Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA, INC., on Behalf of its Clients and Constituents,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No.

MICHAEL D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, in his Official Capacity; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an Agency of the State of Florida,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Introduction

This action for injunctive and declaratory relief is brought by Disability Rights Florida,

an organization empowered and charged by Federal law to protect the rights of mentally ill

individuals in Florida, including persons with mental illness confined by the State of Florida at

Dade Correctional Institution (Dade CI). Disability Rights Florida has standing to bring this

action on behalf of its numerous clients and constituents confined in the inpatient mental health

unit at Dade CI who are or may be affected by Defendants’ unlawful actions and inactions at

Dade CI. The Defendants, by their actions or inactions, have permitted people with mental

illness who were and currently are housed in the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI to be

subjected to abuse and discrimination by correctional officers to such an extent that at least two

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 2 of 21
persons with mental illness have died within the last two years and numerous others have been harmed.
Jurisdiction 1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, as well as being brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act, 20 U.S.C. § 794. 2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 3. The venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district.
Parties 4. Disability Rights Florida is the Protection and Advocacy System (“P&A”) mandated under federal law to “ensure that rights of individuals with mental illness are protected.” 42 U.S.C. § 10801(b)(1). A P&A is tasked under law to protect and advocate for the rights of such individuals to ensure the enforcement of the Constitution and Federal and State statutes. Id. at (b)(2)(A). Among other things, Florida’s P&A has the authority to “pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care or treatment in the State.” 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(1)(B); see also Doe v. Stincer, 175 F.3d 879 (11th Cir. 1999). 5. Defendant, Michael D. Crews, is the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC). Defendant Crews is sued in his official capacity for the purpose of obtaining injunctive
2

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 3 of 21
relief. Defendant Crews has the statutory authority to implement the relief sought in this Complaint. See § 20.0553(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). 6. Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Wexford) is a private corporation under contract since December 2012 with the FDOC to provide care, including mental health care, to inmates housed at some of the state prisons in South Florida including Dade CI. Wexford’s contract with FDOC requires the provision of inpatient mental health care services to inmates housed in the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI. 7. Defendant FDOC is an agency of the State of Florida and administers and operates the Florida prison system, including Dade CI. Defendant FDOC receives federal financial assistance and is covered by the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant FDOC is a public entity within the meaning of Title II of the ADA.
Factual Allegations Disability Rights Florida 8. The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801, et seq., provides for the establishment and funding of systems within each state which are designed to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with mental illness, as well as to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of those with mental illness. 9. Federal funding is to be given to independent agencies or organizations which have the capacity to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with mental illness. 42 U.S.C. §§ 10804, 10805. 10. The system established by each State to protect and advocate the rights of mentally ill individuals must have the authority to “pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate
3

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 4 of 21
remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care or treatment in the State.” 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(1)(B). 11. Pursuant to Florida law, Disability Rights Florida has been designated as the P&A under both the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act and the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act. 12. As part of the authority and responsibility under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, Disability Rights Florida has established an advisory council. That advisory council provides advice on policies and priorities with regards to individuals with mental illness. 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(6)(A). 13. Disability Rights Florida also provides the public with the opportunity to comment on its priorities with an annual survey. 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(8). 14. Disability Rights Florida has established a grievance procedure for clients and prospective clients to assure that people with mental illness receive full access to protection and advocacy services. 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(9). 15. One of the primary legal responsibilities of the P&A is to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect involving individuals with mental illness and to advocate for appropriate treatment and programs for such individuals. The legal role of the P&A is to ensure that the legal and civil rights of individuals with mental illness are protected; that the individuals are treated with dignity and respect; and that the individuals receive appropriate services to address their needs. 16. Disability Rights Florida brings this action on behalf of inmates within the FDOC who are currently clients and constituents of the P&A and who are mentally ill and confined in the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI or who may be transferred to the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI.
4

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 5 of 21
17. The inmates confined within the FDOC at Dade CI, all of whom are clients and constituents of Disability Rights Florida in this action, are confined to “facilities” rendering care and treatment for the mentally ill as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 10802(3).
Facts Concerning Dade CI Inpatient Mental Health Units 18. The FDOC by rule purports to provide for multiple levels of care for inmates with mental illness ranging from inpatient hospital beds to outpatient services. The FDOC has designated Dade CI as one of the facilities providing inpatient mental health services. 19. Dade CI has approximately 20 Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) beds and 176 Transitional Care Unit (TCU) beds. The inpatient unit at Dade CI is part of the FDOC’s statewide mental health system and inmates in need of inpatient level of care may be transferred from any institution. 20. The CSU level of care is supposed to provide intensive psychiatric and psychological care in a highly structured setting. This level of care is designated for inmates with significant impairments due to serious mental illness who require intensive psychiatric and psychological services in a highly structured inpatient setting. 21. The TCU level of care is supposed to provide psychiatric and psychological treatment in a structured residential setting. This level of care is designated for inmates with significant impairments due to serious mental illness. These patients’ needs are not so severe as to require CSU level of care, but they still cannot function in a general population setting. 22. The CSU and TCU make up the inpatient unit at Dade CI. Most inmates in the Dade CI inpatient unit are housed in solitary confinement conditions.
5

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 6 of 21
23. The doors to the cells in the Dade CI inpatient units are solid with a small window. There is also a small port that is locked from the outside except when it is opened to slide in meals or for the inmate to extend his wrists to be handcuffed before he leaves the cell. 24. Dade CI inpatient inmates eat all of their meals in their cells. 25. Inmates in the Dade CI inpatient unit are locked in their cells at all times unless they are attending a specific activity such as recreation yard, a therapy session or going to the showers. Officers use physical restraints on many inpatient inmates when they are removed from their cell and the inmates are always escorted by staff. 26. The Dade CI inpatient unit treatment staff consisting of a psychiatrist, a psychologist, mental health specialists and nursing staff, are all employed by Wexford. 27. Uniformed FDOC correctional staff run the security operation of the inpatient unit and control all movement of inmates and staff.
Facts Regarding Abuse and Discrimination Against Inmates with Mental Illness 28. From at least 2011 to the present date, inmates with serious mental illness in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit have been subjected to abuse and discrimination on a systematic and regular basis by correctional officers assigned to supervise the inpatient unit. This abuse and discrimination continues today. 29. Correctional officers working in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit have subjected inmates to torture and abuse including a practice known as the “shower treatment” in which severely mentally ill inmates are locked in a scalding hot shower for hours at a time as retaliation. Other forms of abuse were and are still common on the Dade CI inpatient unit including subjecting inmates to physical beatings, depriving them of food, and harassing them verbally and physically.
6

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 7 of 21
30. Dade CI correctional officials, including supervisors on the inpatient unit and the prison warden, have had actual knowledge of the abuse of inmates on the inpatient mental health unit by correctional officers but have failed to take any steps to stop the abuse. 31. The warden of Dade CI had, and continues to have, the authority within the FDOC to stop the abuse of inmates on the inpatient mental health unit by correctional officers but has failed to do so. 32. Defendant Crews knew of the abuse at the Dade CI inpatient unit because former treatment staff and inmates repeatedly complained verbally and in writing to prison officials at Dade CI and to the FDOC Inspector General’s office regarding the abuse. 33. The Inspector General for the FDOC is appointed by and reports to the Secretary of the FDOC, Defendant Crews. See § 20.055(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). The Inspector General is under the supervision of the Defendant Crews and is not subject to supervision by any other employee of FDOC. Id. 34. The circumstances surrounding the deaths of at least two inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit put Defendant Crews on notice of the ongoing abuse on the unit. 35. In spite of this knowledge, for over two years Defendant Crews took no action to require any investigation to stop the continuing abuse on the Dade CI inpatient unit. 36. The Dade CI inpatient unit treatment staff employed by Wexford had knowledge of the abuse of inmates by correctional officers in the Dade CI inpatient unit. 37. Wexford treatment staff working the inpatient unit had actual knowledge that correctional officers were using the “shower treatment” as retaliation for the behaviors of mentally ill inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit.
7

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 8 of 21
38. Some of the treatment staff working the Dade CI inpatient unit reported the abuse to Wexford supervisory staff. Wexford supervisory staff did nothing to report the allegations of abuse or investigate the allegations of abuse. Wexford supervisory staff told treatment staff not to do anything regarding the allegations of abuse. 39. In spite of the actual knowledge of the abuse, Wexford supervisory staff at Dade CI made no attempt to report or stop the abuse by the Dade CI inpatient unit correctional officers. 40. Wexford had and continues to have a custom, policy, and practice of failing to intervene or failing to report instances of abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit.
Specific Allegations Regarding Abuse 41. In 2011, a psychological counselor at Dade CI reported several instances of physical abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient unit to prison officials at Dade CI, including the warden. The counselor indicated that the abuse included officers kicking and beating an inmate while he was restrained. 42. The counselor reported that abuse of inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit by correctional officers occurred on a regular basis. 43. The counselor filed a variety of complaints with the Dade CI prison officials and the FDOC Inspector General office about the abusive treatment but never received a response. 44. The counselor’s employment at Dade CI was subsequently terminated. No action was taken by prison officials on the counselor’s reports of abuse. 45. In June 2012, Darren Rainey, an inmate with a long history of serious mental illness, was housed in the inpatient unit at Dade CI for the purpose of treatment for his mental illness.
8

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 9 of 21
46. In mid- to late June 2012, Mr. Rainey’s mental status began to seriously deteriorate while he was housed in the Dade CI TCU. He became increasingly agitated and delusional. 47. Mr. Rainey’s behaviors were a direct result of his mental illness. His actions often angered the correctional officers and made him a target of abuse by the officers working on the Dade CI inpatient unit. 48. On the evening on June 23, 2012, correctional officers on the inpatient unit removed Mr. Rainey from his cell, placed Mr. Rainey in physical restraints and escorted him to a locked shower stall located on the second floor of the inpatient unit. The purpose of moving Mr. Rainey to the shower was to subject him to the “shower treatment.” 49. The officers turned the water temperature to scalding hot levels and left Mr. Rainey in the shower. He was left in the shower for about one-and-a-half hours. 50. When the officers returned to check on Mr. Rainey, he was found lying in the shower with burns over 90% of his body. Although outside medical assistance was summoned, Mr. Rainey died at the prison. 51. In June of 2012, a few days after Rainey’s death, an inmate housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit filed a grievance with the Dade CI administration reporting that Mr. Rainey had been killed by correctional officers. The inmate reported that the same officers that killed Mr. Rainey had also threatened him. The inmate’s information was referred to the FDOC Inspector General’s office. 52. Someone from the FDOC interviewed the inmate but neither Crews nor any other FDOC official took other action on the allegations. 53. Neither Crews nor any other FDOC official interviewed any inpatient treatment staff or correctional officers working on the Dade CI inpatient unit regarding Mr. Rainey’s death. They
9

