fact discovery to 1/15/03; counsel for class pltfs. &dft. Esmor shall appear for a conference on 1/28/03 at 2:30 p.m. ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (NM) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 11/08/2002)
226 ORDER, for Joyce Phipps to appear for deposition in jury room on 12/19/02 at 9:30 a.m. ( signed by Mag. Judge Ronald J. Hedges ) (NM) (bl) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/10/2002)
227 Notice of MOTION for Chastiti N. Horne to withdraw as attorney by NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, DAVID MCLEAN, Motion set for 1/13/03 on [227−1] motion w/certsvc. (SILB/PO Subm) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/26/2002)
228 CERTIFICATION of Edward R. Murphy, Esq. on behalf of NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, DAVID MCLEAN Re: [227−1] motion for Chastiti N. Horne to withdraw as attorney (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/26/2002)
229 ORDER granting [227−1] motion for Chastiti N. Horne to withdraw as attorney (Terminated ( signed by Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton ) (NM) (nr) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/09/2003)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 35 of 68

01/10/2003 01/10/2003 01/10/2003 01/13/2003 01/14/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003
01/22/2003 01/22/2003 01/22/2003 01/23/2003 01/23/2003

230 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: why Ms. Phipps should not be held in contempt for disobeying the Order of the Court dated 12/9/03 Show Cause Hearing set for 2:00 1/28/03 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton ) n/m (DD) Modified on 01/13/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/13/2003)
231 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: why Joyce Phipps should not be adjudged in contempt for failure to appear for deposition on 12/19/02; Show Cause Hearing set for 1/28/03 any written response to be filed by 1−23−03 and certf of non party Joyce Phillips. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton ) NM (bl) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/13/2003)
Copy of Letter directed to David P. Horowitz, Esq. of Ressler &Ressler dated January 9, 2003 by JOYCE A. PHIPPS, ESQ. [Copies to drd/rjh/sdw] (ar) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
232 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 1/13/03; The following actions were taken, court indicated motion previosly granted by Judge Wigenton [227−1] motion for Chastiti N. Horne to withdraw as attorney (Terminated By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/14/2003)
233 STIPULATION and ORDER, dismissing as to dft. Edward Krous ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/21/2003)
234 Notice of MOTION for Frank R. Volpe, Esq. to appear pro hac vice by AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY, Motion set for 2/10/03 on [234−1] motion w/attch'd Certification of Frank R. Volpe &certsvc. (PO Subm) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/22/2003)
235 Notice of MOTION for Ryan D. Nelson, Esq. to appear pro hac vice by AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY, Motion set for 2/10/03 on [235−1] motion w/attch'd Certification of Ryan D. Nelson, Esq. &certsvc. (PO Subm) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/22/2003)
236 Substitute attorney for ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, JAMES SLATTERY, RICHARD STALEY, JOHN LIMA, AARON SPEISMAN ; Terminated attorney JEFFREY L. CHASE for ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, ICHARD STALEY, AARON SPEISMAN, JAMES SLATTERY ; Added, STEVEN D. WEINSTEIN w/certsvc. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/24/2003)
239 Notice of MOTION for summary judgment by KEVIN T. BRODIE, TOMMIE L. BROWN, PHILLIP JOHNSON, OKAY NKENKE, ROBERT SNEAD, Motion set for 7/14/03 on [239−1] motion ; w/cert. of serv. (Brief/PO Subm) (DD) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
240 CERTIFICATION of GLORIA B. CHERRY on behalf of KEVIN T. BRODIE, TOMMIE L. BROWN, PHILLIP JOHNSON, OKAY NKENKE, ROBERT SNEAD Re: [237−1] motion for summary judgment (DD) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
241 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS by KEVIN T. BRODIE, TOMMIE L. BROWN, PHILLIP JOHNSON, OKAY NKENKE, ROBERT SNEAD (DD) Modified on 01/27/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
237 Notice of MOTION for summary judgment by DORIAN HUNTER, MICHAEL MELENDEZ, COREY STRADFORD, JAMES STRATFORD Motion set for 7/14/05 on [237−1] motion w/cert of service. (Brief/PO Subm) (OK PER CHAMBERS) (sr) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
238 CERTIFICATION of Jeffrey M. Kadish, Esq. Re: [237−1] motion for summary judgment (sr) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 36 of 68

01/23/2003 01/23/2003 01/23/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003
01/24/2003 01/31/2003 02/03/2003

242 Notice of MOTION for summary judgment dismissing pltf's complaint by WILLIE O. HUNTER, MICHAEL JACKSON, LUIS GARCIA, Motion set for 7/14/03 on [242−1] motion w/certsvc. (Brief/PO Subm) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/29/2003)
243 CERTIFICATION of E. Carr Cornog III on behalf of WILLIE O. HUNTER, LUIS GARCIA, MICHAEL JACKSON Re: [237−1] motion for summary judgment (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/29/2003)
244 Notice of MOTION for summary judgment by WILLARD STOVALL, Motion set for 7/14/03 on [244−1] motion w/certsvc. (Brief/PO Subm) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/29/2003)
245 INS Officials' exhibits Volume 1 (mn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/8/2012: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4, # 4 part 5, # 5 part 6, # 6 part 7, # 7 part 8, # 8 part 9, # 9 part 10, # 10 part 11, # 11 part 12, # 12 part 13) (mn). (Entered: 01/29/2003)
246 INS Officials' exhibits Volume 2 (mn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/15/2012: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3, # 3 part 4, # 4 part 5, # 5 part 6, # 6 part 7, # 7 part 8, # 8 part 9, # 9 part 10, # 10 part 11) (mn). (Entered: 01/29/2003)
247 INS Officials' exhibits Volume 3 (mn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/1/2012: # 1 Exhibit part 2, # 2 Exhibit part 3, # 3 Exhibit part 4, # 4 Exhibit part 5, # 5 Exhibit part 6, # 6 Exhibit part 7, # 7 Exhibit part 8, # 8 Exhibit part 9) (mn). (Entered: 01/29/2003)
248 Exhibit 41 of volume 3 ***(sealed) (mn) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
249 STATEMENT of material facts re: motion for sum. jgm. by JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE BOYER, JOHN DOE FREISS (mn) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/29/2003)
250 Notice of MOTION for summary judgment by JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY, Motion set for 7/14/03 on [250−1] motion w/certsvc. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/30/2003)
251 Notice of MOTION to dismiss for failure to prosecute by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, Motion set for 7/14/03 on [251−1] motion w/certsvc. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/30/2003)
252 Notice of MOTION to dismiss for failure to prosecute by MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, NORMAN UZZLE, DAVID MCLEAN, Motion set for 7/14/03 on [252−1] motion w/certsvc. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/30/2003)
253 Notice of MOTION to dismiss pltf's Bivens claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) by MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, NORMAN UZZLE, DAVID MCLEAN, Motion set for 7/14/03 on [253−1] motion w/certsvc. (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/30/2003)
254 Notice of MOTION for summary judgment by MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, NORMAN UZZLE, DAVID MCLEAN, Motion set for 7/14/03 on [254−1] motion w/certsvc . (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 01/30/2003)
255 STIPULATION and ORDER, dismissing as to dft. Louis Garcia ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/05/2003)
256 CERTIFICATION of Larry S. Reich, Esq. on behalf of JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY, AARON SPEISMAN, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL Re: [251−1] motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute w/Exhibits (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/06/2003)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 37 of 68

02/03/2003 02/03/2003 02/04/2003 02/05/2003 02/10/2003
02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/27/2003 03/07/2003
03/10/2003
03/24/2003

257 Notice of MOTION for Frank R. Volpe, Esq. to appear pro hac vice by JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY, AARON SPEISMAN, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, Motion set for 3/10/03 on [257−1] motion w/attch'd certification of Steven D. Weinstein, Esq. &certsvc. (PO Subm) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/06/2003)
258 Notice of MOTION for Ryan D. Nelson, Esq. to appear pro hac vice by JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY, AARON SPEISMAN, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, Motion set for 3/10/03 on [258−1] motion w/attch'd Certification of Steven D. Weinstein, Esq. &certsvc. (PO Subm) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/06/2003)
259 CERTIFICATION of Glenn S. Greene on behalf of MICHAEL D. ROZOS, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, NORMAN UZZLE, DAVID MCLEAN Re: [254−1] motion for summary judgment w/attch'd Certification of Marvin C. Moos (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
264 Notice of MOTION for summary judgment in favor of deft. &against all other parties by IRVING BROWN, &cert. of service. Motion set for July /03 on [264−1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm)Amended notice sent to counsel previously set for 3/24/03 (mn) Modified on 03/18/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/07/2003)
260 ORDER directing pltfs counsel in Jama and DaSilva actions to furnish all parties in those actions, as well as class counsel for Pltfs. in Brown Class action, with copies of retainer agreements etc, together with executed "opt−out: forms for individual clients by 2/21/03. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton ) (NM) (see doc. 266) (bl) Modified on 03/10/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
261 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 2/10/03; The following actions were taken, granting [235−1] motion for Ryan D. Nelson, Esq. to appear pro hac vice granting [234−1] motion for Frank R. Volpe, Esq. to appear pro hac vice. Order submitted. By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/11/2003)
262 ORDER granting [258−1] motion for Ryan D. Nelson, Esq. to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/11/2003)
263 ORDER granting [257−1] motion for Frank R. Volpe, Esq. to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (aa) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 02/11/2003)
265 CERTIFICATION of Gerald D. Siegel on behalf of IRVING BROWN Re: [264−1] motion for summary judgment in favor of deft. &against all other parties.(exhibits to certification forwarded to chambers) (mn) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/07/2003)
266 ORDER, superseding Order of 2/10/03 doc. #260 directing counsel of Jama and Dasilva to prove to Brown by 2/20/03 proof inclusive of opt out of the Brown (cv98−1282) class−action lawsuit, said forms may include client retainer agreement, correspondence ( by Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton ) (NM) (bl) Modified on 03/10/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/10/2003)
267 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 3/10/03; The following actions were taken, At call for motions;[258−1] motion for Ryan D. Nelson, Esq. to appear pro hac vice and [257−1] motion for Frank R. Volpe, Esq. to appear pro hac vice previously granted By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (ak) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/11/2003)
268 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 3/24/03; The following actions were taken, adjourning motion hearing on [264−1] motion for summary judgment in favor of deft. &against all other parties by IRVING BROWN for 7/14/03 By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (ak) Additional