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 10 of 21
also did not investigate allegations of abuse by correctional officers on other inmates in the Dade CI inpatient unit. 54. In October 2012, the FDOC Inspector General’s office closed the investigation into Mr. Rainey’s death and took no further action on the matter. Not one Dade CI employee was suspended or disciplined as a result of the allegations of abuse against Mr. Rainey or other inmates. 55. Mr. Rainey was not the only Dade CI inpatient mental health unit inmate to be subjected to the torture of the “shower treatment.” Numerous other inmates, all with serious mental illnesses, were placed in the shower as retaliation for behaviors that correctional officers did not like even though the behaviors were the direct result of the inmate’s mental illness. 56. Again, in February 2013, at least two inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit filed grievances regarding the abuse by correctional officers of inmates on the inpatient unit. One of the grievances stated that correctional officers routinely used the hot shower “as punishment on the most severely mentally ill inmates” on the Dade CI inpatient unit. The grievance named three of the inmates subjected to the shower treatment. The FDOC response to the grievances merely stated that the allegations had been referred to the Inspector General’s office. 57. For more than a year, Crews and FDOC officials failed to follow up on the Dade CI inpatient unit abuse allegations and never interviewed any of the inmates referenced in the grievances. 58. One of the inmates named in the February 2013 grievance was inmate D.G1.
1 The people identified by their initials in this pleading are inmates with mental illness housed in an FDOC inpatient mental health unit. Their initials are used to protect their confidentiality. Plaintiffs will disclose the identities of these inmates outside of public pleadings and pursuant to a confidentiality agreement with Defendants.
10

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 11 of 21
59. Inmate D.G. was housed in an inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI from August 2011 to September 2012. 60. D.G. is an inmate with a serious mental illness and a diagnosis of schizophrenia. 61. As a result of his mental illness, D.G. is often unable to communicate to correctional officers or staff in a coherent fashion. As a result of his mental illness, D.G. would often yell incoherently and bang or kick on his cell door in the Dade CI inpatient unit. 62. In 2012, correctional officers at Dade CI repeatedly subjected inmate D.G. to the “shower treatment” as retaliation for behaviors resulting from his mental illness. 63. Correctional officers would often abuse D.G. in additional ways, including denying him food, throwing him to the floor, yanking his arms with his handcuffs and various forms of verbal taunting and abuse. 64. As a result of the abuse, D.G. suffered significant weight loss and a significant exacerbation of his mental illness. 65. Supervisory correctional officers, including sergeants and lieutenants assigned to the Dade CI inpatient unit, were aware of abuse of D.G. but failed to stop it or report it. 66. Wexford treatment staff working the Dade CI inpatient unit had actual knowledge of the abuse by correctional officers on D.G. and failed to take any steps to intervene or stop the abuse. 67. Inmate M.A. is housed in the inpatient unit at Dade C.I. M.A. has been housed in the inpatient unit at Dade C.I. since January 2011. 68. M.A. is an inmate with serious mental illness and a diagnosis of schizophrenia. 69. As a result of his mental illness, M.A. has difficulty communicating with correctional officers or staff in a coherent manner. As a result, M.A. would often yell, sing, or respond to delusions in his cell.
11

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 12 of 21
70. As a result of exhibiting these behaviors caused by his mental illness, correctional officers would subject M.A. to the “shower treatment” as well as other forms of physical and verbal abuse. 71. As a result of the abuse, M.A. suffered a significant exacerbation of his mental illness. 72. Supervisory correctional officers, including sergeants and lieutenants assigned to the Dade CI inpatient unit, were aware of abuse of M.A. but failed to stop it or report it. 73. Wexford treatment staff working in the Dade CI inpatient unit had actual knowledge of the abuse by correctional officers on M.A. and failed to take any steps to intervene or stop the abuse. 74. In September of 2013, inmate Richard Mair was housed in an inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI. He was housed on the unit from January 2013 until his suicide on the Dade CI inpatient unit in September 2013. 75. Mr. Mair was an inmate with a serious mental illness. He had the diagnosis of major depressive disorder. 76. Mr. Mair had multiple suicide attempts including one in late 2012 in which he ingested batteries and razor blades. 77. Prior to his death, Mr. Mair repeatedly complained of physical and mental abuse by correctional staff against him and other inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit. No investigation was done by Dade CI administration or the FDOC Inspector General’s office regarding his allegations. 78. On or about September 11, 2013, Mr. Mair committed suicide in his Dade CI inpatient mental health unit cell. Mr. Mair left a note in his cell indicating that his suicide was caused, at least in part, by continuing abuse by correctional staff on the unit.
12

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 13 of 21
79. Supervisory correctional officers, including sergeants and lieutenants assigned to the Dade CI inpatient unit, were aware of the abuse of Mr. Mair and failed to make any effort to stop it or report it. 80. The FDOC Inspector General’s office reviewed Mr. Mair’s death. Neither Crews nor FDOC officials did anything in response to the allegations of ongoing abuse of inmates on the inpatient unit contained in Mr. Mair’s suicide note. 81. Wexford treatment staff working the Dade CI inpatient unit had actual knowledge of the abuse by correctional officers on inmate Mr. Mair and failed to take any steps to intervene or stop the abuse. 82. When inmates report abuse to Wexford’s treatment staff at Dade CI, the staff refuse to intervene or report the abuse. For example, inmate D.M., an inmate housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit in 2012 and 2013, reported the ongoing abuse by correctional officers to treatment staff during a therapy session. The staff member told D.M. that he could not help the inmates because the actions by the correctional officers were a “security issue.” 83. Neither Crews nor any FDOC officials made any effort to investigate Mr. Rainey’s death or the other allegations of abuse on inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit until June of 2014. The investigation only occurred as a response to a series of highly critical articles in the Miami Herald detailing Mr. Rainey’s death and the allegations of abuse on the Dade CI inpatient unit. 84. The articles include, among other things, statements attributed to current and former Dade CI employees and treatment staff confirming that the abuse of mentally ill inmates on the inpatient unit was widespread and systematic. 85. The FDOC Inspector General’s office has reopened its review of Mr. Rainey’s death but only on the issue of whether the shower in which he was placed was functioning properly.
13

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 14 of 21
Defendant Crews has still not directed an investigation into the systematic and widespread abuse of inmates with mental illness by correctional officers at the Dade CI inpatient unit. 86. No correctional officers involved in the death of Mr. Rainey or the abuse of other inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit have been suspended or disciplined by Defendant Crews for their involvement in Mr. Rainey’s death or abuse on the Dade CI inpatient unit. Several of the correctional officers involved in the abuse are still employed by the FDOC and some have been promoted over the last two years since Mr. Rainey’s death. 87. Defendant Crews, through his Inspector General and other high ranking FDOC officials including the current Deputy Secretary of the FDOC, knew about the “shower treatment” and the widespread abuse of inmates with mental illness at the Dade CI inpatient unit starting with reports in 2011 and 2012. 88. The failure of Defendant Crews and the FDOC to adequately investigate the allegations of abuse and to discipline and supervise the correctional staff at the Dade CI inpatient unit has directly resulted in a pattern and practice of systematic abuse of inmates on the inpatient unit by correctional officers. The failure of Defendant Crews and the FDOC to investigate and stop the abuse has caused, and continues to cause, inmates physical and mental harm, exacerbation of their mental health symptoms, and death. 89. The failure of Defendant Crews and the FDOC to investigate and stop the abuse on the Dade CI inpatient unit is particularly egregious because the allegations involved inmates with serious mental illness housed on an inpatient treatment unit. Defendant Crews, through his Inspector General, knew that many of these inmates, such as D.G. and M.A., are particularly vulnerable to abuse because the severity of their mental illness renders them unable to complain or report abuse upon them.
14

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 15 of 21
90. The abuse of inmates with mental illness on the inpatient unit at Dade CI has caused ongoing and severe harm to the inmates confined there and there is a substantial risk of future harm to the inmates. 91. Defendant Crews was aware of the risk of harm caused by the abuse of the inmates confined to the inpatient unit and failed to take reasonable measures to address it. 92. The verbal and physical abuse of the inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit was based on the inmates’ disabilities. 93. The verbal and physical abuse of inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit was severe and pervasive. The abuse has exacerbated the inmates’ mental illness and adversely affected the inmates’ participation in treatment on the inpatient unit. 94. The Defendants had actual knowledge of the abuse and harassment of inmates with mental illness on the unit and failed to take prompt action to stop it. 95. At all times the Defendants have acted under color of state law. 96. By failing to stop the abuse of inmates with mental illness housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit, Defendant Crews excluded those inmates from participation in or denied them the benefits of the FDOC’s treatment program or activities, or otherwise discriminated against them. 97. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
Count One (42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Crews for
Violations of the Eighth Amendment) 98. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 97 as if fully set forth herein. 99. The Eighth Amendment protects prison inmates from excessive uses of force by prison officials. The Eighth Amendment also imposes duties on prison officials to provide humane
15

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 16 of 21
conditions of confinement; to ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; and to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates. 100. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI was so excessive and unnecessary as to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 101. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI was imposed maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm and was unrelated to any good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. 102. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI caused death and serious harm to the inmates housed on the unit. It continues to pose a substantial risk of harm to the inmates that are now or may in the future be housed on the inpatient unit. 103. Defendant Crews had actual knowledge of the abuse of inmates on the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit and knew that the abuse posed a pervasive risk of harm to those inmates. Defendant Crews’ response to the risk was so inadequate and unreasonable that it constitutes deliberate indifference to the inmates’ rights as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to United States Constitution. 104. Defendant Crews’ actions and inactions have caused continuing violations of the Eighth Amendment rights of Disability Rights Florida’s clients and constituents housed at Dade CI.
Count Two (42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Wexford for
Violations of the Eighth Amendment) 105. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 97 as if fully set forth herein.
16

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 17 of 21
106. The Eighth Amendment protects prison inmates from excessive uses of force by prison officials. The Eighth Amendment also imposes duties on prison officials to provide humane conditions of confinement; to ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; and to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates. 107. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI was so excessive and unnecessary as to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 108. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI was imposed maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm and was unrelated to any good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. 109. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI caused death and serious harm to the inmates housed on the unit. It continues to pose a substantial risk of harm to the inmates that are now or may in the future be housed on the inpatient unit. 110. Defendant Wexford has had knowledge of the abuse of inmates on the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit and knew that the abuse posed a pervasive risk of harm to those inmates but Wexford employees have failed to report the abuse or to otherwise intervene to halt the abuse. 111. The actions and inactions of Wexford’s employees were the result of Wexford’s custom, policy or practice of failing to report or intervene in instances of abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit.
17

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 18 of 21
112. Defendant Wexford’s custom, policy or practice of failing to report or intervene in instances of abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit constitutes reckless disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm to those inmates. 113. Defendant Wexford’s custom, policy or practice has resulted in the continuing abuse to inmates housed in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit in violation of their rights as guaranteed by Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 114. Defendant Wexford’s actions and inactions have caused continuing violations of the Eighth Amendment rights of Disability Rights Florida’s clients and constituents housed at Dade CI.
Count Three (ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims Against Defendant FDOC) 115. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 97 as if fully set forth herein. 116. The Federal Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against an individual based on disability by any program or entity receiving federal funds. 29 U.S.C. 794(a) and (b)(2)(B). 117. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits disability-based discrimination by any public entity. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12132. 118. These disability anti-discrimination laws impose an affirmative duty on public entities to create policies or procedures to prevent discrimination based on disability. 119. The inmates housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit are persons with disabilities as defined in the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA. 120. Defendant FDOC is a program or entity which receives federal financial assistance. 121. Defendant FDOC is a public entity as defined by Title II of the ADA. 122. Defendant FDOC’s inpatient mental health unit is a facility and its operation comprises a program and services for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA.
18

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 19 of 21
123. The inmates housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit are qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of FDOC’s services, programs, or activities. 124. The inmates housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit were abused because of their disabilities by FDOC’s agents and employees at Dade CI. Such abuse constitutes discrimination against individuals based on their disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA. 125. The abuse of inmates housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit by FDOC’s agents and employees denied those inmates the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of FDOC’s inpatient unit in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA. 126. The abuse of inmates housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit was carried out by Defendant FDOC’s agents and employees at Dade CI while acting within the scope of their employment by FDOC. Defendant FDOC is liable for the actions of its agents and employees when they committed the violations of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA alleged herein. 127. FDOC has discriminated against Disability Rights Florida’s clients and constituents housed at Dade CI, by failing to provide a non-abusive, safe treatment environment on the inpatient unit that will allow inmates with mental illness to participate in the treatment program at Dade CI.
Request for Relief Therefore, Disability Rights Florida, on behalf of the mentally ill inmates who are currently confined at the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI, request that this Court: A. Accept jurisdiction of this case and set it for hearing at the earliest opportunity; B. Declare that the actions and inactions of the Defendants are unlawful and unconstitutional for the reasons as specified above;
19

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 20 of 21
C. Enter an injunction enjoining the Defendants from continuing to violate the constitutional and statutory rights of the mentally ill inmates confined at the Dade CI inpatient unit as well as those inmates who may, at some point in the future, be transferred to the inpatient unit at Dade CI. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant Crews to take immediate action to investigate and stop the ongoing abuse of inmates with mental illness at Dade CI; requiring Crews to immediately take steps to train and supervise the officers assigned to the inpatient unit to ensure that the abuse does not recur; requiring periodic independent oversight of the Dade CI inpatient unit; and requiring Crews to take immediate steps to ensure the timely investigation of allegations of abuse upon inmates in the inpatient mental health unit. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring Defendant Wexford to change its custom, policy or practice at Dade CI so as to require its employees at Dade CI to immediately report allegations of abuse. Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant Florida Department of Corrections to stop discriminating against the inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit on the basis of disability.
D. Retain jurisdiction over this matter to ensure that the terms of any injunction are fully implemented.
E. Award Plaintiffs its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, and 29 U.S.C. § 794.
F. Award all other necessary and appropriate relief that this Court may deem appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Peter P. Sleasman Peter P. Sleasman, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 367931 Lead Counsel Kristen Cooley Lentz, Esq.
20

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2014 Page 21 of 21
Fla. Bar No. 649635
Florida Institutional Legal Services Project Florida Legal Services 14260 W. Newberry Road, #412 Newberry, FL 32669 (352) 375-2494 (telephone) (352) 331-5202 (facsimile) peter@floridalegal.org kristen@floridalegal.org
David Boyer, Esq. Florida Bar No. 90917
Molly J. Paris, Esq. Florida Bar No. 90486
Disability Rights Florida 1930 Harrison St Ste 104 Hollywood, Florida 33020 (850)488-9071 (telephone) (850)488-8640 (facsimile) davidb@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org mollyp@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org
George E. Schulz, Jr., Esq. Fla. Bar No. 169507
Holland & Knight LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (904) 353-2000 (904) 358-1872 (facsimile) buddy.schulz@hklaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
21

 
 Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA, INC., on Behalf of its Clients and Constituents,

Plaintiff, vs.

Civil Action No. 14-23323-Civ-SCOLA Consolidated Action Case No. 14-24140-CivSCOLA

JULIE JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, in her Official Capacity; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an Agency of the State of Florida,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Introduction

This action for injunctive and declaratory relief is brought by Disability Rights Florida, an

organization empowered and charged by Federal law to protect the rights of mentally ill

individuals in Florida, including persons with mental illness confined by the State of Florida at

Dade Correctional Institution (Dade CI). Disability Rights Florida has standing to bring this

action on behalf of its numerous clients and constituents confined in the inpatient mental health

unit at Dade CI who are or may be affected by Defendants’ unlawful actions and inactions at

Dade CI. The Defendants, by their actions or inactions, have permitted people with mental

illness who were and currently are housed in the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI to be

subjected to abuse and discrimination by correctional officers to such an extent that at least two

1

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 2 of 28
persons with mental illness have died within the last two years and numerous others have been harmed.
Jurisdiction 1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color
of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, as well as being brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act, 20 U.S.C. § 794. 2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 3. The venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district.
Parties 4. Disability Rights Florida is the Protection and Advocacy System (“P&A”) mandated
under federal law to “ensure that rights of individuals with mental illness are protected.” 42 U.S.C. § 10801(b)(1). A P&A is tasked under law to protect and advocate for the rights of such individuals to ensure the enforcement of the Constitution and Federal and State statutes. Id. at (b)(2)(A). Among other things, Florida’s P&A has the authority to “pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care or treatment in the State.” 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(1)(B); see also Doe v. Stincer, 175 F.3d 879 (11th Cir. 1999). 5. Defendant, Julie Jones, is the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC).1 Defendant Jones (Secretary) is sued in her official capacity for the purpose of
1 Julie Jones is substituted for Defendant Michael D. Crews who resigned as Secretary of the FDOC on November 24, 2014 . Jones was appointed Secretary of the FDOC on January 5, 2015. This action was initially brought against
2

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 3 of 28
obtaining injunctive relief. Defendant Secretary has the statutory authority to implement the relief sought in this Complaint. See § 20.0553(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). 6. Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Wexford) is a private corporation under contract since December 2012 with the FDOC to provide care, including mental health care, to inmates housed at some of the state prisons in South Florida including Dade CI. Wexford’s contract with FDOC requires the provision of inpatient mental health care services to inmates housed in the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI. 7. Defendant FDOC is an agency of the State of Florida and administers and operates the Florida prison system, including Dade CI. Defendant FDOC receives federal financial assistance and is covered by the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant FDOC is a public entity within the meaning of Title II of the ADA. 8. At all times the Defendants have acted under color of state law.
Factual Allegations Disability Rights Florida 9. The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801,
et seq., provides for the establishment and funding of systems within each state which are designed to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with mental illness, as well as to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of those with mental illness. 10. Federal funding is to be given to independent agencies or organizations which have the capacity to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with mental illness. 42 U.S.C. §§ 10804, 10805.
Defendant Crews in his official capacity and Defendant Jones, in her official capacity as Secretary of the FDOC, should be automatically substituted as a party. Fed R. Civ. P. 25 (d).
3

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 4 of 28
11. The system established by each State to protect and advocate the rights of mentally ill individuals must have the authority to “pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care or treatment in the State.” 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(1)(B).
12. Pursuant to Florida law, Disability Rights Florida has been designated as the P&A under both the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act and the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act.
13. As part of the authority and responsibility under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, Disability Rights Florida has established an advisory council. That advisory council provides advice on policies and priorities with regards to individuals with mental illness. 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(6)(A).
14. Disability Rights Florida also provides the public with the opportunity to comment on its priorities with an annual survey. 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(8).
15. Disability Rights Florida has established a grievance procedure for clients and prospective clients to assure that people with mental illness receive full access to protection and advocacy services. 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(9).
16. One of the primary legal responsibilities of the P&A is to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect involving individuals with mental illness and to advocate for appropriate treatment and programs for such individuals. The legal role of the P&A is to ensure that the legal and civil rights of individuals with mental illness are protected; that the individuals are treated with dignity and respect; and that the individuals receive appropriate services to address their needs.
4

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 5 of 28
17. Disability Rights Florida brings this action on behalf of inmates within the FDOC who are currently clients and constituents of the P&A and who are mentally ill and confined in the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI or who may be transferred to the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI.
18. The inmates confined within the FDOC at Dade CI, all of whom are clients and constituents of Disability Rights Florida in this action, are confined to “facilities” rendering care and treatment for the mentally ill as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 10802(3). Facts Concerning Dade CI Inpatient Mental Health Units
19. The FDOC by rule purports to provide for multiple levels of care for inmates with mental illness ranging from inpatient hospital beds to outpatient services. The FDOC has designated Dade CI as one of the facilities providing inpatient mental health services.
20. Dade CI has approximately 20 Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) beds and 176 Transitional Care Unit (TCU) beds. The inpatient unit at Dade CI is part of the FDOC’s statewide mental health system and inmates in need of inpatient level of care may be transferred from any institution.
21. The CSU level of care is supposed to provide intensive psychiatric and psychological care in a highly structured setting. This level of care is designated for inmates with significant impairments due to serious mental illness who require intensive psychiatric and psychological services in a highly structured inpatient setting.
22. The TCU level of care is supposed to provide psychiatric and psychological treatment in a structured residential setting. This level of care is designated for inmates with significant
5

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 6 of 28
impairments due to serious mental illness. These patients’ needs are not so severe as to require CSU level of care, but they still cannot function in a general population setting. 23. The CSU and TCU make up the inpatient unit at Dade CI. Most inmates in the Dade CI inpatient unit are housed in solitary confinement conditions. 24. The doors to the cells in the Dade CI inpatient units are solid with a small window. There is also a small port that is locked from the outside except when it is opened to slide in meals or for the inmate to extend his wrists to be handcuffed before he leaves the cell. 25. Dade CI inpatient inmates eat all of their meals in their cells. 26. Inmates in the Dade CI inpatient unit are locked in their cells at all times unless they are attending a specific activity such as recreation yard, a therapy session or going to the showers. Officers use physical restraints on many inpatient inmates when they are removed from their cell and the inmates are always escorted by staff. 27. According to the FDOC contract with Defendant Wexford as well as FDOC’s own policy, inmates in the TCU and CSU are to be provided a minimum of 12 hours of out-of-cell structured therapeutic services per week in addition to out of cell time for recreational purposes. 28. The Dade CI inpatient unit treatment staff consisting of a psychiatrist, a psychologist, mental health specialists and nursing staff, are all employed by Wexford. 29. Uniformed FDOC correctional staff run the security operations of the inpatient unit and control all movement of inmates and staff. Facts Regarding Abuse and Discrimination Against Inmates with Mental Illness 30. From at least 2011 to the present date, inmates with serious mental illness in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit have been subjected to abuse and discrimination on a
6

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 7 of 28
systematic and regular basis by correctional officers assigned to supervise the inpatient unit. This abuse and discrimination continues today. 31. Correctional officers working in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit have subjected inmates to torture and abuse including a practice known as the “shower treatment” in which severely mentally ill inmates are locked in a scalding hot shower for hours at a time as retaliation. Other forms of abuse were and are still common on the Dade CI inpatient unit including subjecting inmates to physical beatings, depriving them of food, and harassing them verbally and physically. 32. Dade CI correctional officials, including supervisors on the inpatient unit and the prison warden, have had actual knowledge of the abuse of inmates on the inpatient mental health unit by correctional officers but have failed to take any steps to stop the abuse. 33. The warden of Dade CI had, and continues to have, the authority within the FDOC to stop the abuse of inmates on the inpatient mental health unit by correctional officers but has failed to do so. 34. Defendant Secretary knew of the abuse at the Dade CI inpatient unit because former treatment staff and inmates repeatedly complained verbally and in writing to prison officials at Dade CI and to the FDOC Inspector General’s office regarding the abuse. 35. The Inspector General for the FDOC is appointed by and reports to the Secretary of the FDOC, Defendant Secretary. See § 20.055(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). The Inspector General is under the supervision of the Defendant Secretary and is not subject to supervision by any other employee of FDOC. Id. 36. The circumstances surrounding the deaths of at least two inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit put Defendant Secretary on notice of the ongoing abuse on the unit.
7