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 38 of 68

04/01/2003 04/24/2003 05/15/2003 06/09/2003 06/10/2003 06/10/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/26/2003 07/14/2003

attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 03/27/2003)
269 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re: pltfs' letter brief in opposition to Brown's &Correctional Services Motion to vacate served upon counsel of record via mail (sr) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/02/2003)
270 ORDER, amending [225−1] order , Jama Pltfs. are to file thier brief due for 7/2/03 , Defts. are to file their brief due for 9/12/03 oral argument shall take place @ 9:00 a.m. on 9/29/03( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (DD) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 04/28/2003)
271 Notice of MOTION to amend its order of 3/9/99, or in the alternative, to consider as a R &R the order issued by Mag. Judge Wigenton on 3/5/03, &affirm that order , by Jama pltfs' atty., the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic Motion set for 6/9/03 on [271−1] motion ; w/cert. of serv. (Brief/PO Subm) (DD) Modified on 05/19/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 05/19/2003)
272 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: STANLEY RIZMAN; Minutes of: 6.9.03; The following actions were taken, [271−1] motion to amend its order of 3/9/99, or in the alternative, to consider as a R &R the order issued by Mag. Judge Wigenton on 3/5/03, &affirm that order. DECISION RESERVED. By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (DD) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/11/2003)
273 OPINION ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NJLJ, NJL). (JB) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/13/2003)
274 ORDER, that paragraph 4 of this Court's class notice order (in the Brown Action) dated March 9, 1999 is amended to provide that requests for exclusion ("opt−out") from the plaintiff class in the Brown action shall deemed to be effective if they were provided to counsel for the class on or before March 20, 2003. etc. ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (JB) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/13/2003)
275 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 06.23.03; The following actions were taken, granting [271−1] motion to amend its order of 3/9/99, or in the alternative, to consider as a R &R the order issued by Mag. Judge Wigenton on 3/5/03, &affirm that order By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (nr) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/25/2003)
276 ORDER directing counsel in Brown action (98−1282) to effect mailing to persons in the forms attached as exhibits A &B; and directing counsel in Brown action to file a certification describing response to new mailing on or before 8/29/03 ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM)(orig. fld 96−3755) (bl) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/25/2003)
277 ORDERED no expert evidence is to be filed re sum jgm motions; Jama/DaSilva plas to file opp to defts' motions for summ jgm by 9/1/03, deft reply thereto ddl 11/12/03; Deft Esmor to file sum jgm motion agst Brown pla class by 9/30/03, aforesaid class opp ddl 12/31/03, and Esmore reply ddl is 2/27/04 etal. ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (ar) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 06/30/2003)
278 NOTICE OF APPEAL w/certsvc filed at 3:29pm by deft's JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Re: [274−1] order . Fee Status: $105.00. Copies of notice of appeal sent to Clerk, USCA and Attorney(s): GERALD DAVID SIEGEL, SUSAN C. CASSELL, JEFFREY L. CHASE, EDWARD R. MURPHY, BRIAN C. HARRIS, GLORIA B. CHERRY, WILLIAM WALLINGTON, DOUGLAS F. CIOLEK, JEFFREY M KADISH, VICTOR A. ROTOLO, FRANK ASKIN, JOHN DOE WALLINGTON, STEVEN D. WEINSTEIN, RICHARD BARRY STROSNIDER, CHARLES E. POWERS JR., STEVEN L. LAPIDUS, KEITH J. MILLER (ce) Modified on 07/17/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/17/2003)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 39 of 68

07/14/2003
07/14/2003
07/14/2003 07/21/2003 07/21/2003
07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/30/2003 08/14/2003

279 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: none; Minutes of: 7/14/03; The following actions were taken, hrg adjourned to 4/12/04 on notice of motion for summary judgement by DORIAN HUNTER, MICHAEL MELENDEZ, COREY STRADFORD, JAMES STRATFORD, By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (dc) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/23/2003)
290 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: none; Minutes of: 7/14/03; The following actions were taken, adjourning motion hearing on [237−1] motion for summary judgment by COREY STRADFORD, MICHAEL MELENDEZ, DORIAN HUNTER for 4/12/04 By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (dc) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/25/2003)
Motion hearing re: [239−1] motion for summary judgment at 4/12/04 (dc) (Entered: 07/25/2003)
280 OPINION ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/23/2003)
281 ORDER that the motion of pltfs in the case of Brown V. Esmor Correctional Services (98−1282) for a stay of the court's 6/23/03 order regarding notice to class members is Denied; motion of said pltfs for reargument and reconsideration of the court's 6/23/03 order regarding notice to class members is Denied; the court's 6/23/03 order will be amended to give class action counsel an additional 20 days to take the various actions called for in that order. ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/23/2003)
282 CERTIFICATION of Hawa Abdi Jama on behalf of HAWA ABDI JAMA Re: advising the court he does not want to be represented by the law firm of Ressler &Ressler, etc. (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/24/2003)
283 CERTIFICATION of Jeyakumar Anantharajah on behalf of ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR Re: advising the court he does not want to be represented by the law firm of Ressler &Ressler, etc. (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/24/2003)
284 CERTIFICATION of Abu Baker on behalf of ABU BAKAR Re: advising the court he does not want to be represented by the law firm of Ressler &Ressler, etc. (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/24/2003)
285 CERTIFICATION of Abraham Kenneh on behalf of ABRAHAM KENNETH Re: advising the court he does not want to be represented by the law firm of Ressler &Ressler, etc. (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/24/2003)
286 CERTIFICATION of Shamimu Nanteza on behalf of SHAMIMU NANTEZA Re: advising the court he does not want to be represented by the law firm of Ressler &Ressler, etc. (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/24/2003)
287 CERTIFICATION of Quintella L. Hanks w/exhibit attached (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/24/2003)
288 Copy of LETTER to Judge Debevoise from Penny M. Venetis re: certifications (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/24/2003)
289 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of copy of certifications, etc. (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/24/2003)
291 NOTICE of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [278−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 03−3096 (ce) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 07/31/2003)
292 Notice of MOTION for modification of Court's 7/21/03 order by dfts., ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY, Motion set for 9/8/03 on [292−1] motion w/certsvc (Brief/Subm) (cs) Modified on 08/20/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/20/2003)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 40 of 68

08/18/2003 08/20/2003
09/05/2003 09/08/2003 09/08/2003 09/08/2003 09/08/2003 09/09/2003 09/10/2003 09/10/2003 09/10/2003 09/23/2003 09/25/2003

293 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 6/9/03 (DD) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/20/2003)
294 ORDER, stating that no expert evidence is to be filed and no expert reports are to be used by any party with regard to the dispositive motions herein; JAMA plas. opposition to dfts' dispositive motions ddl is 10/1/03; DASILVA plas. opposition to dfts' depositive motion due by 9/1/03; Dfts' replies for the Jama dispositive motion due 12/12/03 dfts' replies for the DaSilva dispositive motion due 11/12/03; dft., ESMOR depositive motion agst BROWN pltf class due 9/30/03; BROWN plas. opposition to dft Esmor's dispositive motions due 12/31/03; dft., ESMOR reply for Brown pla dispositive motions due 2/27/04 and by 7/23/03 Jama's counsel shall file certifications and/or affidavits by attorneys, Ms. Hanks and the JAMA plas., Shamimu Nanteza, Abraham Kenneh, Abu Bakar, Jeyakumar Anantharajah and Hawa Abdi Jama re the authenticity of the signatures on opt−out forms and interrogatories in Brown and Jama actions , setting dispositive motion for 9/30/03 re dft., Esmor etc. ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (cs) Modified on 08/21/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 08/21/2003)
295 NOTICE of Change of Firm and Change of Address (out of state counsel for defts Michael Rozos, Earline Boyer, Alan Friess, Norman Uzzle and David McLean) (jd) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/10/2003)
296 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 9/8/03; The following actions were taken, denying [292−1] motion for modification of Court's 7/21/03 order By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (mn) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/11/2003)
298 Notice of MOTION for Debra E. Ibarra, Esq. to withdraw as attorney by JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE BOYER, JOHN DOE FREISS, &cert. of service. Motion set for 10/14/03 on [298−1] motion . (SILB/PO Subm) (mn) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/12/2003)
299 Notice of MOTION for David Clay Wilkerson to withdraw as attorney by JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE BOYER, JOHN DOE FREISS, &cert. of service Motion set for 10/14/03 on [299−1] motion . (SILB/PO Subm) (mn) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/12/2003)
300 Notice of MOTION for Nathan M. Rymer to withdraw as attorney by JOHN DOE McCLEAN, NORMAN UZZLE, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, JOHN DOE BOYER, JOHN DOE FREISS, &cert. of service. Motion set for 10/14/03 on [300−1] motion . (SILB/PO Subm) (mn) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/12/2003)
297 ORDER denying [292−1] motion for modification of Court's 7/21/03 order ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (ak) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/12/2003)
301 ORDER granting [300−1] motion for Nathan M. Rymer to withdraw as attorney ( signed by Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton ) (NM) (DD) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/15/2003)
302 ORDER granting [299−1] motion for David Clay Wilkerson to withdraw as attorney ( signed by Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton ) (NM) (DD) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/15/2003)
303 ORDER granting [298−1] motion for Debra E. Ibarra, Esq. to withdraw as attorney ( signed by Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton ) (NM) (DD) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/15/2003)
mail to dfts counsel RTS. 2nd attempt 9/25/03 (dc) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
304 OPINION ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (copy to NJLJ) (dc) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/29/2003)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 41 of 68

09/25/2003
10/14/2003
12/08/2003
12/09/2003 12/10/2003 12/10/2003 12/11/2003 12/19/2003 12/19/2003 12/19/2003 12/19/2003 12/29/2003 01/06/2004 01/08/2004

305 ORDER, denying motion for evidentiary hearing (Samson Brown, etal v. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., etal); modifying paragraph 2 of the court's order of August 20, 2003 changing the October 1, 2003 date to December 1, 2003, and modifying paragraph 4 of said order changing the December 12, 2003 date to December 31, 2003, etc. ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (dc) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 09/29/2003)
306 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: M. Giordano; Minutes of: 10/14/03; The following actions were taken,at call for hrg mooting [300−1] motion for Nathan M. Rymer to withdraw as attorney, mooting [299−1] motion for David Clay Wilkerson to withdraw as attorney, mooting [298−1] motion for Debra E. Ibarra, Esq. to withdraw as attorney. Motions previously granted by Judge Wigenton. By Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise (dc) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 10/20/2003)
307 Notice of CONSENT MOTION for an extension of time to file reply brief of behalf of Esmor Defendents. by defts JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL, Motion set for 1/12/04 on [307−1] motion w/certsvc. (PO Subm) (Brief/SILB not Subm) (dc) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/23/2003)
308 ORDER granting [307−1] motion for an extension of time to file reply brief of behalf of Esmor Defendents. Defts' reply brief to pltfs' opposition to summary judgment is due on 5/28/04. ( signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ) (NM) (dc) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2007 (af, ). (Entered: 12/29/2003)
309 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief by defts EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, DAVID McCLEAN, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, NORMAN UZZLE w/attachments: proposed order, certsvc, and exhibits. (dc, ) (mn, ). (Entered: 01/05/2004)
Set hearing as to 309 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2004 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
310 ORDER, that Defts' reply brief to Pltfs' opposition to summary judgment is due 5/28/04. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 12/11/03. (dc, ) (mn, ). (Entered: 01/05/2004)
312 CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief by IRVING BROWN; w/cert. of serv. [PO subm]. (DD, ) Modified on 1/6/2004 (DD, ). (mn, ). (Entered: 01/06/2004)
Set Deadlines as to 312 MOTION for Extension of Time to File. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2004 10:00 AM in Newark − Courtroom 5B before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (DD, ) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
313 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by WILLARD STOVALL re Consent Order for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief (DD, ) Modified on 1/6/2004 (DD, ). (mn, ). (Entered: 01/06/2004)
314 ORDER that the time for deft., WILLARD R. STOVALL to file a Reply Brief is extended until 5/28/04.. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 12/19/03. (DD, ) (mn, ). (Entered: 01/06/2004)
315 ORDER setting dfts' reply brief to plts' opposition to summary judgment due 5/28/04. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 12/29/03. (ak, ) (mn, ). (Entered: 01/07/2004)
311 ORDER granting 309 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief to pltfs' opposition to summary judgment. Brief is due on 5/28/04 . Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 12/17/03. (jd, ) (mn, ). (Entered: 01/06/2004)
316 ORDER, granting 312 Motion for Extension of Time for Deft. Irving Brown to file a Reply Brief through 5/28/04. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 1/8/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 01/15/2004)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 42 of 68