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 8 of 28
37. In spite of this knowledge, for over two years Defendant Secretary took no action to require any investigation to stop the continuing abuse on the Dade CI inpatient unit.
38. The Dade CI inpatient unit treatment staff employed by Wexford had knowledge of the abuse of inmates by correctional officers in the Dade CI inpatient unit.
39. Wexford treatment staff working the inpatient unit had actual knowledge that correctional officers were using the “shower treatment” as retaliation for the behaviors of mentally ill inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit.
40. Some of the treatment staff working the Dade CI inpatient unit reported the abuse to Wexford supervisory staff. Wexford supervisory staff did nothing to report the allegations of abuse or investigate the allegations of abuse. Wexford supervisory staff told treatment staff not to do anything regarding the allegations of abuse.
41. In spite of the actual knowledge of the abuse, Wexford supervisory staff at Dade CI made no attempt to report or stop the abuse by the Dade CI inpatient unit correctional officers.
42. Wexford had and continues to have a custom, policy, and practice of failing to intervene or failing to report instances of abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit. Specific Allegations Regarding Abuse
43. In 2011, a psychological counselor at Dade CI reported several instances of physical abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient unit to prison officials at Dade CI, including the warden. The counselor indicated that the abuse included officers kicking and beating an inmate while he was restrained.
44. The counselor reported that abuse of inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit by correctional officers occurred on a regular basis.
8

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 9 of 28
45. The counselor filed a variety of complaints with the Dade CI prison officials and the FDOC Inspector General office about the abusive treatment but never received a response.
46. The counselor’s employment at Dade CI was subsequently terminated. No action was taken by prison officials on the counselor’s reports of abuse.
47. In June 2012, Darren Rainey, an inmate with a long history of serious mental illness, was housed in the inpatient unit at Dade CI for the purpose of treatment for his mental illness.
48. In mid- to late June 2012, Mr. Rainey’s mental status began to seriously deteriorate while he was housed in the Dade CI TCU. He became increasingly agitated and delusional.
49. Mr. Rainey’s behaviors were a direct result of his mental illness. His actions often angered the correctional officers and made him a target of abuse by the officers working on the Dade CI inpatient unit.
50. On the evening on June 23, 2012, correctional officers on the inpatient unit removed Mr. Rainey from his cell, placed Mr. Rainey in physical restraints and escorted him to a locked shower stall located on the second floor of the inpatient unit. The purpose of moving Mr. Rainey to the shower was to subject him to the “shower treatment.”
51. The officers turned the water temperature to scalding hot levels and left Mr. Rainey in the shower. He was left in the shower for about one-and-a-half hours.
52. When the officers returned to check on Mr. Rainey, he was found lying in the shower with burns over 90% of his body. Although outside medical assistance was summoned, Mr. Rainey died at the prison.
53. In June of 2012, a few days after Rainey’s death, an inmate housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit filed a grievance with the Dade CI administration reporting that Mr. Rainey had been killed by correctional officers. The inmate reported that the same officers that
9

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 10 of 28
killed Mr. Rainey had also threatened him. The inmate’s information was referred to the FDOC Inspector General’s office. 54. Someone from the FDOC interviewed the inmate but neither Defendant Secretary nor any other FDOC official took other action on the allegations. 55. Neither Defendant Secretary nor any other FDOC official interviewed any inpatient treatment staff or correctional officers working on the Dade CI inpatient unit regarding Mr. Rainey’s death. They also did not investigate allegations of abuse by correctional officers on other inmates in the Dade CI inpatient unit. 56. In October 2012, the FDOC Inspector General’s office closed the investigation into Mr. Rainey’s death and took no further action on the matter. Not one Dade CI employee was suspended or disciplined as a result of the allegations of abuse against Mr. Rainey or other inmates. 57. Mr. Rainey was not the only Dade CI inpatient mental health unit inmate to be subjected to the torture of the scalding shower. Numerous other inmates, all with serious mental illnesses, were placed in the shower as retaliation for behaviors that correctional officers did not like even though the behaviors were the direct result of the inmate’s mental illness. 58. Again, in February 2013, at least two inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit filed grievances regarding the abuse by correctional officers of inmates on the inpatient unit. One of the grievances stated that correctional officers routinely used the hot shower “as punishment on the most severely mentally ill inmates” on the Dade CI inpatient unit. The grievance named three of the inmates subjected to the shower treatment. The FDOC response to the grievances merely stated that the allegations had been referred to the Inspector General’s office.
10

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 11 of 28
59. For more than a year, Defendant Secretary and FDOC officials failed to follow up on the Dade CI inpatient unit abuse allegations and never interviewed any of the inmates referenced in the grievances.
60. One of the inmates named in the February 2013 grievance was inmate D.G2. 61. Inmate D.G. was housed in an inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI from August 2011
to September 2012. 62. D.G. is an inmate with a serious mental illness and a diagnosis of schizophrenia. 63. As a result of his mental illness, D.G. is often unable to communicate to correctional
officers or staff in a coherent fashion. As a result of his mental illness, D.G. would often yell incoherently and bang or kick on his cell door in the Dade CI inpatient unit. 64. In 2012, correctional officers at Dade CI repeatedly subjected inmate D.G. to the “shower treatment” as retaliation for behaviors resulting from his mental illness. 65. Correctional officers would often abuse D.G. in additional ways, including denying him food, throwing him to the floor, yanking his arms with his handcuffs and various forms of verbal taunting and abuse. 66. As a result of the abuse, D.G. suffered significant weight loss and a significant exacerbation of his mental illness. 67. Supervisory correctional officers, including sergeants and lieutenants assigned to the Dade CI inpatient unit, were aware of abuse of D.G. but failed to stop it or report it.
2 The people identified by their initials in this pleading are inmates with mental illness housed in an FDOC inpatient mental health unit. Their initials are used to protect their confidentiality. Plaintiffs will disclose the identities of these inmates outside of public pleadings and pursuant to a confidentiality agreement with Defendants.
11

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 12 of 28
68. Wexford treatment staff working the Dade CI inpatient unit had actual knowledge of the abuse by correctional officers on D.G. and failed to take any steps to intervene or stop the abuse.
69. Inmate M.A. is housed in the inpatient unit at Dade C.I. M.A. has been housed in the inpatient unit at Dade C.I. since January 2011.
70. M.A. is an inmate with serious mental illness and a diagnosis of schizophrenia. 71. As a result of his mental illness, M.A. has difficulty communicating with correctional
officers or staff in a coherent manner. As a result, M.A. would often yell, sing, or respond to delusions in his cell. 72. Correctional officers would subject M.A. to the “shower treatment” as well as other forms of physical and verbal abuse as punishment for exhibiting these behaviors that are a manifestation of his mental illness. 73. As a result of the abuse, M.A. suffered a significant exacerbation of his mental illness. 74. Supervisory correctional officers, including sergeants and lieutenants assigned to the Dade CI inpatient unit, were aware of abuse of M.A. but failed to stop it or report it. 75. Wexford treatment staff working in the Dade CI inpatient unit had actual knowledge of the abuse by correctional officers on M.A. and failed to take any steps to intervene or stop the abuse. 76. In September of 2013, inmate Richard Mair was housed in an inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI. He was housed on the unit from January 2013 until his suicide on the Dade CI inpatient unit in September 2013. 77. Mr. Mair was an inmate with a serious mental illness. He had the diagnosis of major depressive disorder.
12

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 13 of 28
78. Mr. Mair had multiple suicide attempts including one in late 2012 in which he ingested batteries and razor blades.
79. Prior to his death, Mr. Mair repeatedly complained of physical and mental abuse by correctional staff against him and other inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit. No investigation was done by Dade CI administration or the FDOC Inspector General’s office regarding his allegations.
80. On or about September 11, 2013, Mr. Mair committed suicide in his Dade CI inpatient mental health unit cell. Mr. Mair left a note in his cell indicating that his suicide was caused, at least in part, by continuing abuse by correctional staff on the unit.
81. Supervisory correctional officers, including sergeants and lieutenants assigned to the Dade CI inpatient unit, were aware of the abuse of Mr. Mair and failed to make any effort to stop it or report it.
82. The FDOC Inspector General’s office reviewed Mr. Mair’s death. Neither Defendant Secretary nor FDOC officials did anything in response to the allegations of ongoing abuse of inmates on the inpatient unit contained in Mr. Mair’s suicide note.
83. Wexford treatment staff working the Dade CI inpatient unit had actual knowledge of the abuse by correctional officers on inmate Mr. Mair and failed to take any steps to intervene or stop the abuse.
84. When inmates report abuse to Wexford’s treatment staff at Dade CI, the staff refuses to intervene or report the abuse. For example, inmate D.M., an inmate housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit in 2012 and 2013, reported the ongoing abuse by correctional officers to treatment staff during a therapy session. The staff member told D.M. that he could not help the inmates because the actions by the correctional officers were a “security issue.”
13

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 14 of 28
85. Neither Defendant Secretary nor any FDOC officials made any effort to investigate Mr. Rainey’s death or the other allegations of abuse on inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit until June of 2014. The investigation only occurred as a response to a series of highly critical articles in the Miami Herald detailing Mr. Rainey’s death and the allegations of abuse on the Dade CI inpatient unit.
86. The articles include, among other things, statements attributed to current and former Dade CI employees and treatment staff confirming that the abuse of mentally ill inmates on the inpatient unit was widespread and systematic.
87. The FDOC Inspector General’s office has reopened its review of Mr. Rainey’s death but only on the issue of whether the shower in which he was placed was functioning properly.
88. Defendant Secretary has still not directed an investigation into the systematic and widespread abuse of inmates with mental illness by correctional officers at the Dade CI inpatient unit.
89. No correctional officers involved in the death of Mr. Rainey or the abuse of other inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit have been suspended or disciplined by Defendant Secretary for their involvement in Mr. Rainey’s death or abuse on the Dade CI inpatient unit. Several of the correctional officers involved in the abuse are still employed by the FDOC and some have been promoted over the last two years since Mr. Rainey’s death.
90. Defendant Secretary, through the FDOC Inspector General and other high ranking FDOC officials including the current Deputy Secretary of the FDOC, knew about the “shower treatment” and the widespread abuse of inmates with mental illness at the Dade CI inpatient unit starting with reports in 2011 and 2012.
14

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 15 of 28
91. The failure of Defendant Secretary and the FDOC to adequately investigate the allegations of abuse and to discipline and supervise the correctional staff at the Dade CI inpatient unit has directly resulted in a pattern and practice of systematic abuse of inmates on the inpatient unit by correctional officers. The failure of Defendant Secretary and the FDOC to investigate and stop the abuse has caused, and continues to cause, inmates physical and mental harm, exacerbation of their mental health symptoms, and death.
92. The failure of Defendant Secretary and the FDOC to investigate and stop the abuse on the Dade CI inpatient unit is particularly egregious because the allegations involved inmates with serious mental illness housed on an inpatient treatment unit. Defendant Secretary, through his Inspector General, knew that many of these inmates, such as D.G. and M.A., are particularly vulnerable to abuse because the severity of their mental illness renders them unable to complain or report abuse upon them.
93. The abuse of inmates with mental illness on the inpatient unit at Dade CI has caused ongoing and severe harm to the inmates confined there and there is a substantial risk of future harm to the inmates.
94. Defendant Secretary was aware of the risk of harm caused by the abuse of the inmates confined to the inpatient unit and failed to take reasonable measures to address it.
95. The verbal and physical abuse of the inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit was based on the inmates’ disabilities.
96. The verbal and physical abuse of inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit was severe and pervasive. The abuse has exacerbated the inmates’ mental illness and adversely affected the inmates’ participation in treatment on the inpatient unit.
15

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 16 of 28
97. The Defendants had actual knowledge of the abuse and harassment of inmates with mental illness on the unit and failed to take prompt action to stop it.
98. By failing to stop the abuse of inmates with mental illness housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit, Defendant Secretary excluded those inmates from participation in or denied them the benefits of the FDOC’s treatment program or activities, or otherwise discriminated against them.
99. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Specific Allegations Regarding Inadequate Mental Health Care
100. Disability Rights Florida, in its role as the federally designated Protection and Advocacy organization for Florida, has visited Dade CI multiple times to interview inmates and review records.
101. Multiple inmates have reported that they have never had the opportunity to attend therapeutic group therapy sessions.
102. Multiple inmates have reported that, aside from brief recreation periods, they spend their entire time at Dade CI confined in their cells alone.
103. Multiple inmates have reported that they receive very limited time to speak with counselors and psychiatrists.
104. Review of numerous records indicated staff is performing inadequate assessment to determine the needs of inmates in the mental health units.
105. Review of numerous records indicates staff is creating Individualized Service Plans that are not adequately identifying or addressing the mental health needs to inmates in the mental health units.
16

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 17 of 28
106. Review of numerous records indicated staff failure to adjust Individualized Service Plans when inmates in the mental health unit are failing to progress or when interventions are unsuccessful over a period of time.
107. Inmate KR has been housed on the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI since April 2014. His Dade CI records indicate that he suffers from psychosis, delusions and hallucinations.
108. KR has a long history of mental illness. Prior to his incarceration in FDOC in 2011, he was involuntarily committed to inpatient psychiatric facilities on multiple occasions. He has a history of schizophrenia, psychosis, paranoia, and hallucinations.
109. Since his admission at Dade CI inpatient unit, KR has been medicated with Haloperidol (trade name Haldol), an antipsychotic medication used in the treatment of schizophrenia and acute psychosis.
110. In addition to injections of Haldol, KR’s inpatient treatment plan at Dade CI calls for weekly group therapy sessions and individual counseling sessions. He is not receiving either weekly group sessions or individual counseling.
111. Since at least August 2014, Wexford has not had sufficient numbers of trained staff to provide the group or individual therapy needed and called for in KR’s treatment plan.
112. Medication alone is not sufficient to treat the symptoms of KR’s mental illness. His extended isolation and confinement in a solitary cell have exacerbated his illness.
113. Since at least August of 2014, as a result of insufficient staffing and mental health interventions, KR has spent nearly 24 hours a day confined alone in his cell. Dade CI records indicate that he has made no progress on his psychological symptoms during that time.
17

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 18 of 28
114. KR’s mental health symptoms have continued to deteriorate and behaviors directly related to his mental illness have worsened. As a result, he was recently involved in altercations with Dade CI staff where force was used against him.
115. The inadequate mental health treatment of inmates with mental illness on the inpatient unit at Dade CI has caused ongoing and severe harm to the inmates confined there and there is a substantial risk of future harm to the inmates.
116. Defendants Secretary and Wexford were aware of the risk of harm caused by this inadequate mental health treatment and failed to take reasonable measures to address it.
117. The Defendants had actual knowledge through contract monitoring and other sources of the inadequate mental health care of inmates with mental illness on the unit and failed to take prompt action to stop it.
118. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
Count One (42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Jones for Violations of the Eighth Amendment Due to Abuse) 119. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 118 as if fully set forth herein. 120. The Eighth Amendment protects prison inmates from excessive uses of force by prison officials. The Eighth Amendment also imposes duties on prison officials to provide humane conditions of confinement; to ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; and to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.
18

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 19 of 28
121. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI was so excessive and unnecessary as to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
122. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI was imposed maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm and was unrelated to any good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.
123. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI caused death and serious harm to the inmates housed on the unit. It continues to pose a substantial risk of harm to the inmates that are now or may in the future be housed on the inpatient unit.
124. Defendant Secretary had actual knowledge of the abuse of inmates on the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit and knew that the abuse posed a pervasive risk of harm to those inmates. Defendant Secretary’s response to the risk was so inadequate and unreasonable that it constitutes deliberate indifference to the inmates’ rights as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to United States Constitution.
125. Defendant Secretary’s actions and inactions have caused continuing violations of the Eighth Amendment rights of Disability Rights Florida’s clients and constituents housed at Dade CI.
Count Two (42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Wexford for Violations of the Eighth Amendment Due to Abuse) 126. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 118 as if fully set forth herein.
19

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 20 of 28
127. The Eighth Amendment protects prison inmates from excessive uses of force by prison officials. The Eighth Amendment also imposes duties on prison officials to provide humane conditions of confinement; to ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; and to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.
128. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI was so excessive and unnecessary as to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
129. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI was imposed maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm and was unrelated to any good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.
130. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI caused death and serious harm to the inmates housed on the unit. It continues to pose a substantial risk of harm to the inmates that are now or may in the future be housed on the inpatient unit.
131. Defendant Wexford has had knowledge of the abuse of inmates on the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit and knew that the abuse posed a pervasive risk of harm to those inmates but Wexford employees have failed to report the abuse or to otherwise intervene to halt the abuse.
132. The actions and inactions of Wexford’s employees were the result of Wexford’s custom, policy or practice of failing to report or intervene in instances of abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit.
20

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 21 of 28
133. Defendant Wexford’s custom, policy or practice of failing to report or intervene in instances of abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit constitutes reckless disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm to those inmates.
134. Defendant Wexford’s custom, policy or practice has resulted in the continuing abuse to inmates housed in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit in violation of their rights as guaranteed by Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
135. Defendant Wexford’s actions and inactions have caused continuing violations of the Eighth Amendment rights of Disability Rights Florida’s clients and constituents housed at Dade CI.
Count Three (ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims Against Defendant FDOC) 136. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 118 as if fully set forth herein. 137. The Federal Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against an individual based on disability by any program or entity receiving federal funds. 29 U.S.C. 794(a) and (b)(2)(B). 138. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits disability-based discrimination by any public entity. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12132. 139. These disability anti-discrimination laws impose an affirmative duty on public entities to create policies or procedures to prevent discrimination based on disability. 140. The inmates housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit are persons with disabilities as defined in the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA. 141. Defendant FDOC is a program or entity which receives federal financial assistance.
21

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 22 of 28
142. Defendant FDOC is a public entity as defined by Title II of the ADA. 143. Defendant FDOC’s inpatient mental health unit is a facility and its operation comprises a
program and services for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA. 144. The inmates housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit are qualified to participate in or receive
the benefit of FDOC’s services, programs, or activities. 145. The inmates housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit were abused because of their disabilities
by FDOC’s agents and employees at Dade CI. Such abuse constitutes discrimination against individuals based on their disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA. 146. The abuse of inmates housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit by FDOC’s agents and employees denied those inmates the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of FDOC’s inpatient unit in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA. 147. The abuse of inmates housed on the Dade CI inpatient unit was carried out by Defendant FDOC’s agents and employees at Dade CI while acting within the scope of their employment by FDOC. Defendant FDOC is liable for the actions of its agents and employees when they committed the violations of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA alleged herein. 148. FDOC has discriminated against Disability Rights Florida’s clients and constituents housed at Dade CI, by failing to provide a non-abusive, safe treatment environment on the inpatient unit that will allow inmates with mental illness to participate in the treatment program at Dade CI.
Count 4 (42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Secretary for
22

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 23 of 28
Violations of the Eighth Amendment Due to Inadequate Mental Health Treatment) 149. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 118 as if fully set forth herein. 150. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment obligates prison
officials to provide prisoners with adequate medical and mental health care. Defendant’s policies and procedures violate the Eighth Amendment rights of prisoners with mental illness. 151. As a matter of policy and practice, the Defendant failed to provide adequate assessments, service plans, and mental health interventions to inmates with serious mental illness, which led to the deterioration of the inmates’ mental health. 152. By failing to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care, Defendant violated the rights of inmates with serious mental illness to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 153. The Defendant is acting with deliberate indifference to the serious mental health treatment needs of, and the substantial risk of harm to, inmates with serious mental illness. 154. Defendant Secretary had actual knowledge of the inadequate mental health treatment of inmates on the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit and knew that this posed a pervasive risk of harm to those inmates. Defendant Secretary’s response to the risk was so inadequate and unreasonable that it constitutes deliberate indifference to the inmates’ rights as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to United States Constitution. 155. Defendant Secretary’s actions and inactions have caused continuing violations of the Eighth Amendment rights of Disability Rights Florida’s clients and constituents housed at Dade CI.
Count 5 (42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Wexford for
23

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 24 of 28
Violations of the Eighth Amendment Due to Inadequate Mental Health Treatment) 156. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 118 as if fully set forth herein. 157. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment obligates prison
officials to provide prisoners with adequate medical and mental health care. Defendant Wexford’s policies and procedures violate the Eighth Amendment rights of prisoners with mental illness. 158. As a matter of policy and practice, the Defendant Wexford failed to provide adequate assessments, service plans and mental health interventions to inmates with serious mental illness, which led to the deterioration of the inmates’ mental health. 159. By failing to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care, Defendant Wexford violated the rights of inmates with serious mental illness to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 160. Defendant Wexford is aware of these conditions at Dade CI and the dire consequences its actions and inactions have had on inmates with serious mental illness. 161. Defendant Wexford is acting with deliberate indifference to the serious mental health treatment needs of, and the substantial risk of harm to, inmates with serious mental illness. 162. Defendant Wexford’s custom, policy or practice has resulted in the continuing provision of inadequate mental health care to inmates housed in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit in violation of their rights as guaranteed by Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 163. Defendant Wexford’s actions and inactions have caused continuing violations of the Eighth Amendment rights of Disability Rights Florida’s clients and constituents housed at Dade CI.
24

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 25 of 28
Request for Relief Therefore, Disability Rights Florida, on behalf of the mentally ill inmates who are currently confined at the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI, requests that this Court: A. Accept jurisdiction of this case and set it for hearing at the earliest opportunity; B. Declare that the actions and inactions of the Defendants are unlawful and
unconstitutional for the reasons as specified above; C. Enter an injunction that requires Defendant Secretary to:
1. cease all actions that violate the constitutional and statutory rights of the mentally ill inmates confined at the Dade CI inpatient unit as well as those inmates who may, at some point in the future, be transferred to the inpatient unit at Dade CI;
2. take immediate action to investigate and stop the ongoing abuse of inmates with mental illness at Dade CI;
3. immediately take steps to train and supervise the officers assigned to the inpatient unit to ensure that the abuse does not recur;
4. develop a system of periodic independent oversight of the Dade CI inpatient unit; and
5. take immediate steps to ensure the timely investigation of allegations of abuse upon inmates in the inpatient mental health unit;
D. Enter an injunction that requires Defendant Wexford to: 1. change its custom, policy or practice at Dade CI so as to require its employees at Dade CI to immediately report allegations of abuse; and
25

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 26 of 28

2. change their customs, policies, and practices to ensure that inmates with

serious mental illness receive constitutionally adequate mental health

treatment;

E. Enter an injunction that requires Defendant Florida Department of Corrections to

stop discriminating against the inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit on the basis

of disability;

E. Retain jurisdiction over this matter to ensure that the terms of any injunction are

fully implemented;

F. Award Plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, and 29 U.S.C. § 794; and

F.