01/08/2004 01/12/2004 01/12/2004 01/12/2004 03/15/2004 04/14/2004
04/19/2004 05/26/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004

318 ORDER, granting an extension of time through 5/28/04 for Defts to file a reply brief to Pltfs' opposition to summary judgement.Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 1/7/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
Mail Returned as Undeliverable: copy of letter re: consent motion dated 12/23/03. Mail sent to J. D. Wallington. (dc, ) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
317 APPLICATION/CONSENT MOTION for an extension of time until 5/28/04 to file a reply brief on behalf of Defts. by KEVIN T. BRODIE, TOMMIE L. BROWN, PHILLIP JOHNSON, OKAY NKENKE, ROBERT SNEAD. (dc, ) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
319 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : at call for Hearing held on 1/12/2004 re 307 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed by JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. Motion granted. (Court Reporter M. Giordano.) (dc, ) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
320 ORDER, Ordered that Paragraph 3 of the Court's Order of 9/25/03, is modified and the due date is extended until 5/28/04, for Deft. INS Officials to file replies to Pltfs' Opposition to Defts' Motion for Summary Judgment, etc. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 3/12/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/15/2004)
Reset Deadlines as to 237 Motion for Summary JudgmentMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 239 Motion for Summary JudgmentMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 242 Motion for Summary JudgmentMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 244 Motion for Summary JudgmentMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 250 Motion for Summary JudgmentMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 251 Motion to DismissMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 252 Motion to DismissMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 253 Motion to DismissMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 254 Motion for Summary JudgmentMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 264 Motion for Summary JudgmentMotion for Miscellaneous ReliefMotion for Miscellaneous Relief. Motion Hearing set for 6/29/2004 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
321 NOTICE of Change of Address by attorney Bruce J. Bressler. (ak, ) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
327 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT to Response to Motion re 239 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by KEVIN T. BRODIE, TOMMIE L. BROWN, PHILLIP JOHNSON, OKAY NKENKE, ROBERT SNEAD. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter &Certsvc.)(dc, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
322 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Answer by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Brief # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
323 BRIEF in Support re 251 Motion to DismissMotion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Larry S. Reich, Esq., with Exhibit 1 attached)(MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
324 MOTION to Strike and Objection to Plaintiffs' Counter−Statement of Facts and Statement of Facts Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Brief # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
325 BRIEF in Support re 250 Motion for Summary JudgmentMotion for Miscellaneous Relief with permission to file overlength brief filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Larry S. Reich, Esq., with Exhibits 1 and 2 attached# 2 Esmor Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1)(MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 05/28/2004)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 43 of 68

05/28/2004
05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004
05/28/2004 06/01/2004 06/03/2004
06/07/2004 06/08/2004 06/09/2004 06/14/2004

326 Certification of Service on behalf of ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY Re 322 Motion for Leave to File, 323 Brief in Support of Motion,, 324 Motion to Strike,, 325 Brief in Support of Motion,. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
328 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 242 Motion for Summary Judgment, w/supplemental certf. of E. Carr Cornog III, &Certsvc.. (dc, ) (Entered: 06/04/2004)
330 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by IRVING BROWN. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
331 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by IRVING BROWN, w/certsvc. (dc, ) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
332 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by WILLARD STOVALL. (Attachments: # 1 Part II Brief# 2 Certsvc.# 3 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
333 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by WILLIE O. HUNTER, MICHAEL JACKSON. (Attachments: # 1 Certf. of E. Carr Cornog III# 2 Certsvc.)(dc, ) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
334 MOTION to Strike Objections, and Response to Pltfs' Statement of Facts by Edward R. Murphy for EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, JOHN DOE McCLEAN, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, NORMAN UZZLE, placed in Clerk's Office file, w/certsvc. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Motion# 2 Cover Letter# 3 Brief, placed in Clerk's Office file # 4 Notice of Motion# 5 Motion to Stike and Objections in Reply to Pltf's Counter−Statement of Facts, placed in Clerk's Office file # 6 Proposed Order# 7 INS Officials' Ex. Index Vol 4, placed in Clerk's Ofice file# 8 Objections, (see part #15 for complete doc.) # 9 Revised Notice of Motion to Strike# 10 Proposed Order# 11 Cover Letter)(dc, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/17/2004 (mn, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/23/2009: # 15 deft. INS Officials' objections to pltfs' summary jgm. evidence (part #8)) (mn, ). Modified on 4/23/2009 (mn, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/8/2012: # 16 part 1 to main doc., # 17 part 2 to main doc., # 18 part 3 to main doc., # 19 part 4 to main doc.) (mn). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/8/2012: # 20 complete doc. to attach.#5) (mn). (Entered: 06/10/2004)
Set hearing as to 334 MOTION to Strike, etc. Motion Hearing set for 6/28/2004 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
Set hearing as to 329 MOTION for Leave to Amend Answer. Motion Hearing set for 6/28/2004 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
Reset Deadlines as to 322 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Answer, 324 MOTION to Strike and Objection to Plaintiffs' Counter−Statement of Facts and Statement of Facts Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1. Motion Hearing set for 6/29/2004 09:30 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
329 MOTION for Leave to Amend Answer by Gloria B. Cherry for KEVIN T. BRODIE, TOMMIE L. BROWN, PHILLIP JOHNSON, OKAY NKENKE, ROBERT SNEAD. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order# 2 Amended Answer# 3 Certsvc.)(dc, ) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
Reset Deadlines as to 329 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Motion Hearing set for 6/29/2004 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
335 MOTION to Amend answer w/proposed amended answer attached w/cert of service by IRVING BROWN. (Attachments: # 1 proposed order)(jd, ) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
Set Deadlines as to 335 MOTION to Amend answer. Motion Hearing set for 6/29/2004 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (jd, ) (Entered: 06/14/2004)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 44 of 68

06/16/2004 06/21/2004 06/22/2004 06/22/2004
06/22/2004 06/23/2004 06/24/2004 06/24/2004 06/24/2004 06/28/2004
06/29/2004
06/30/2004

336 JAMA PLTFS. CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE BRIEF TO NEW MOTIONS FILED BY DEFTS. AFTER MEMORIAL DAY . (Attachments: # 1 Certf. Serv)(nr, ) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
339 Letter re issues to addressed at oral argument on the dispositive motions, etc., from Marvin C. Moos. (dc, ) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
337 BRIEF in Support re 322 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Answer (Defendants' Reply in Support of Amending Their Answers and Response to Plaintiffs' Opposition) filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
338 BRIEF in Support re 324 MOTION to Strike and Objection to Plaintiffs' Counter−Statement of Facts and Statement of Facts Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 (Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Strike and Response to Plaintiffs' Opposition, with Exhibit "1" Attached) filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
343 REPLY TO JAMA PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE BRIEF TO NEW MOTIONS FILED BY DEFENDANTS ON OR AFTER MEMORIAL DAY filed by INS DEFENDANTS: EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS, DAVID McCLEAN, MICHAEL D. ROZOS, NORMAN UZZLE. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
340 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Amici Curiae by Professors of International Law. (Attachments: # 1 Brief of Amici Curiae# 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Leave)(LUSTBERG, LAWRENCE) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
Set Deadlines as to 340 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Amici Curiae. Motion Hearing set for 7/19/2004 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
342 MOTION for Leave to Appear to Appear as Amici Curiae by Lawrence S. Lustberg for Professors of International Law, w/certsvc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order# 2 Brief)(dc, ) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
Set hearing as to 340 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Amici Curiae, 342 MOTION for Leave to Appear to Appear as Amici Curiae. Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
341 RESPONSE in Support re 251 Motion to DismissMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 250 Motion for Summary JudgmentMotion for Miscellaneous Relief (Response to Plaintiffs' Second Sur−Reply and Supplemental Authority and Certificate of Service) filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 06/28/2004)
344 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Motion Hearing held on 6/29/2004; Denying Rozos, Boyer, et al motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute; Denying Esmor, Slattery, Lima, et al motion to dimiss for failure to prosecute; Granting motion for leave to appear as Amici Curiae of Professors of International Law; Granted motion to appear pro hac vice; Granting motion for qualified immunity, etc. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
345 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Motions Hearing held on 6/30/2004; Decisions Reserved on Kevin Brodie, et al motion for summary judgment, Dorian Hunter, et al motion for summary judgment, Willie O. Hunter, et al motion for summary judgment, Willard Stovall's motion for summary judgment, Esmor, Slattery, et al motion for summary judgment, Rozos, Boyer, et al motion to dismiss Bivens claims, Rozos, Boyer et al motion for summaru judgment, Irving Brown's motion for summary judgment, Esmor, et al motion for summary judgment in the Brown action, Esmor, et al motion to strike, Esmor, et al motion for leave to file amended answers, Brodie, et al motion for leave to file amended answer, Irving Brown motion for leave to amend answer and Rozos, et al motion to strike plt's statment of material facts; Dismissing dfts Willie O. Hunter,

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 45 of 68

07/12/2004 07/13/2004
07/13/2004
07/14/2004 07/15/2004
07/20/2004 07/20/2004 07/21/2004
07/21/2004 08/09/2004 09/10/2004 09/10/2004 09/10/2004
09/17/2004
09/29/2004 09/29/2004

Tommie Lee Brown and Robert Sneed. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
349 Letter re itemized papers filed by the deft. INS Officials pertaining to pending dispositive motions, etc., from Marvin C. Moos. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
346 ORDER, Ordered that summary judgment is hereby granted to Defendants, James Stratford and Corey Stratford, dismissing the Plaintiffs' Complaints and all cross claims w/prejudice and w/out costs. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 7/8/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
347 ORDER, Ordered and Adjudged, that summary judgment is hereby granted in favor of Irving Brown and against Plaintiff and any and all cross claims against Irving Brown w/prejudice. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 7/8/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
351 DECLARATION of Penny M. Venetis. (Attachments: # 1 Certsvc.)(dc, ) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
348 BRIEF ("Esmor Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Third Sur−Reply," and Certificate of Service) filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
352 RESPONSE TO DECLARATION OF PENNY M. VENETIS FILED AS PLAINTIFFS' THIRD SUR−REPLY by Defendant INS Officials. (Attachments: # 1 Certsvc.)(dc, ) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
353 RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AS AMICI CURIAE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF AMICI CURIAE by Defendant INS Officials. (Attachments: # 1 Certsvc.)(dc, ) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
350 STATUS REPORT SUMMARIZING FILED DOCUMENTS by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
354 STIPULATION of Dismissal as to Defendant, Willie O. Hunter filed by Defendants. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
355 ORDER granting pro hac vice admission of Jason R. Abel. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 8/8/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 08/11/2004)
356 OPINION . Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 9/9/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
357 MEMORANDUM OF LAW filed by Hawa Addi Jama, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits to Brief# 2 Certsvc.# 3 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
358 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Deft. Esmor's motion for summary judgment in Brown and Judgment is entered in Esmor's favor; that in Jama Pltfs' claims against David McLean are dismissed by consent; that claims asserted by all Pltfs' with the exception of nine are dismissed w/out prejudice; that the motion by Esmor and Esmor Officers to dismiss claims asserted against Defts who have not been served is granted, etc.. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 9/9/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
359 STATUS REPORT SUMMARIZING FILED DOCUMENTS by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 09/17/2004)
361 AMENDED OPINION . Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 9/28/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
362 AMENDED ORDER re 358 Order . Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 9/28/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 46 of 68