Award all other necessary and appropriate relief that this Court may deem

appropriate.

DATED: January 23, 2015

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Peter P. Sleasman Peter P. Sleasman, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 367931 Lead Counsel

Kristen Cooley Lentz, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 649635

Florida Institutional Legal Services Project Florida Legal Services 14260 W. Newberry Road, #412 Newberry, FL 32669 (352) 375-2494 (telephone) (352) 331-5202 (facsimile) peter@floridalegal.org kristen@floridalegal.org

David Boyer, Esq. Florida Bar No. 90917

Molly J. Paris, Esq.

26

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 27 of 28
Florida Bar No. 90486 Disability Rights Florida 1930 Harrison St Ste 104 Hollywood, Florida 33020 (850)488-9071 (telephone) (850)488-8640 (facsimile) davidb@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org mollyp@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org George E. Schulz, Jr., Esq. Fla. Bar No. 169507 Holland & Knight LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (904) 353-2000 (904) 358-1872 (facsimile) buddy.schulz@hklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff
27

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2015 Page 28 of 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via email and CM/ECF on January 23, 2015 to all counsel of record listed on the following service list.
/S/ David A. Boyer, FBN 90917
SERVICE LIST Devang Desai, Esq. Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli & Dimatteo 420 South Dixie Highway, 3rd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33146 ddesai@gaebemullen.com Attorney for Defendant Wexford Susan A. Maher Chief Assistant Attorney General Corrections Litigation Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 susan.maher@myfloridalegal.com Attorney for Defendant Secretary, FDOC
28

 
 Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1:14-CV-23323-SCOLA/OTAZO-REYES DISABILITY RIGHTS OF FLORIDA, INC., on behalf of its clients and constituents,
Plaintiff, vs. JULIE JONES, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, in her official capacity; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants. /
JOINT MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE OF CASE I. Introduction
This action for injunctive and declaratory relief was brought by Disability Rights Florida (DRF), an organization empowered and charged by Federal law to protect the rights of mentally ill individuals in Florida, including persons with mental illness confined by the State of Florida at Dade Correctional Institution (Dade CI). (Dkt. 46, ¶ 4) DRF is the Protection and Advocacy System  (“P&A”)  in Florida mandated  under  federal  law  to  “ensure  that rights of individuals with mental  illness  are  protected.”    42 U.S.C. § 10801(b)(1).
This case has been stayed since November 2014 to allow the parties an opportunity to settle this case. (Dkt. 27) Through a series of mediations, the Plaintiff and Defendants have reached a private Settlement Agreement (Agreement) to resolve and eventually dismiss this litigation. The Agreement provides for expert assessments and recommendations for improvements of the inpatient unit, development of a plan to implement those recommendations,
1

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 2 of 11
a period for implementation of the plan and follow-up monitoring of the implementation. The Agreement also contains time frames for carrying out the Agreement over the next two years. The Agreement is contingent on this Court entering an order administratively closing the case until May 2017 to allow the parties to carry out the terms of the Agreement. If all aspects of the Agreement are complied with, the Parties will file a stipulated dismissal of the case at that time.
The Parties are not asking the Court to adopt the Agreement as a Consent Decree or to retain jurisdiction over its terms for Court enforcement or to otherwise approve the Agreement. Nor do the parties ask the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Agreement. Rather, the Parties jointly request the Court administratively close the case for a period of approximately two years, until May 2017, to allow the Parties to carry out the terms of their private Agreement. The Agreement allows any Party to move to re-open the litigation during the period of administrative closure upon establishment of a material breach of the Agreement. The private Settlement Agreement is described infra and attached as Attachment A1.
II. History of the Case DRF filed this lawsuit to stop alleged systemic abuse against its clients and constituents in the Dade Correctional Institution (Dade CI) inpatient mental health unit as well as address alleged constitutionally inadequate provision of mental health services on the unit. (Dkt. 46) The inpatient unit at Dade CI houses approximately 200 of the most seriously mentally ill inmates in the State prison system. (Id. ¶ 18-28) Among other things, DRF has the authority to “pursue  administrative,  legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals  with  mental  illness  who  are  receiving  care  or  treatment  in  the  State.”    42  U.S.C.  §  
1 The attached Agreement is an unsigned final version of the private Settlement Agreement. The Parties have reached full agreement on all portions of the Settlement Agreement and are in the process of executing it.
2

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 3 of 11
10805(a)(1)(B); see also Doe v. Stincer, 175 F.3d 879 (11th Cir. 1999). The Amended Complaint alleged six counts against three Defendants. (Dkt. 46) The
first Defendant is the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) Secretary Julie Jones.2 Secretary Jones is sued in her official capacity under 42 USC § 1983. Count One of the Amended Complaint alleged that the Secretary violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to stop physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI. (Dkt. 46, ¶ 119-25) Count Four of the Amended Complaint alleged that the Secretary violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI. (Id., ¶ 149-55)
The second Defendant is Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Wexford). Wexford is the private contractor providing mental health treatment at the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit. (Id., ¶ 6) Wexford is also sued under 42 USC §1983. Count Two of the Amended Complaint alleged that Wexford violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to stop physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against inmates with mental illness housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI and that Wexford had a custom, policy or practice of failing to report or intervene in instances of abuse by correctional officers on inmates housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI. (Dkt. 46, ¶ 126-35) Count Five of the Amended Complaint alleged that Wexford violated the Eighth Amendment by having a custom, policy or practice of providing inadequate mental health care to inmates housed on the inpatient unit at Dade CI. (Id., ¶ 156-63)
The third Defendant is the Florida Department of Corrections as a state agency. (Id., ¶ 7)
2 Defendant Jones, in her official capacity as Secretary of the FDOC, was substituted in the Amended Complaint for Michael Crews in his official capacity after Mr. Crews resigned as Secretary of the FDOC.
3

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 4 of 11
Count Three of the Amended Complaint alleged that FDOC violated the Federal Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794(a) and (b)(2)(B), and Title II of The American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12132, by allowing abuse against Dade CI inpatient inmates specifically because the inmates were mentally ill and by failing to provide a non-abusive, safe treatment environment on the inpatient unit that would allow inmates with mental illness to participate in the treatment program at Dade CI. (Dkt. 46, ¶ 136-48)
The  Amended  Complaint  also  seeks  attorneys’  fees  and  costs  on  all  counts  and  against  all   Defendants. (Id. at 26)
The case was filed in September 2014.3 Prior to the deadline to file responsive pleadings, Defendants contacted Plaintiff requesting an early mediation in the case. Beginning in November 2014, the Parties engaged in a thoughtful and rigorous mediation process in an attempt to resolve the case. The Parties met with a mediator on four separate occasions between early November 2014 and late February 2015. This Honorable Court stayed the case three times during the mediation process.
In early April 2015, the Parties agreed to enter into a private Settlement Agreement that provides for expert assessments and recommendations for improvements of the inpatient unit, development of a plan to implement those recommendations, a period for actual implementation and follow up monitoring of the implementation. While Defendants deny liability, they have entered into this Agreement in order to avoid the necessity of litigation. The Parties now file this Joint Motion for Administrative Closure of the case during the pendency of the settlement period as  suggested  in  the  Court’s  Order of March 5, 2015. (Dkt. 56)
III. Settlement Agreement
3 The Amended Complaint was filed January 23, 2015. (Dkt. 46) 4

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 5 of 11
The Agreement includes multiple components addressing the assessment of the Dade CI inpatient units by independent experts, a process for creating a Plan of Compliance based on the expert assessment, a schedule for implementation of the Plan of Compliance, and follow-up assessments of the unit by independent experts to determine whether the Plan of Compliance has been  properly  implemented.    The  Agreement  also  includes  provisions  for  “notice  and  cure”  in the event there is a material breach of the Plan of Compliance. At the conclusion of the terms of the Agreement, the case will be dismissed with the Parties requesting the Court retain jurisdiction for the  limited  purpose  of  determining  Plaintiffs’  reasonable  attorneys’  fees  and  costs. Each component of the Agreement is addressed below:
A. Assessment of the Inpatient Units The Parties agree that a site visit will be conducted at Dade CI from April 16-18,
2015. Defendants have retained a psychiatrist, Dr. Jeffrey Janofsky, and a security consultant Brian Riedl, for the purpose of providing the Defendants with the status of the level of mental health care and security in the inpatient units as well as any corrective actions required to ensure the level of care meets constitutional standards. Plaintiff has retained a psychiatrist, Dr. Kathryn Burns, and a security expert, Philip Wise, for the purpose of providing Plaintiff with the status of the level of mental health care and security in the inpatient unit as well as any corrective actions necessary.
The Parties have agreed to the terms of the site visit as embodied in Exhibit A of the Settlement Agreement (“Site  Visit  Protocol”).    The Site Visit Protocol outlines the length of the site visit, who will attend the site visit for each side, and the parameters of what the experts will do during the site visit. The experts will tour the inpatient units, conduct informal cell front or dayroom interviews with inmates, speak with mental health staff on the unit, observe treatment-
5

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 6 of 11
specific activities including group sessions, observe treatment team meetings, observe the medication management process, learn about initial assessment of new admissions to the unit and speak with security staff at the institution.
After the site visit is completed, the expert psychiatrists will receive copies of 65 randomly-selected inpatient files for review. The document review will occur during May and June 2015. At the conclusion of the records review, the expert psychiatrists will make multiple visits to the Dade CI inpatient unit to conduct structured interviews with the inmates whose records were reviewed. These structured interviews will last approximately one hour per inmate and will occur throughout July and August 2015.
Upon completion of the structured inmate interviews, the expert psychiatrists will each draft a report based on their site visits, record reviews and structured inmate interviews. The reports will address: (1) the provision of therapeutic group therapy sessions; (2) the provision of therapeutic out-of-cell activities and programming; (3) the provision of individual counseling session; (4) the adequacy of needs assessments; (5) the adequacy of Individualized Service Plans; and (6) the adequacy of systems to prevent abuse and discrimination of residents of the Dade CI inpatient units. The reports will be due no later than October 31, 2015. The reports will be exchanged by counsel on that same date.
B. Creation of the Plan of Compliance After receiving the reports of the experts, the Parties will have 60 days to jointly
create a mutually agreeable Plan of Compliance. The Parties may use a mediator to assist with crafting the Plan of Compliance. The Plan of Compliance will be based on the reports and recommendations of the experts. The Parties will negotiate the Plan of Compliance during November and December 2015.
6

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 7 of 11
If the Parties cannot agree on a Plan of Compliance by January 31, 2016, then the Parties will declare an impasse. At that time, any Party may file a motion with the Court to reopen the case and move forward with litigation. If the Parties do agree on a Plan of Compliance, the Defendants will be given a six-month period to implement the Plan of Compliance.
C. Implementation of the Plan of Compliance The Defendants will have six months to implement the Plan of Compliance. The
implementation period will run from February to July 2016. During that time, the Defendants will  provide  Plaintiff  with  the  Department’s  monitoring instrument as it is generated over the sixmonth implementation period. The Plaintiff may continue to have routine legal visits with clients on the inpatient unit or conduct records reviews during this time.
D. Follow-Up Assessment of the Inpatient Units In August 2016,  the  Parties’  experts  will  conduct  a  follow-up site visit. The site visit
will follow the same Site Visit Protocol as the initial assessment site visit. After the site visit, the experts will again review records for inpatient inmates and conduct structured inmate interviews as the experts deem necessary. The record reviews and structured interviews will occur in September and October 2016.
If the experts identify any material breaches in the implementation of the Plan of Compliance, the Plaintiff will notify the Defendants no later than November 30, 2016.4 The notification of breach shall be in writing and provided to counsel of records for all Parties via U.S. Mail and email. Defendants will have 30 days within which to provide a written response
4 In the event of “emergency circumstances”, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, noticeand-cure provisions shall not apply. A separate process for handling emergency circumstances is outlined in the Settlement Agreement.
7

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 8 of 11
to the notice of material breach. Defendants’  response  shall  include  an  outline  of  the  actions   taken to investigate the issue, the results of the investigation and the specific plan to address the issue. If the response includes a plan of corrective action, the Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with the results of the corrective action by March 31, 2017.
If,  after  Plaintiff  received  Defendants’  response  and  the  results  of  any  corrective  plan,   Plaintiff believes the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with the terms of the Plan of Compliance, Plaintiff shall give Defendants notice of its intention to terminate the Settlement Agreement, seek to re-open the case, and pursue the relief requested in the Complaint. Notice of intent to seek reopening of the litigation for material breach of the private Settlement Agreement must be provided to counsel of record for Defendants no later than April 30, 2017.
E. Dismissal  of  Case  and  Attorneys’  Fees   If the case is not reopened by May 31, 2017, then the Parties will file a motion
requesting dismissal of the case and requesting the Court retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose  of  determining  Plaintiff’s  reasonable  attorneys’  fees  and  costs.    The Defendants agree to Plaintiff’s  entitlement  to reasonable  attorneys’  fees  and  costs  only  as  provided in the private Settlement Agreement.
IV. The  Parties’  Request  of  the  Court The Parties jointly request the Court administratively close this case until May 31, 2017 to allow the Parties to carry out the terms of the private Settlement Agreement or until one of the Parties requests to reopen the litigation in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Parties are not asking the Court to adopt the Agreement as a Consent Decree or to retain jurisdiction over its terms for Court enforcement or to otherwise approve the Agreement. Nor do the parties ask the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Agreement. The
8

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 9 of 11
Parties note that the Settlement Agreement is contingent upon the Court agreeing to administratively close the case as contemplated by the Agreement.
This Honorable Court has the authority to administratively close this case as requested by the Parties. A federal court has the inherent authority to manage its docket. See In re Application of Alves Barga, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2011). Administrative closings  provide  a  “familiar  way”  in  which  courts  can remove cases from their active files without making any final adjudication. Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC, 166 F.3d 389, 392 (1st Cir. 1999). The method is used in various districts throughout the nation. Id.
As  the  First  Circuit  has  noted,  “an  administrative  closing  has  no  effect  other than to remove a case from the court's active docket and permit the transfer of records associated with the  case  to  an  appropriate  storage  repository.”   Id. Further,  “designating  a  case  ‘closed’  does  not   prevent the court from reactivating a case either of its own accord or at the request of the parties.”    Florida Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Bush, 246 F.3d 1296, 1298 (11th Cir. 2001) (Citing Lehman with approval).
The Parties respectfully submit that administratively closing the case while permitting the Parties to perform under their Agreement is in the interest of judicial convenience. The Agreement  does  not  require  the  Court’s  active  involvement  or  enforcement  of the terms. The Agreement only allows return to this Court as a last resort to re-open the litigation. If the Parties complete the terms of the Agreement, then the case will be dismissed in two years. The Parties believe that this Agreement will conserve judicial resources, particularly given the cooperation that led to the Agreement can provide the realistic hope that no future involvement of the Court will be necessary.
WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request the Court administratively close this case until May 31, 2017 or until one of the Parties moves to reopen the case in
9

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 10 of 11
accordance with the private Settlement Agreement.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Peter P. Sleasman Peter P. Sleasman, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 367931 Lead Counsel
Kristen Cooley Lentz, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 649635
Florida Institutional Legal Services Project Florida Legal Services 14260 W. Newberry Road, #412 Newberry, FL 32669 (352) 375-2494 (telephone) (352) 331-5202 (facsimile) peter@floridalegal.org kristen@floridalegal.org
David Boyer, Esq. Florida Bar No. 90917
Molly J. Paris, Esq. Florida Bar No. 90486
Disability Rights Florida 1930 Harrison St Ste 104 Hollywood, Florida 33020 (850)488-9071 (telephone) (850)488-8640 (facsimile) davidb@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org mollyp@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org
George E. Schulz, Jr., Esq. Fla. Bar No. 169507
Holland & Knight LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (904) 353-2000 (904) 358-1872 (facsimile) buddy.schulz@hklaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 11 of 11
PAMELA JO BONDI ATTORNEY GENERAL /s/ Susan A. Maher _______________ Susan A. Maher Chief Assistant Attorney General Corrections Litigation Florida Bar No. 0438359 Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 susan.maher@myfloridalegal.com Attorney for Defendants Julie L. Jones, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Corrections /s/ Devang Desai _________________ Devang Desai, Esq. Florida Bar No. 664421 Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli & DiMatteo 420 South Dixie Highway, 3rd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33146 ddesai@gaebemullen.com Attorney for Defendant, Wexford
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been delivered to all attorneys of record via the CM/ECF system on this 10th day of April, 2015.
/s/ Peter P. Sleasman
11

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:14-CV-23323-SCOLA/OTAZO-REYES DISABILITY RIGHTS OF FLORIDA, INC., on behalf of its clients and constituents,
Plaintiff, vs. JULIE JONES, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, in her official capacity; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants. ____________________________________________/
PRIVATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Plaintiff, as a Protection and Advocacy System (P&A) under federal law to “ensure the rights of individuals with mental illness are protected,” seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of persons with mental illness confined by the State of Florida at Dade Correctional Institution (Dade CI). Through a series of mediations, the Plaintiff and Defendants have reached a Private Settlement Agreement as to a plan for settling this litigation. The Court stayed the case while the matter was in mediation. Upon execution of this Private Settlement Agreement, the parties agree to submit a joint motion administratively close this case until May 31 2017, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The Private Settlement Agreement is contingent upon the Court’s ordering the administrative closure of the case during the implementation of the Agreement. The Agreement of the parties is as follows:
1

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 2 of 15
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This Agreement is entered into to address the issues raised in the above named case
involving inmates with mental illness confined at Dade CI in the institution’s Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) and Transitional Care Unit (TCU). The Plaintiff claims there has been abuse and discrimination against inmates with mental illness at Dade CI as well as inadequate mental health care. This Agreement is intended to resolve the claims raised in this case as outlined below. II. DEFINITIONS
1. "Assessment" means a review of the adequacy in the provision of mental health treatment services and a review of policies and procedures for addressing and minimizing abuse and discrimination for inmates in the CSU and TCU at Dade CI by consultants based upon their site visits for the purpose of providing the Parties with reports and recommendations. The parameters for conducting the site visits are attached as Exhibit A, Site Visit Guidelines.
2. “CAPs” means Corrective Action Plans issued by the Department of Corrections in connection with contract compliance audits.
3. "Confidentiality Agreement" means the agreement entered into by the parties allowing access to and protecting the confidentiality of any health care information of current or former inmates housed in the CSU or TCU at Dade CI. The agreeement is attached as Exhibit B.
4. “Contractor” means Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. 5. "CSU" means crisis stabilization unit as defined in Florida Administrative Code 33-404. 6. “Dade CI” means Dade Correctional Institution. 7. "Department" means the Florida Department of Corrections.
2

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 3 of 15
8. “Full Security Staffing” means that all security staffing posts at Dade CI will be funded and available for staffing by the Department.
9. “Implementation Plan” means the agreements contained in this Settlement Agreement including the Plan of Compliance.
10. “Inpatient Units” means the CSU and TCU at Dade CI. 11. “Mental health services” means those services and activities defined in Florida Administrative Code 33-404.101(1). 12. “Plan of Compliance” means the plan agreed to by the Parties based on the recommendations contained in the reports by the consultants after the assessments. 13. “Security staff” means any staff involved in the direct supervision and control of inmates ion the CSU or TCU at Dade CI, or in supervising staff with such responsibilities. 14. "TCU" means transitional care unit as defined in Florida Administrative Code 33-404. III. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN A. Crisis Intervention Training The Department agrees to provide Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) to all security staff, including correctional officers, correctional officer supervisors, lieutenants, captains, assistant wardens and the warden at Dade CI. This initial CIT was completed as of December 31, 2014. The Department further agrees to provide Crisis Intervention Training to all new correctional officers at Dade CI when they are hired. B. Specialized Training for Inpatient Units The Department agrees to provide specialized training to all correctional officers posted in the TCU/CSU at Dade CI. This specialized training consists of eight (8) hours and focuses on
3

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 4 of 15
the supervision and care of inmates in the mental health inpatient units (TCU/CSU) of Dade CI. [See Exhibit C.] This specialized training has been completed . Subsequent training will be provided to new staff no less than annually but more frequently as new staffing due to turnover dictates. C. Hands-On Training of Supervisory Staff and Other Key Staff in Inpatient Units
The Department agrees to temporarily transfer experienced supervisory security staff from other agency inpatient mental health treatment units to Dade CI for up to one week of supervisory training and oversight. This enhanced training occurred in December 2014 and has been completed. D. Security Enhancements
The Department agrees to upgrade and enhance the security video monitoring system in the TCU/CSU at Dade CI. The Department also agrees to a pilot program for an audio monitoring system enhancement in the TCU/CSU at Dade CI. These enhancements were completed as of December 31, 2014. E. Authorization for Full Security Staffing at Dade CI
The Department agrees to authorize hiring for all security vacancies in accordance with the requirements for full staffing at Dade CI. The hiring process has commenced and is ongoing. F. Creation of Position of Assistant Warden for Inpatient Mental Health Unit at Dade
CI The Department agrees to create an additional Assistant Warden position with specialized duties assigned for the management and oversight of all operations and services in the CSU/TCU at Dade CI. Additional duties shall include but are not limited to coordinating with the Clinical Director of the mental health unit and with the Mental Health Ombudsman to ensure compliance with Department policies and security operations responsiveness to the issues
4

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 5 of 15
and concerns identified by the Mental Health Ombudsman. This position shall be established and filled by March 31, 2015. G. Creation of Central Office Mental Health Ombudsman Position and Regional
Mental Health Ombudsman Position for Region III The Department agrees to establish Mental Health Ombudsman positions at the Department’s Central Office and Region III. The Central Office and Region III Mental Health Ombudsman positions have been established and advertised. The Region III Mental Health Ombudsman shall be located at Dade CI and shall serve the inpatient mental health units located at Dade CI, South Florida Reception Center, and Charlotte Correctional Institution. The Regional Mental Health Ombudsman position shall report to the Central Office Mental Health Ombudsman. The Central Office Mental Health Ombudsman shall report to the Director of Mental Health. The Central Office Mental Health Ombudsman shall be responsible for the administration of the Mental Health Ombudsman program, and provide leadership and supervision over all its activities to ensure ongoing review of inpatient mental health treatment, services and required activities. H. Installation of Televisions in Common Areas for Therapeutic Out of Cell Activities The Department agrees to install televisions in the common areas of the inpatient units at Dade CI for use in therapeutic activities and programming as well as for leisure-time activities. The televisions have been purchased and installation shall be completed as of February 28, 2015. The Department also has taken other steps within the inpatient units at designated locations to encourage and enhance out of cell therapeutic activities and programming. I. Delivery of Mental Health Services The Department agrees to assure that the Contractor performs the contract and provides
5