09/29/2004 09/30/2004
10/05/2004 10/14/2004
10/15/2004 11/09/2004 11/10/2004 11/10/2004 11/12/2004 11/12/2004 11/24/2004 12/10/2004 12/10/2004 12/10/2004 12/17/2004
12/20/2004 01/07/2005 01/14/2005

363 ORDER revising the Court's Opinion of 9/9/04 and its Order of the same date, etc.. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 9/28/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
360 BRIEF RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
364 TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 6/29/04 before Judge Debevoise, re 278 Notice of Appeal,, (ce, ) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
365 MOTION to Strike and Response to Plaintiffs' Fourth Sur−Reply by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JOHN LIMA, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
Set Deadlines as to 365 MOTION to Strike and Response to Plaintiffs' Fourth Sur−Reply. Motion Hearing set for 11/8/2004 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
369 BRIEF filed by INS OFFICIALS. (dc, ) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
367 OPINION. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 11/10/04. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, Opinion)(dc, ) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
368 ORDER granting in part and denying in part various motions for summary judgment re 367 Opinion. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 11/10/04. (dc, ) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
366 MOTION to Strike and Objection to JAMA Plaintiffs' Fourth Sur−Reply Letter Brief by Edward R. Murphy for INS Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Brief# 2 Proposed Order# 3 Certsvc.# 4 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
Set hearing as to 366 MOTION to Strike, etc.. Motion Hearing set for 12/13/2004 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
370 Letter re withdrawal of INS Defendants' Motion to Strike and Objection to Jama Plaintiffs' Fourth Sur−Reply Letter Brief from Elizabeth A. Dalberth. (dc, ) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
371 MOTION for Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) by DEFT. INS OFFICIALS'. (Attachments: # 1 Motion# 2 Proposed Order# 3 Certsvc.# 4 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
372 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Dismiss Cross−Claim against Esmor Corporation w/out prejudice by INS OFFICIALS. (Attachments: # 1 Motion# 2 Certsvc.# 3 SILB# 4 Certf. of Conference# 5 Proposed Order)(dc, ) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
Set hearings as to 371 MOTION Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b), 372 MOTION to Dismiss Cross−Claim. Motion Hearing set for 1/10/2005 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
373 Joint MOTION to Sever prusuant to FRCP 54 (b) by IRVING BROWN, JAMES STRATFORD, KEVIN T. BRODIE, TOMMIE L. BROWN, DORIAN HUNTER, WILLIE O. HUNTER, MICHAEL JACKSON, MICHAEL MELENDEZ, OKAY NKENKE, ROBERT SNEAD, COREY STRATFORD. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In support of Motion to Sever# 2 Certificate of Service # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(CHERRY, GLORIA) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
Set Deadlines as to 373 Joint MOTION to Sever prusuant to FRCP 54 (b). Motion Hearing set for 1/10/2005 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
374 SUPPLEMENT TO UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS CROSS−CLAIM AGAINST ESMOR CORPORATION w/out prejudice. by INS Defendants. (dc, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
375 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 367 Opinion, 368 Order by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. The Clerk's Office

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 47 of 68

01/26/2005 01/26/2005
01/27/2005 02/03/2005 02/04/2005 02/06/2005 02/08/2005 02/09/2005 02/14/2005 02/14/2005 02/14/2005
03/17/2005

hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
376 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 255 receipt number 328787 re 375 Notice of Appeal, filed by JAMES SLATTERY,, JOHN LIMA,, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED,, AARON SPEISMAN,, RICHARD STALEY. (ji, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
377 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by FOLORUNSHO WASIU ALIBI, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY re 375 Notice of Appeal, 376 USCA Appeal Fees. "This is to order a transcript of the proceedings heard on the date listed below from Mollie Ann Giordano" is selected in Section 1A. However the text of what is being ordered is illegible. (ji, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
378 USCA Case Number 05−1160 for 375 Notice of Appeal, filed by JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INCORPORATED, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. USCA Case Manager Carmella Wells (Document Restricted − Court Only)(Wells, Carmella) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
Reset Deadlines as to 371 MOTION Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b), 372 MOTION to Dismiss, 373 Joint MOTION to Sever prusuant to FRCP 54 (b). Motion Hearing set for 2/14/2005 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
379 REPLY to Response to Motion re 373 Joint MOTION to Sever prusuant to FRCP 54 (b) filed by IRVING BROWN, JAMES STRATFORD, KEVIN T. BRODIE, TOMMIE L. BROWN, DORIAN HUNTER, WILLIE O. HUNTER, MICHAEL JACKSON, MICHAEL MELENDEZ, OKAY NKENKE, ROBERT SNEAD, COREY STRATFORD. (CHERRY, GLORIA) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
382 VOLUNTARY STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL w/prejudice by IRVING BROWN. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
380 REPLY to Response to Motion re 371 MOTION Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) Order and Certificate of Service filed by NORMAN UZZLE, DAVID MCLEAN, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Reply to Plaintiff's letter brief)(DALBERTH, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
381 REPLY BRIEF w/signatures filed by DEFENDANT INS OFFICIALS (dc, ) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
383 VOLUNTARY STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL/ORDER w/prejudice and w/out costs dismissing the Deft. Irving Brown's cross−claims asserted in any of his Answers against various Defts. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 2/14/05. (dc, ) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
384 ORDER granting 372 Motion to Dismiss Cross−Claim Against Esmor Corporation. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 2/14/05. (dc, ) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
385 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 371 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment; and the court directs entry of final judgment in favor of INS Officials on all of plaintiffs' claims against them, granting 373 Motion to Sever; and the court directs entry of final judgment in favor of The Esmor Guards' on all of plaintiffs' claims against them, and that all applications for costs are DENIED w/out prejudice. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 2/14/05. (dc, ) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
386 MOTION for Bill of Costs by NORMAN UZZLE, DAVID MCLEAN, EARLINE D. BOYER, ALAN FREISS. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service# 2 Bill of Costs# 3 Invoices# 4 Letter to Judge)(DALBERTH, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 03/17/2005)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 48 of 68

03/18/2005 03/18/2005 03/18/2005
03/18/2005 03/18/2005 03/18/2005 03/18/2005 03/18/2005 03/21/2005 03/21/2005 03/21/2005 03/22/2005 03/23/2005 04/25/2005 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 08/01/2005

Set Deadlines as to 386 MOTION for Bill of Costs. Motion Hearing set for 4/11/2005 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
387 NOTICE by DORIAN HUNTER, MICHAEL MELENDEZ (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Bill of Costs# 2 Unsigned Notice of Bill of Costs)(ABRUTYN, ELLIOTT) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE − Please review the main document attached to docket entry #387 submitted by Elliott Abrutyn on 3/18/05. The docket number and case caption does not pertain to this case or court. Also, attachment #1 did not contain a proper signature. Only Registered Users are permitted to sign electronically filed documents. Please resubmit the document with a proper electronic (s/Elliott Abrutyn) or scanned signature by 3/23/05. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
389 NOTICE OF MOTION for Bill of Costs on behalf of Defendants WILLIE O. HUNTER and MICHAEL JACKSON by Victor A. Rotolo, w/certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
Set hearing as to 389 NOTICE OF MOTION for Bill of Costs. Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2005 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
390 NOTICE OF MOTION for Bill of Costs on behalf of Defendants TOMMIE LEE BROWN, ROBERT SNEAD, OKAY NKENKE, and KEVIN BRODIE by Gloria Cherry, w/certificate of service. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
Set hearing as to 390 NOTICE OF MOTION for Bill of Costs. Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2005 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
391 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 386 MOTION for Bill of Costs, By Penny M. Venetis on behalf of Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Penny Venetis# 2 Certificate of Service # 3 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
392 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION, w/Exhibits re 390 MOTION for Bill of Costs By Penny M. Venetis on behalf of Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Part II# 2 Certificate of Service # 3 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
393 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION, w/Exhibits re 388 NOTICE FOR BILL OF COSTS By Penny M. Venetis on behalf of Plaintiffs . (Attachments: # 1 Brief Part II# 2 Certificate of Service # 3 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
394 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION, w/Exhibits re 389 MOTION for Bill of Costs, By Penny M. Venetis on behalf of Plaintiffs . (Attachments: # 1 Brief Part II# 2 Certificate of Service # 3 Cover Letter)(dc, ) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
388 BILL OF COSTS and Notice of Bill of Costs by DORIAN HUNTER, MICHAEL MELENDEZ. (ABRUTYN, ELLIOTT) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
395 Substitution of Attorney − Attorney BRUCE E. BARRETT for DIANE McCLURE added.. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/24/2005)
396 SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER BRIEF to Opposition Briefs 391 , 392 , and 393 . By Penny Venetis for Pltfs.. (dc, ) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number 333877 for DEREK S. TARSON. (dc, ) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
397 RESPONSE IN OBJECTION TO PORTIONS OF THE STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT, filed by Penny M. Venetis on behalf of the plaintiffs.. (dc, ) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
398 MOTION for Leave to Admit Derek S. Tarson Pro Hac Vice, w/Affidavit of Frank Askin, Exhibits, and Certsvc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(dc, ) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
Set hearing as to 398 MOTION for Leave to Admit Derek S. Tarson. Motion Hearing set for 8/15/2005 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 08/08/2005)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 49 of 68

08/09/2005 08/10/2005 09/13/2005 09/30/2005 10/04/2005 10/09/2005 10/09/2005
10/11/2005
10/20/2005
11/01/2005 11/01/2005 02/01/2006
02/06/2006 02/15/2006 02/23/2006

Reset Deadlines as to 398 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Motion Hearing set for 9/12/2005 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 08/09/2005)
399 ORDER granting 398 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 8/10/05. (ak, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
400 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Settlement Conference held on 9/13/2005. (Court Reporter None.) (ak, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
401 MOTION to Stay Pending Interlocutory Appeals by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
Set Deadlines as to 401 MOTION to Stay Pending Interlocutory Appeals. Motion Hearing set for 10/24/2005 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
402 NOTICE of Appearance by DEREK SHERMAN TARSON on behalf of all plaintiffs (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 10/09/2005)
403 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR re 402 Notice of Appearance of Derek S. Tarson (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 10/09/2005)
404 BRIEF in Opposition re 401 MOTION to Stay Pending Interlocutory Appeals filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 2 Exhibit 1 to Certification of Penny M. Venetis (PART I)# 3 Exhibit 1 to Certification of Penny M. Venetis (PART II)# 4 Text of Proposed Order Propsed Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Interlocutory Appeals# 5 Certificate of Service)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
405 REPLY to Response to Motion re 401 MOTION to Stay Pending Interlocutory Appeals (including Exhibits 1 and 2, and Certificate of Service) filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
406 OPINION . Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 10/28/05. (dc, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
407 ORDER granting 401 Motion to Stay, re 406 Opinion . Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 10/28/05. (dc, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
408 USCA JUDGMENT as to 278 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) filed by JAMES SLATTERY,, JOHN LIMA,, AARON SPEISMAN,, RICHARD STALEY,, 375 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) filed by JAMES SLATTERY,, JOHN LIMA,, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INCORPORATED,, AARON SPEISMAN,, RICHARD STALEY, (Wells, Carmella) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
409 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Telephone Conference held on 2/6/2006. (Court Reporter None.) (ak, ) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
410 SCHEDULING ORDER:Daubert Motions due by 12/30/2006.Complete depositions of the defts' experts by 11/1/2006, etc. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 2/14/2006. (mn, ) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
411 MANDATE of USCA as to 278 Notice of Appeal (USCA) filed by JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY, 375 Notice of Appeal (USCA), filed by JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, ESMOR

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 50 of 68

02/28/2006 03/07/2006 03/17/2006
03/17/2006
03/17/2006 03/17/2006 03/17/2006 03/17/2006 03/20/2006
03/27/2006 03/27/2006 03/31/2006 04/03/2006 05/01/2006
05/03/2006 07/31/2006

CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY. (ji, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
412 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
413 ORDER PERMITTING WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE of RYAN D. NELSON, ESQ. as counsel pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 3/3/06. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
414 OPINION re 386 MOTION for Bill of Costs filed by INS Defendants ROZOS, BOYER, UZZLE, MCLEAN, and FREISS. Signed by William T. Walsh, Clerk, by John O'Brien, Deputy Clerk (Attachment: # 1 Affidavit of Penny Venetis and Venetis's letter filed April 25, 2005)(jo, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
415 ORDER DENYING re 386 MOTION for Bill of Costs filed by INS Defendants: ROZOS, BOYER, UZZLE, MCLEAN, and FREISS . Signed by William T. Walsh,Clerk by John T. O'Brien, Deputy Clerk on March 17, 2006. (jo, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
416 ORDER DENYING re 387 Motion of Defendants for costs filed by Defendants: HUNTER and MELENDEZ. . Signed by William T. Walsh, Clerk by John T. O'Brien, Deputy Clerk on March 17, 2006. (jo, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
417 ORDER DENYING re 389 MOTION for Bill of Costs filed by Defendants: Hunter and Jackson. Signed by William T. Walsh, Clerk by John T. O'Brien, Deputy Clerk on March 17, 2006. (jo, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
418 ORDER DENYING re 389 MOTION for Bill of Costs filed by Defendants: Hunter and Jackson. Signed by William T. Walsh, Clerk by John T. O'Brien, Deputy Clerk on March 17, 2006. (jo, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
419 ORDER DENYING re 390 MOTION for Bill of Costs filed by Defendants: Brown, Snead, Nkenke, and Brodie. Signed by William T. Walsh, Clerk by John T. O'Brien, Deputy Clerk on March 17, 2006. (jo, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
420 DECLARATION of J. Llewellyn Mathews, Esquire in Support of Informal Application for Admission of Matthew B. Hsu, Esquire Pro Hac Vice by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew B. Hsu, Esquire)(MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
421 ORDER ADMITTING MATTHEW B. HSU, ESQ. PRO HAC VICE. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 3/22/06. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
422 ORDER Implementing Mandate of the 3rd Circuit Affirming District Court's Decisions. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 3/27/06. (ji, ) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number 337874 for MATTHEW B. HSU, ESQ.. (dc, ) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
423 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
424 ORDER of USCA as to 375 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) filed by JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, AARON SPEISMAN, RICHARD STALEY, (Wells, Carmella) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
425 JOINT STIPULATION AND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 5/3/06. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
426 STIPULATION re 410 Scheduling Order "Joint Stipulation and Proposed Amended Scheduling Order" by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 07/31/2006)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 51 of 68

07/31/2006 08/09/2006 11/22/2006 02/05/2007 04/05/2007 04/05/2007
04/05/2007
04/05/2007
04/05/2007
04/05/2007

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE − The 426 Stipulation submitted by J. Mathews on 7/31/06 must be executed by a Judicial Officer before filing. Please forward to the appropriate Judicial Officer in accordance with his/her preferred practice. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the Court. This message is for informational purposes only. (dc, ) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
427 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 8/9/06. (dc, ) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
Judge Esther Salas and Esther Salas added. Judge Madeline C. Arleo no longer assigned to case. (jq, ) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
428 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Status Conference held on 2/5/2007. (Court Reporter None.) (ak, ) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
429 NOTICE of Appearance by KIRA FEENY SPAMAN on behalf of ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(SPAMAN, KIRA) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
430 MOTION to Preclude /Motion Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow to Prohibit Dr. Lawrence Mendel from Testifying as to Certain Statements Made in His Expert Report by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support# 2 Certification of Derek Tarson in Support# 3 Tarson Cert. Ex. 1# 4 Tarson Cert. Ex. 2# 5 Tarson Cert. Ex. 3# 6 Tarson Cert. Ex. 4# 7 Tarson Cert. Ex. 5# 8 Text of Proposed Order)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
431 MOTION to Preclude /Motion Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow to Preclude the Testimony at Trial of Gary W. DeLand by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support# 2 Certification of Drew S. Dorman in Support# 3 Dorman Cert. Ex. 1 pt. 1# 4 Dorman Cert. Ex. 1 pt. 2# 5 Dorman Cert. Ex. 2# 6 Dorman Cert. Ex. 3# 7 Dorman Cert. Ex. 4# 8 Dorman Cert. Ex. 5a# 9 Dorman Cert. Ex. 5b# 10 Dorman Cert. Ex. 5c# 11 Dorman Cert. Ex. 5d# 12 Dorman Cert. Ex. 5e# 13 Dorman Cert. Ex. 5f# 14 Dorman Cert. Ex. 5g# 15 Dorman Cert. Ex. 5h# 16 Dorman Cert. Ex. 6# 17 Text of Proposed Order)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
432 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Dr. Frances Geteles by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Frances Geteles# 2 Declaration of Kira Feeny Spaman, Esq.# 3 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Kira Feeny Spaman, Esq.# 4 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Kira Feeny Spaman, Esq.# 5 Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Kira Feeny Spaman, Esq.# 6 Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Kira Feeny Spaman, Esq.# 7 Text of Proposed Order # 8 Certificate of Service)(SPAMAN, KIRA) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
433 MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support# 2 Certification of Penny M. Venetis in Support# 3 Venetis Cert. Ex. A# 4 Venetis Cert. Ex. B# 5 Venetis Cert. Ex. C# 6 Venetis Cert. Ex. D# 7 Venetis Cert. Ex. E# 8 Venetis Cert. Ex. F# 9 Text of Proposed Order)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
434 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Stuart Grassian Pursuant to Rule 702 of The Fed. R. Evid. by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 52 of 68

04/05/2007 04/05/2007
04/05/2007
04/05/2007
04/05/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007

YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Penny M. Venetis In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Stuart Grassian Pursuant to Rule 702 of The Fed. R. Evid.# 2 Errata A to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 3 Exhibit B to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 4 Exhibit C to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 5 Exhibit D to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 6 Exhibit E to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 7 Exhibit F to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 8 Exhibit G to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 9 Exhibit H to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 10 Exhibit I to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 11 Exhibit J to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 12 Errata K to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 13 Exhibit L to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 14 Exhibit M to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 15 Exhibit N to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 16 Errata O to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 17 Errata P to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 18 Exhibit Q to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 19 Exhibit R to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 20 Errata S to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 21 Exhibit T to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 22 Exhibit U to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 23 Exhibit V to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 24 Exhibit W to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 25 Exhibit X to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 26 Exhibit Y to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 27 Exhibit Z to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 28 Exhibit AA to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 29 Exhibit BB to Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 30 Text of Proposed Order)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
435 Letter from Penny M. Venetis on behalf of plaintiffs requesting permission to file a brief that exceeds the 40−page limit specified by the District of New Jersey's Court Rules. re 434 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Stuart Grassian Pursuant to Rule 702 of The Fed. R. Evid.. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
436 BRIEF in Support re 434 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Stuart Grassian Pursuant to Rule 702 of The Fed. R. Evid. − Part I (also see doc #435, Letter Request to file brief in excess of page limit) filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian, etc. − Part 2)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
Set hearing as to 431 MOTION to Preclude /Motion Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow to Preclude the Testimony at Trial of Gary W. DeLand, 434 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Stuart Grassian Pursuant to Rule 702 of The Fed. R. Evid., 430 MOTION to Preclude /Motion Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow to Prohibit Dr. Lawrence Mendel from Testifying as to Certain Statements Made in His Expert Report. Motion Hearing set for 6/21/2007 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
Set hearing as to 433 MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), 432 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Dr. Frances Geteles. Motion Hearing set for 5/14/2007 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
Reset Deadlines as to 432 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Dr. Frances Geteles. Motion Hearing set for 6/21/2007before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
437 JOINT STIPULATION AND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER re the parties shall submit any opposition papers to Daubert motions on or before 5/7/07, etc.. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 4/27/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
438 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion Preclude Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (SPAMAN, KIRA) (Entered: 04/30/2007)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 53 of 68

04/30/2007 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 05/01/2007
05/01/2007
05/01/2007 05/02/2007 05/04/2007 05/07/2007 05/08/2007 05/08/2007 05/08/2007

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE − The 438 Motion filed by K. Spaman on 4/30/07 was incorrectly submitted. Please resubmit the document by 5/4/07 using LETTER. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
439 Letter from Kira Feeny Spaman, Esq. to the Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise Requesting, on Behalf of Defendants, a One−Day Extension of Time in Which to File an Opposition to Motion to Preclude Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian. (SPAMAN, KIRA) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
440 Exhibit to ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY Re 432 Motion to Preclude,,. (SPAMAN, KIRA) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
441 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Justin P. Smith by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Admitting Justin P. Smith Pro Hac Vice)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
442 RESPONSE in Opposition re 433 MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew Hsu# 2 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Matthew Hsu (Decl. of Dr. Stuart Grassian)# 3 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Matthew Hsu (Deposition of Frances Geteles, Ph.D)# 4 Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Matthew Hsu (Deposition of Steven Spencer)# 5 Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Matthew Hsu (Deposition of E. Eugene Miller)# 6 Certification of Service)(SPAMAN, KIRA) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
Set Deadlines as to 441 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Justin P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 5/28/2007 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
443 Letter from Andrea J. Waye to the Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise, U.S.D.J.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew B. Hsu# 2 Certificate of Service)(WAYE, ANDREA) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
444 Letter from Andrea J. Waye, Esquire to the Hon. R. Debevoise, U.S.D.J.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew B. Hsu# 2 Certificate of Service)(WAYE, ANDREA) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number 345174 as to Justin P. Smith, Esq.. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
445 ORDER granting 441 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 5/7/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
446 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/6/2007 at 9:30 a.m.. Jury selection and Trial set for 9/18/2007 at 10:00 a.m., etc.. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 5/7/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
447 REPLY to Response to Motion re 433 MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) / Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law Submitted in Support of Their Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence, and for Violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY,

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 54 of 68

05/09/2007
05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/11/2007
05/11/2007 05/15/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007

ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Certification of Penny M. Venetis in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence, and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), with Exhibits A−C attached)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
448 Letter from Derek S. Tarson to Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise attaching corrected Supplemental Certification of Penny M. Venetis re 433 MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). (Attachments: # 1 Certification (Supplemental Certification of Penny M. Venetis)# 2 Exhibit A − December 6, 2006 letter# 3 Exhibit A−2 − December 11, 2006 letter# 4 Exhibit B − April 30, 2007 letter# 5 Exhibit C − May 1, 2007 letter)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
449 BRIEF in Opposition re 430 MOTION to Preclude /Motion Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow to Prohibit Dr. Lawrence Mendel from Testifying as to Certain Statements Made in His Expert Report filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lawrence H. Mendel# 2 Certificate of Service)(WAYE, ANDREA) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
450 BRIEF in Opposition re 431 MOTION to Preclude /Motion Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow to Preclude the Testimony at Trial of Gary W. DeLand filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(WAYE, ANDREA) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
451 BRIEF in Opposition re 434 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Stuart Grassian Pursuant to Rule 702 of The Fed. R. Evid. and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SEERVICES INCORPORATED, JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPEISMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(WAYE, ANDREA) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
452 BRIEF in Opposition re 432 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Dr. Frances Geteles filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, ANANTHARAJAH JEYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMIMU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Penny M. Venetis# 2 Exhibit A to Venetis Certification# 3 Exhibit B to Venetis Certification# 4 Exhibit C to Venetis Certification# 5 Exhibit D to Venetis Certification# 6 Exhibit E to Venetis Certification# 7 Exhibit F to Venetis Certification# 8 Exhibit G to Venetis Certification# 9 Exhibit H to Venetis Certification# 10 Exhibit I to Venetis Certification# 11 Exhibit J to Venetis Certification# 12 Exhibit K to Venetis Certification# 13 Exhibit L to Venetis Certification# 14 Exhibit M to Venetis Certification# 15 Exhibit N to Venetis Certification)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
453 Notice to be terminated and withdraw from Notices of Electronic filing as to case. Attorney ELIZABETH A. DALBERTH terminated. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
454 Letter from J. Llewellyn Mathews, Esquire requesting withdrawal of appearance for Esmor, Slattery, Speisman, Lima and Staley. (MATHEWS, J.) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
455 STIPULATION AND ORDER amending caption of the action. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 6/4/2007. (mn, ) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
456 JOINT STIPULATION AND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Parties shall submit trial briefs and proposed jury instructions on or before 6/12/2007; answering briefs and objection to jury charges on or before 6/29/2007. Signed by

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 55 of 68

06/05/2007 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/06/2007
06/06/2007
06/13/2007 06/13/2007 06/14/2007 06/19/2007 06/19/2007 06/19/2007

Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 6/4/2007. (mn, ) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
457 NOTICE of Appearance by DREW MATTHEW DORMAN on behalf of all plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service of Notice of Appearance)(DORMAN, DREW) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
458 RESPONSE in Opposition re 432 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Dr. Frances Geteles filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(WAYE, ANDREA) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
459 REPLY to Response to Motion re 434 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Stuart Grassian Pursuant to Rule 702 of The Fed. R. Evid. −− Reply Brief in Further Support of the Motion filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
460 REPLY to Response to Motion re 430 MOTION to Preclude /Motion Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow to Prohibit Dr. Lawrence Mendel from Testifying as to Certain Statements Made in His Expert Report −− Reply Brief in Further Support of the Motion filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
461 REPLY to Response to Motion re 431 MOTION to Preclude /Motion Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow to Preclude the Testimony at Trial of Gary W. DeLand / Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Daubert Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Gary W. DeLand filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (DORMAN, DREW) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
462 TRIAL BRIEF by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, PHILLIP JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Jury Instructions# 2 Certificate of Service)(WAYE, ANDREA) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: The 462 Trial Brief filed by A. Waye on 6/13/07 did not contain a proper electronic signature (s/). Please resubmit the document with a proper electronic signature by 6/21/07. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (dc, ) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
463 TRIAL BRIEF by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Proposed Jury Instructions# 2 Certificate of Service of Plaintiffs' Trial Brief)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
464 NOTICE of Appearance by KIRA FEENY SPAMAN on behalf of ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service of Notice of Appearance of Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq. filed by Kira Feeny Spaman, Esq.)(SPAMAN, KIRA) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
465 TRIAL BRIEF by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, PHILLIP JOHNSON. (WAYE, ANDREA) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
466 Proposed Jury Instructions by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, PHILLIP JOHNSON. (WAYE,

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 56 of 68

06/21/2007
06/25/2007 06/25/2007 07/02/2007 07/13/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007 07/19/2007

ANDREA) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
467 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Motion Hearing held on 6/21/2007 re 434 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Stuart Grassian Pursuant to Rule 702 of The Fed. R. Evid. filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, HAWA ABDI JAMA, DENNIS RAJI, AGATHA SERWAA, ABRAHAM KENNETH, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, SHAMINU NANTEZA, ABU BAKAR, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, 432 MOTION to Preclude The Testimony of Dr. Frances Geteles filed by AARON SPIESMAN, JAMES SLATTERY, RICHARD STALEY, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JOHN LIMA, 430 MOTION to Preclude /Motion Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow to Prohibit Dr. Lawrence Mendel from Testifying as to Certain Statements Made in His Expert Report filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, HAWA ABDI JAMA, DENNIS RAJI, AGATHA SERWAA, ABRAHAM KENNETH, SHAMINU NANTEZA, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR, 433 MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Stuart Grassian for Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, HAWA ABDI JAMA, DENNIS RAJI, AGATHA SERWAA, ABRAHAM KENNETH, SHAMINU NANTEZA, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR, 431 MOTION to Preclude /Motion Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow to Preclude the Testimony at Trial of Gary W. DeLand filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, HAWA ABDI JAMA, DENNIS RAJI, AGATHA SERWAA, ABRAHAM KENNETH, SHAMINU NANTEZA, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Court Reporter Stan Rizman.) (ak, ) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
468 OPINION. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 6/25/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
469 ORDER denying 430 Motion to Preclude; denying 431 Motion to Preclude; denying 432 Motion to Preclude; denying 433 Motion to Preclude; denying 434 Motion to Preclude, etc.. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 6/25/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
470 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Joseph N. Cordaro (dc, ) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
471 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFFS' TIME TO SUBMIT APPLICATION FOR FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 7/10/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
472 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Alison J. Page by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
473 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of W. Barton Patterson by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 472 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Alison J. Page, 473 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of W. Barton Patterson. Motion Hearing set for 8/13/2007 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/18/2007)
474 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time for parties to submit answering briefs to trial briefs and objections to propose jury instructions on or

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 57 of 68

07/20/2007 07/20/2007
07/20/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007 07/28/2007 07/28/2007
08/06/2007

before 7/27/07. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 7/17/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 300, receipt number 346385 for Alison J. Page, Esq. and W. Barton Patterson, Esq. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
475 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Derek S. Tarson# 2 Exhibit A to Tarson Cert. (List of Attorneys/Paraprofessionals)# 3 Exhibit B to Tarson Cert. (Time Entries)# 4 Exhibit C to Tarson Cert. (Compensable Expenses)# 5 Declaration of Penny M. Venetis# 6 Exhibit A to Venetis Decl. (Time Entries)# 7 Declaration of Reynold Lambert (Ex. B to Venetis Decl.)# 8 Declaration of Asaf Orr (Ex. C to Venetis Decl.)# 9 Declaration of Nicholas Parr (Ex. D to Venetis Decl.)# 10 Exhibit E to Venetis Decl. (Laffey Matrix)# 11 Certificate of Service # 12 Text of Proposed Order)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 475 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions. Motion Hearing set for 8/13/2007 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
476 Proposed Voir Dire by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, PHILLIP JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(CORDARO, JOSEPH) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
477 TRIAL BRIEF DEFENDANTS' ANSWERING BRIEF by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, PHILLIP JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(CORDARO, JOSEPH) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
478 BRIEF DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, PHILLIP JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(CORDARO, JOSEPH) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
479 BRIEF DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, PHILLIP JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(CORDARO, JOSEPH) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
480 BRIEF (Plaintiffs' Answering Brief to Defendants' Trial Brief) filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 07/28/2007)
481 BRIEF (Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Proposed Jury Instructions) filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement (Plaintiffs' First Supplemental Proposed Jury Instructions)# 2 Certificate of Service of Plaintiffs' Answering Brief, Objections to Defs. Proposed Jury Instructions, and Pltfs. First Suppl. Proposed Jury Instr.)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 07/28/2007)
482 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER extending Defts.' time to submit opposition to Pltfs.' 475 Motion for Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 8/6/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 08/06/2007)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 58 of 68

08/08/2007
08/09/2007 08/10/2007 08/20/2007
08/21/2007
08/21/2007 08/22/2007 08/23/2007 09/06/2007

483 BRIEF DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Frank R. Volpe# 2 Exhibit A to Volpe Certification# 3 Exhibit B to Volpe Certification# 4 Exhibit C to Volpe Certification# 5 Exhibit D to Volpe Certification# 6 Exhibit E to Volpe Certification# 7 Exhibit F to Volpe Certification# 8 Exhibit G to Volpe Certification# 9 Exhibit H to Volpe Certification# 10 Exhibit I to Volpe Certification# 11 Exhibit J to Volpe Certification# 12 Certificate of Service)(CORDARO, JOSEPH) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
484 ORDER granting pro hac vice admission as to ALISON J. PAGE, ESQ. &W. BARTON PATTERSON, ESQ.. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 8/8/07. (DD, ) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
485 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Thomas Wolf, Esquire to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (BARRETT, BRUCE) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
486 Certification of Penny M. Venetis (Supplemental) in support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees on behalf of CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Certification of Lawrence Lustberg# 2 Exhibit B − Certification of Jon Dubin# 3 Exhibit C − Supplemental Time Entries of Penny M. Venetis)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
487 Certification of Derek S. Tarson (Supplemental) in Support of Motion for Attorneys Fees and Expenses on behalf of CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Chart of Fees Sorted by Task# 2 Exhibit B − Fee Application of Sills Cummis# 3 Exhibit C − Fee Application of Lowenstein Sandler# 4 Exhibit D − Fee Application of Gibbons, P.C.# 5 Exhibit E − Supplemental Time Entries of Derek S. Tarson)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
488 BRIEF (Reply Brief In Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses) filed by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ABU BAKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A to Reply Brief Detailing Plaintiffs' Line Item Fee Submissions)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
489 Letter from Derek S. Tarson attaching Corrected Supplemental Certification of Penny M. Venetis in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses re 486 Certification,. (Attachments: # 1 Errata (Corrected Supplemental Certification of Penny M. Venetis))(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
490 NOTICE of Appearance by KIT APPLEGATE on behalf of ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
491 Proposed Pretrial Order by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH YOWER, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, ABU BAKAR, PHILLIP JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1 − Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Steven S. Spencer# 2 Exhibit A2 − Expert Report of Steven S. Spencer of Sept. 8, 2001# 3 Exhibit A3 − Expert Report of Steven S. Spencer dated Nov. 16, 2001 with addendum of Jan. 31, 2002# 4 Exhibit B1 − Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Robert W. Powitz# 5 Exhibit B−2 Expert Report of Robert W. Powitz# 6 Exhibit C1 − Curriculum Vitae of E. Eugene Miller# 7 Exhibit C−2 Expert Report of E. Eugene Miller# 8 Exhibit D − Trial Exhibit List of Plaintiffs and Defendants)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 59 of 68

09/06/2007 09/12/2007 09/12/2007 09/17/2007 09/17/2007 09/21/2007
09/21/2007
09/21/2007 09/24/2007

492 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Final Pretrial Conference held on 9/6/2007, Settlement Conference held on 9/6/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
493 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Hawa Abdi Jama n/k/a Hali Hashi Egal (Returnable September 17, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.) by Debevoise &Plimpton LLP, Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Penny M. Venetis in Support of Motion# 2 Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Counsel's Contingent Motion to Withdraw# 3 Certificate of Service for Motion to Withdraw# 4 Text of Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Hawa Abdi Jama n/k/a Hali Hashi Egal)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 493 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Hawa Abdi Jama n/k/a Hali Hashi Egal (Returnable September 17, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.) MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Hawa Abdi Jama n/k/a Hali Hashi Egal (Returnable September 17, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.) MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Hawa Abdi Jama n/k/a Hali Hashi Egal (Returnable September 17, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.). Motion Hearing set for 9/17/2007 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
494 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Notice of Plaintiffs' Counsel's Contingent Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Hawa Abdi Jama n/k/a Hali Hashi Egal with Supporting Declaration and Brief served on Hawa Abdi Jama n/k/a Hali Hashi Egal on September 13, 2007, filed by Debevoise &Plimpton LLP, Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
502 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Preliminary Conference held on 9/17/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: LARRY S. REICH, does not have a correct e−mail address listed with the court and is not receiving his/her notices of electronic filing in this case. Pursuant to local rule 10.1 and court procedures, counsel and unrepresented parties are required to notify the court of any mailing or e−mail address changes. The court has deleted the invalid e−mail address. Attorneys should review the ECF link on our web site for information on maintaining your account and unrepresented parties, or those attorneys without access to maintaining their account, should notice the Clerk. (mem, ) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
495 MOTION to Introduce the Conviction of Cecilia Kou Jeffrey Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 609(b), 401 and 801(d)(2)(A) by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, JOHN LIMA, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, PHILLIP JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Support of Defendants' Motion to Introduce the Conviction of Cecilia Kou Jeffrey Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 609(b), 401 and 801(d)(2)(A)# 2 Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq.# 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq.# 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq.# 5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq.# 6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq.# 7 Exhibit E to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq.# 8 Exhibit F to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq.# 9 Exhibit G to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, Esq.# 10 Text of Proposed Order # 11 Certificate of Service)(CORDARO, JOSEPH) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 495 MOTION to Introduce the Conviction of Cecilia Kou Jeffrey Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 609(b), 401 and 801(d)(2)(A) MOTION to Introduce the Conviction of Cecilia Kou Jeffrey Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 609(b), 401 and 801(d)(2)(A) MOTION to Introduce the Conviction of Cecilia Kou Jeffrey Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 609(b), 401 and 801(d)(2)(A) MOTION to Introduce the Conviction of Cecilia Kou Jeffrey Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 609(b), 401 and 801(d)(2)(A). Motion Hearing set for 10/15/2007 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
496 Proposed Pretrial Order (Amended) by CECILIA KOU JEFFREY, JEYAKUMAR ANANTHARAJAH, ABRAHAM KENNETH, DENNIS RAJI, SHAMINU NANTEZA, AGATHA SERWAA, HAWA ABDI JAMA, SARAH TETTEH

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 60 of 68

09/25/2007 09/25/2007 09/26/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 09/28/2007 10/02/2007 10/03/2007 10/04/2007 10/04/2007 10/09/2007 10/10/2007 10/16/2007 10/17/2007

YOWER, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, AARON SPIESMAN, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY, ABU BAKAR, PHILLIP JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1 − Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Steven S. Spencer# 2 Exhibit A−2 − Expert Report of Dr. Steven S. Spencer of Sept. 8, 2001# 3 Errata A−3 Expert Report of Dr. Steven S. Spencer of Nov. 16, 2001 with addendum of Jan. 31, 2002# 4 Exhibit B−1 − Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Robert W. Powitz# 5 Exhibit B−2 Expert Report of Robert W. Powitz# 6 Exhibit C1 − Curriculum Vitae of E. Eugene Miller# 7 Exhibit C−2 Expert Report of E. Eugene Miller# 8 Exhibit D − Amended Trial Exhibit List of Plaintiffs and Defendants)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
497 ORDER permitting the Defts. to bring various materials into the courtroom for trial commencing 9/25/07,. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 9/24/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
498 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 9/25/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
499 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 9/26/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number 347424 for James C. Owens, Esq. (dc, ) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
500 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 9/27/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
503 ORDER admitting James C. Owens, Esq. pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 9/26/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
501 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 9/28/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
505 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/2/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
506 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/3/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
504 CONSENT ORDER dismissing Deft. AARON SPIESMAN w/prejudice. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 10/3/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
507 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/4/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
508 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/9/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
509 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/10/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
511 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/16/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
510 MOTION to Sever Defendant Richard Phillips Staley by RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Motion to Sever Defendant Richard Phillips Staley# 2 Certificate of Service)(CORDARO, JOSEPH) (Entered: 10/17/2007)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 61 of 68

10/17/2007
10/17/2007 10/18/2007 10/19/2007 10/22/2007 10/23/2007 10/24/2007 10/26/2007 10/29/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 10/31/2007 11/01/2007 11/01/2007
11/07/2007 11/08/2007

CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: The 510 Motion filed by J. Cordaro did not contain a proper electronic signature. Only Registered Users are permitted to sign electronically filed documents with an s/. Please resubmit the document with a proper electronic or scanned signature by 10/22/07. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (dc, ) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
512 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/17/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
513 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/18/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
514 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/19/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
515 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/22/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
516 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/23/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
517 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/24/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
518 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/26/2007. (Court Reporter Phyllis Lewis.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
519 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/29/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
Judge Michael A. Shipp added. Judge Esther Salas no longer assigned to case. (jgb) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
520 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/30/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
521 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 10/31/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 11/01/2007)
522 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 11/1/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
523 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on October 26, 2007 before Judge Debevoise. Court Reporter: Phyllis T. Lewis. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (ji, ) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
524 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 11/7/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
525 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial held on 11/8/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 11/09/2007)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 62 of 68

11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/20/2007 11/20/2007 12/07/2007
12/07/2007
12/07/2007 12/21/2007

526 Jury Communication #1. (ak, ) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
527 Jury Communication #2. (ak, ) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
528 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise : Jury Trial completed on 11/13/2007. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (ak, ) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
529 Jury Communication #3. (ak, ) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
530 Jury Communication #4. (ak, ) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
531 JURY VERDICT SHEET. (ak, ) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
532 Exhibit List. (ak, ) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
533 Witness List. (ak, ) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
534 OPINION. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 11/20/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
535 ORDER Ordered that Pltfs.' attorneys are awarded for attorneys' fees and expenses the total sum of $137,808.04, etc.. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 11/20/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
536 ORDER Ordered that the case of Hawa Abdi Jama, n/k/a Hali Hashi Egal v. Willard Stovall, is administratively terminated on the records of the court, and that this order is without prejudice to the right of any party to move to restore this case to the active list for the purpose of trial or for formal dismissal. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 12/7/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
537 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Pltf. HAWA ABDI JAMA against ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, RICHARD STALEY, and JOHN LIMA on Pltf.'s claims against them for negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision of guards under New Jersey state common law in the amount of $100,000; that Judgment be entered in favor of Pltf. favor of HAWA ABDI JAMA against ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., and JOHN LIMA on Pltf.'s claims against them under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb in the amount of $1.00; that Judgment be entered in favor of Deft. Diane McClure and against Pltf. Hawa Abdi Jama on Pltf.'s claims against her for negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision of guards under New Jersey state common law; that Judgment be entered in favor of Defts. James Slattery, Richard Staley, and Diane McClure and against Pltf. Hawa Abdi Jama on Pltf.'s claims against them under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb; that Judgment be entered in favor of Defts. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., James Slattery, Richard Staley, Diane McClure, and Johm Lima and against Pltf. Hawa Abdi Jama on Pltf.'s claims against them under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350, and that Judgment be entered in favor of Defts. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., James Slattery, Richard Staley, Diane McClure, and John Lima and against Pltf. Hawa Abdi Jama on Pltf.'s claims against them for negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision of Willard Stovall or John Lima under New Jersey state common law. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 12/7/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
538 ORDER entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Jeyakumar Anantharajah, Abu Bakar, Cecilia Jeffrey, Abraham Kenneh, Shamimu Nanteza, Dennis Raji, Agatha Serwaa, and Sarah Tetteh Yower against each of the remaining Defendants, etc.. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 12/7/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
539 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro# 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro# 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro# 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro# 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro# 6 Exhibit E to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro# 7 Exhibit F to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro# 8 Brief In Support of Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law# 9 Text of Proposed Order # 10 Certificate of Service)(CORDARO, JOSEPH)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 63 of 68

12/26/2007 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008
01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008
01/14/2008 01/15/2008

(Entered: 12/21/2007)
540 ORDER vacating the Order and Judgment dated 12/7/07 in favor of each of said Pltfs. against each of said remaining Defts.; that the complaint of each of said Pltfs. against each of said remaining Defts. is dismissed w/prejudice, etc.. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 12/21/07. (dc, ) (Entered: 12/26/2007)
541 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 by HAWA ABDI JAMA. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
542 CERTIFICATION in Support re 541 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 / Certification of Penny M. Venetis in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by HAWA ABDI JAMA. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
543 DECLARATION of Derek S. Tarson re 541 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 by HAWA ABDI JAMA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − RFRA Time Entries# 2 Exhibit B − Pre−2004 Time Entries# 3 Exhibit C − Litigation Support Time Entries# 4 Exhibit D − Expert Penologist Time Entries# 5 Exhibit E − Trial and Trial Preparation Time Entries# 6 Exhibit F − Uncharacterized Litigation Expenses# 7 Exhibit G − Time Entries for Fee Application and JML# 8 Exhibit H − List of Attorneys# 9 Exhibit I − List of Timekeepers# 10 Exhibit J − Declaration of Ann Marie Preissler# 11 Exhibit K − Fee Appl. of Lite DePalma# 12 Exhibit L − Fee Appl. of Sills Cummis# 13 Exhibit M − Pages from Amended Pretrial Order)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
544 BRIEF in Support re 541 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 on behalf of Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic and Debevoise &Plimpton LLP filed by HAWA ABDI JAMA. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
545 BRIEF in Opposition re 539 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) filed by HAWA ABDI JAMA. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 541 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. Motion Hearing set for 3/3/2008 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIIFIED BY THE COURT. (dc, ) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
546 Letter from Derek S. Tarson to Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise re 541 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Corrected Declaration of Derek S. Tarson# 2 Exhibit A − RFRA Time Entries# 3 Exhibit B − Pre−2004 Time Entries# 4 Exhibit C − Litigation Support Time Entries# 5 Exhibit D − Experts Time Entries# 6 Exhibit E − Trial Time Entries# 7 Exhibit F − Uncharacterized Expenses# 8 Exhibit G − Fee App and JML Time Entries# 9 Exhibit H − List of Attorneys# 10 Exhibit I − List of Timekeepers# 11 Exhibit J − Preissler Declaration# 12 Exhibit K − Fee app of Lite DePalma# 13 Exhibit L − Fee App of Sills Cummis# 14 Exhibit M − Pages from Amended PTO)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
547 REPLY to Response to Motion re 539 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(CORDARO, JOSEPH) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
548 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER setting forth briefing schedule for Pltf's Motion for Attorneys' Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.1988. Signed by Judge Dickinson

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 64 of 68

01/30/2008
01/30/2008 02/01/2008 02/04/2008 02/11/2008
02/19/2008 03/06/2008

R. Debevoise on 1/14/08. (dc, ) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
549 MOTION to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Plaintiff Dennis Raji by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, WILLARD STOVALL, JOHN LIMA, DIANE McCLURE, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Plaintiff Dennis Raji, # 2 Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, # 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, # 5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, # 6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, # 7 Exhibit E to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, # 8 Exhibit F to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, # 9 Exhibit G to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, # 10 Exhibit H to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, # 11 Text of Proposed Order, # 12 Certificate of Service)(CORDARO, JOSEPH) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 549 MOTION to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Plaintiff Dennis Raji. Motion Hearing set for 3/3/2008 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT. (dc, ) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
550 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on October 9, 24 &29−31 and November 1, 7 &8, 2007 before Judge Debevoise. Court Reporter: Mollie Ann Giordano. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (ji, ) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
Reset Deadlines as to 549 MOTION to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Plaintiff Dennis Raji. Motion Hearing set for 3/3/2008 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
551 BRIEF in Opposition re 541 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James C. Owens in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of James C. Owens, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of James C. Owens, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of James C. Owens, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of James C. Owens, # 6 Exhibit E to Declaration of James C. Owens, # 7 Exhibit F to Declaration of James C. Owens, # 8 Exhibit G to Declaration of James C. Owens, # 9 Exhibit H to Declaration of James C. Owens, # 10 Exhibit I to Declaration of James C. Owens, # 11 Exhibit J to Declaration of James C. Owens, # 12 Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, # 13 Exhibit A to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, # 14 Exhibit B to Declaration of Joseph N. Cordaro, # 15 Certificate of Service)(CORDARO, JOSEPH) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
Reset Deadlines as to 549 MOTION to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Plaintiff Dennis Raji, 541 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, 539 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). Motion Hearing set for 3/17/2008 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (ak, ) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
552 REPLY to Response to Motion re 541 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 (Reply Declaration of Derek S. Tarson) filed by HAWA ABDI JAMA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Tarson Decl., # 2 Exhibit B to Tarson Decl., # 3 Exhibit C to Tarson Decl., # 4 Exhibit D to Tarson Decl., # 5 Exhibit E to Tarson Decl., # 6 Exhibit F to Tarson Decl., # 7 Exhibit G to Tarson Decl., # 8 Exhibit H to Tarson Decl., # 9 Exhibit I to Tarson Decl., # 10 Exhibit J to Tarson Decl., # 11 Exhibit K to Tarson Decl., # 12 Exhibit L to Tarson Decl., # 13 Exhibit M to Tarson Decl.)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 03/06/2008)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 65 of 68

03/06/2008 03/07/2008
03/11/2008
03/17/2008 03/17/2008 03/17/2008
03/20/2008 03/20/2008 03/31/2008 04/01/2008 04/16/2008

553 REPLY to Response to Motion re 541 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 (Reply Brief) filed by HAWA ABDI JAMA. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
554 JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees entered in favor of DEBEVOISE &PLIMPTON LLP against BLANK ROME LLP, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY in the amount of $29,208.04, and that JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees entered in favor of RUTGERS CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION CLINIC against BLANK ROME LLP, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY in the amount of $108,600.00, jointly and severally, Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 3/5/08, re 535 ORDER. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
555 BRIEF in Opposition re 541 MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 Sur−Reply filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James Owens, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of James Owens, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of James Owens, # 4 Certificate of Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
556 OPINION. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 3/17/08. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
557 ORDER denying 539 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 3/17/08. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
558 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise: Motion Hearing held on 3/17/2008 re 549 MOTION to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Plaintiff Dennis Raji filed by WILLARD STOVALL, JAMES SLATTERY, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., RICHARD STALEY, DIANE McCLURE, JOHN LIMA. Ordered motion granted. At call for hearing re 541 MOTION for Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 filed by HAWA ABDI JAMA. Court indicated motion to be decided on the papers submitted. (Court Reporter Mollie Giordano.) (jr) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
559 NOTICE by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., JAMES SLATTERY, RICHARD STALEY, JOHN LIMA re 558 Motion Hearing,,, Motions Taken Under Advisement,, of Submission of Proposed Order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
560 SUGGESTION OF DEATH Upon the Record as to Defendant Richard Staley by JAMES SLATTERY, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
561 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on October 2−4, 10, 16, 18 &19, 2007 before Judge Debevoise. Court Reporter: Mollie Ann Giordano. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (ji, ) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
562 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on September 27 &28 and October 22 &23, 2007 before Judge Debevoise. Court Reporter: Mollie Ann Giordano. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (ji, ) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
563 MOTION to Substitute Party by JAMES SLATTERY, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) (Entered: 04/16/2008)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 66 of 68

04/16/2008
04/16/2008 04/23/2008 04/23/2008 04/28/2008 05/09/2008
05/09/2008
05/16/2008
05/20/2008 06/02/2008 06/03/2008
06/03/2008 06/09/2008 06/16/2008

564 NOTICE OF APPEAL by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, RICHARD STALEY, JOHN LIMA. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 03120000000001956538. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 563 MOTION to Substitute Party. Motion Hearing set for 5/19/2008 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
565 OPINION. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 4/23/08. (dc, ) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
566 ORDER granting 541 Motion for Attorney Fees, etc., Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 4/23/08. (dc, ) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
567 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, RICHARD STALEY for proceedings held on 9/28/07 until 11/13/07 before Judge Debevoise, (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
568 MOTION to Stay and Approve Supersedeas Bond by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, RICHARD STALEY, JOHN LIMA. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration of James Owens, # 3 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of James Owens, # 4 Text of Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate of Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 568 MOTION to Stay and Approve Supersedeas Bond. Motion Hearing set for 6/2/2008 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
569 NOTICE OF APPEAL by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JOHN LIMA. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 03120000000002001435. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
570 ORDER granting 563 Motion to Substitute Party. ESTATE OF RICHARD STALEY, THE added. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 5/19/08. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
571 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JAMES SLATTERY, ESTATE OF RICHARD STALEY, THE, JOHN LIMA (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: CLERKS QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE − The TRANSCRIPT REQUEST, document no. 571 submitted by KIT APPLEGATE on 6/2/08 contains an improper signature. Only the filing user is permitted to sign electronically filed documents with an s/. PLEASE RESUBMIT THE DOCUMENT WITH A PROPER ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. (ji, ) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
572 ORDER granting 568 Motion to Stay and Approve Supersedeas Bond. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 6/2/08. (dc, ) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
573 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., JAMES SLATTERY, JOHN LIMA, ESTATE OF RICHARD STALEY, THE , re 569 NOTICE OF APPEAL. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) Modified on 6/13/2008 (dc, ). (Entered: 06/09/2008)
574 MOTION for Bond by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JOHN LIMA. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration of James Owens, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of James Ownes, # 4 Text of Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate of

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 67 of 68

06/16/2008 07/21/2008 08/13/2008 08/20/2008 08/21/2008 09/02/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008 10/02/2008
08/12/2009 03/19/2010 03/19/2010
03/22/2010 03/26/2010 03/29/2010

Service)(APPLEGATE, KIT) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 574 MOTION for Bond. Motion Hearing set for 7/21/2008 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
575 ORDER granting 574 Motion for Bond. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 7/21/08. (dc, ) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
576 TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of November 13, 2007 before Judge Debevoise, Court Reporter/Recorder: Mollie Ann Giordano. (ji, ) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
577 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 537 Judgment,,,,,, acknowledging full and complete satisfaction of the judgment entered December 7, 2007 by HAWA ABDI JAMA. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
578 ORDER granting 549 Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Plaintiff Dennis Raji. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 8/20/08. (dc, ) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
Record complete for purposes of appeal. (ji, ) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
579 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 554 Judgment on Attorney Fees,, for $29,208.04 plus interest hereby acknowledged in full by Debevoise &Plimpton LLP. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
580 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 554 Judgment on Attorney Fees,, for $108,600.00 acknowledged as fully and completely satisfied by Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic. (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
581 ORDER of USCA as to 564 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) filed by JAMES SLATTERY, ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., RICHARD STALEY, JOHN LIMA − Granting the parties' joint motion for voluntary dismissal of Appeal No. 08−2134 pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b). Each party is to bear its own costs. Appeal No. 08−2500 will go forward. (ca3hicks, ) (ji, ). (Entered: 10/02/2008)
582 USCA JUDGMENT as to 569 Notice of Appeal (USCA), filed by ESMOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC., JOHN LIMA (ca3cjc ) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
583 NOTICE of Change of Address by DEREK SHERMAN TARSON (TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
584 MOTION for Settlement to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Defendants Esmor and Lima for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses by HAWA ABDI JAMA. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration of Justin P. Smith, # 3 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit Smith Exhibit 13, # 16 Declaration of Derek S. Tarson, # 17 Exhibit Tarson Exhibit 1, # 18 Certificate of Service)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 584 MOTION for Settlement to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Defendants Esmor and Lima for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. Motion set for 4/19/2010 before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (dc, ) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
585 Application and Proposed Order for Clerk's Order to extend time to answer as to Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settement Agreement.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(KISTLER, DAVID) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
RESET Deadlines as to 584 MOTION for Settlement to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Defendants Esmor and Lima for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. Motion reset for 5/17/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise. (em, ) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

Case: 2:97-cv-3093 As of: 02/20/2013 06:09 PM EST 68 of 68

05/11/2010
05/12/2010 05/24/2010 06/07/2010 08/09/2010 08/16/2010 08/17/2010

586 NOTICE by HAWA ABDI JAMA re 584 MOTION for Settlement to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Defendants Esmor and Lima for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses that motion is now moot with request by Plaintiff to withdraw motion (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(TARSON, DEREK) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
587 ORDER withdrawing 584 Motion for Settlement to Enforce the Settlement Agreement with Defendants Esmor and Lima for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 5/12/10. (dc, ) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
588 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to STEVEN L. LAPIDUS (DD, ) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
589 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to KIRA FEENY SPAMAN (dc, ) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
590 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise on 8/9/10. (dc, ) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
592 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to KIRA FEENY SPAMAN (dc, ) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
591 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to STEVEN L. LAPIDUS (dc, ) (Entered: 08/18/2010)