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 6 of 15
treatment as mandated by the contract for services. The Department reserves the right to renegotiate any contract or re-procure mental health services as may be necessary.
1. Contract Compliance The Department agrees to routinely audit the performance of the Contractor in accordance with the performance measures provided for in the contract and agrees to issue and monitor implementation of any corrective action plans (CAPS) necessary to bring the treatment provider into compliance with the contract performance measures. Copies of any CAP together with the responses to the CAP shall be provided to Plaintiff and its counsel upon issuance. A failure of the Contractor to meet any particular performance measure shall not constitute a material breach of this settlement agreement unless it evidences a material breach of constitutionally mandated care. The Contractor agrees to implement and conduct the following in order to provide treatment as mandated by the contract for services: a. The Contractor agrees to provide specialized training to all current and new hires at the TCU/CSU at Dade CI as it relates to reporting workplace violence/bullying. Further, each Contractor’s employee will be provided with a policy regarding incidents of violence in the workplace and/or workplace bullying and reporting the same. Each employee will be required to acknowledge receipt of said policy and this acknowledgment will be maintained by the Contractor in the employee's personnel file. This specialized training and the execution of the Contractor’s policy has already been implemented. b. The Contractor shall advise its employees that they are to directly report any incidents of abuse at the TCU/CSU at Dade CI directly to the Contractor’s Florida Director of Operations,
6

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 7 of 15
the State of Florida Inspector General's Office or to the Contractor’s Regional Manager. c. The Contractor agrees to hire an additional 3.4 Behavioral Health Technicians for the TCU/CSU at Dade CI in order to provide quality healthcare to the inmates at the TCU/CSU at Dade CI and ensure for contract compliance. The hiring of these additional Behavioral Health Technicians has already commenced. d. The Contractor agrees to conduct a weekly internal audit of ten (10) charts at the TCU/CSU at Dade CI to ensure that performance measures established under the contract are being adhered to and that any corrective actions that need to be made are being made to meet the minimum standard of care required by the U.S. Constitution. This weekly internal audit of ten charts has already commenced. e. The Contractor agrees to conduct bi-monthly visits by Senior Officials to the TCU/CSU at Dade CI in order to audit twenty (20) charts randomly selected by the Department's statistician to ensure that performance measures established under the contract are being adhered to and that any corrective actions that need to be made are being made to meet the minimum standard of care required by the Constitution.
2. Other Corrective Action Through Assessments: a. The Assessments: The Department and the Contractor agree to engage consultant Dr. Jeffery Janofsky, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Director of the Psychiatry and Law Program at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, to conduct an assessment of the mental health services at the CSU and TCU at Dade CI for the purpose of
7

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 8 of 15
providing the Department with the status of the level of mental health care in those units and any corrective actions that may need to be made to assure that the level of care meets the standard of care required by the Constitution as reflected by community standards. The Department further agrees to engage one additional consultant with expertise in the area of correctional security to review and provide recommendations with regard to the claims of abuse and discrimination against the residents in the CSU and TCU units at Dade CI. The Plaintiff agrees to engage a team of two similar consultants: Dr. Kathryn Burns (psychiatrist) and Philip Wise (security expert). The consultants for Defendants and Plaintiff shall conduct assessments and provide reports on the timetable set out below or on some other timetable as agreed upon by the Parties and supplemented as an amendment to this agreement. The assessments will address the following areas related to delivery of mental health treatment services: (1) provision of therapeutic group therapy sessions; (2) provision of therapeutic out of cell activities and programming; (3) provision of individual counseling sessions; (4) adequacy of needs assessments; (5) adequacy of the Individualized Service Plans (ISPs), and (6) adequacy of systems to prevent abuse and discrimination of residents of the CSU and TCU at Dade CI.
After receiving the reports and recommendations of the consultants, based on the timetable below, the Parties shall have 60 days, with the assistance of a mediator if necessary, to jointly create a mutually agreeable Plan of Compliance based on the recommendations provided in the reports. If the Parties cannot agree on a mutually agreeable Plan of Compliance, then any Party may file a motion to reopen the litigation of this case.
If the Parties do agree on a Plan of Compliance, the Department in conjunction with the Contractor, will be given a period of six months to implement the Plan of Compliance. Upon
8

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 9 of 15
completion of the implementation phase, the Parties shall conduct independent assessments to
determine if compliance with the recommended benchmarks for assuring the constitutional level
of mental health care and preventing abuse and discrimination have been achieved.
b. The Assessment and Implementation Schedule:
• February 2, 2015: Generate separate lists of all inmates housed in the CSU and TCU at Dade CI and provide to counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.
• March 2015 - April 2015: Copy complete inpatient and outpatient mental health records of inmates on original sampling list and provide to counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants in electronic format. Schedule and conduct site visit to the CSU and TCU units at Dade CI. For parameters of conducting the site visit, see Exhibit A.
• May 2015 - June 2015: Records review to be conducted.
• July 2015 - August 2015:. Consultants conduct interviews of inmates included in random sample records reviews. For parameters of conducting interviews, see Exhibit D.
• October 31, 2015: Dr. Janofsky and Dr. Burns submit their assessments reports and recommendations to the Parties and their counsel.
• November 2015 - December 2015: The Parties shall meet to negotiate a mutually agreeable Plan of Compliance based on the assessment reports..
• January 31, 2016: If the Parties cannot agree to a Plan of Compliance, they shall declare an impasse and shall file a joint motion to reopen the case for litigation.
• February 2016 - July 2016: Recommendations contained in the Plan of Compliance shall be implemented over six months by the Department and the Contractor.
• August 2016 - October 2016: At the conclusion of the six-month implementation period the Parties’ consultants shall conduct a follow-up site visit and record reviews to determine if the Plan of Compliance has been properly implemented. The schedule of the site visit shall be determined by agreement of the Parties and may include resident interviews as requested by the Parties’ consultants.
• November 30, 2016: The Plaintiff provides notice that corrective action is needed.
9

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 10 of 15
• December 2016 - May 2017: Notice and Cure period. See Section IV. 8-11 below.
• May 31, 2017: Jurisdiction over the case terminates and the Court dismisses the case with prejudice unless a motion to continue the case is filed by Plaintiff alleging and factually supporting that a material breach of the agreement by Defendants has occurred.
IV. AGREEMENT 1. The parties agree that the Implementation Plan is structured to address all issues
which have been raised in the Amended Complaint in this cause and/or are addressed in this Settlement Agreement, and shall be implemented.
2. Defendants have entered into this Agreement in order to avoid the necessity litigation. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed as an admission of liability by Defendants, and this Settlement Agreement cannot be used as an admission by any Party in this or any other proceeding.
3. The Implementation Plan, and this Settlement Agreement, are the product of extensive negotiation sessions and resulting compromise by both Plaintiff and Defendants.
4. To ensure effective implementation of this Settlement Agreement, the Defendants have received input, through counsel from the Plaintiff, who represents the intended beneficiaries of the Plan of Compliance.
5. The Parties may schedule meetings of representatives for the Plaintiff and Defendants to discuss the Plan of Compliance and its implementation, as necessary. The Parties agree that free, open and frank discussions of problems, limitations and successes will further the achievement of the goals of the Plan of Compliance.
6. During the six-month implementation period of this agreement described in Section III.I.2.b., the Defendants shall provide, upon request by Disability Rights Florida, Inc., the
10

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 11 of 15
following records: a. Structured Activities Monitoring Instrument, as generated
Nothing in this agreement prohibits either Disability Rights Florida, Inc., (DRF) or Florida Institutional Legal Services (FILS) from having access to clients and the records of the clients during the six-month compliance period; however, access by the experts or consultants of DRF or FILS will be permitted only upon agreement of the Parties and the attorneys of the Parties.
7. The Parties agree that the Court’s jurisdiction continues in this litigation until May 31, 2017, at which time this case will be dismissed with prejudice. However, nothing in this agreement is intended to give the district court jurisdiction to enforce this Settlement Agreement. Further, the Plaintiff may seek to reopen the case from administrative closure and pursue any of the relief requested in this lawsuit only if Plaintiff alleges material breach as evidenced by systemic deficiencies in the Defendants’ implementation of the Plan of Compliance, or this Settlement Agreement. In any motion to the Court, Plaintiff shall allege the material breaches and allege that the material breach was identified and proposed to the Defendants, consistent with the Notice and Cure provisions set forth below in paragraphs 8 - 12 below, that the action requested by the Plaintiff is required by existing law, and the Defendants have refused to take the action required by law. Such relief may not be sought after the scheduled dismissal of the litigation. Absent the presence in a pending motion of a factually-supported allegation of material breach as described above, the Court shall dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice on May 31, 2017. If the case continues beyond May 31, 2017, based upon the timely filing of a motion of material breach, the parties agree to file a joint motion requesting an expedited disposition by the Court of whether a material breach has occurred and continues. If the Court finds no material
11

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 12 of 15
breach has occurred and continues, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice. 8. No later than November 30, 2016, Plaintiff shall notify Defendants in writing of any
issues which are believed to be in material breach of the implementation of the Plan of Compliance or the Settlement Agreement which would provide a basis to prevent dismissal on May 31, 2017, and reopen the case. Notice shall be provided to counsel of record for each of the Parties via email and U.S. Mail.
9. Defendants shall provide a written response to within 30 days of receipt of notice of material breach. Defendants' written response shall contain an outline of the action the Defendants took to investigate the issue(s), the results of the investigation and a specific plan to address the stated issue(s). If no corrective action is anticipated, Defendants' response shall include the rationale and any statutes, regulations or other foundation upon which Defendants rely.
10. If Defendants’ response includes a plan of corrective action, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with the results of their corrective action by March 31, 2017.
11. If, after the Plaintiff receives Defendants' response and results of corrective action, if any, Plaintiff believes that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, Plaintiff shall give Defendants notice of its intention to terminate this Agreement, continue jurisdiction of the Court, and pursue any of the relief requested in this lawsuit to counsel of record for Defendants no later than April 30, 2017.
12. No provisions of the notice-and-cure period shall apply if emergency circumstances render their application impracticable. For purposes of this paragraph, emergency circumstances affecting the plaintiff means the systemic failure of the Department of Corrections and/or the Contractor to provide constitutionally adequate mental health treatment services to
12

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 13 of 15
inmates housed in the inpatient mental health unit at Dade Correctional Institution which are not addressed by a Corrective Action Plan and which present an immediate and irreparable harm to those inmates. If such emergency circumstances are present, the paintiff may bypass the noticeand-cure period and file a motion alleging material breach as required by this agrement. For purposes of this paragraph, emergency circumstances affecting the defendants means emergent circumstances beyond the control of defendants that would prevent either the Department of Corrections or the Contractor from complying during the notice-and-cure period due to acts of nature such as hurricanes, tornados, floods, and fires, and any catastrophic destruction or national, state, or local emergency affecting Dade Correctional Institution. If such emergency circumstances occur, the notice-and-cure provisions shall be deferred until after the emergent conditions or state of emergency has passed.
13. This Settlement Agreement does not address attorneys’ fees. Attorneys’ fees and costs will be negotiated separately from this Agreement. However, as part of this settlement agreement, defendants [Department of Corrections and Wexford] agree to pay the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs within a mutually agreed upon designated time after the terms of the settlement are fully executed and the case is dismissed with prejudice. The parties agree to negotiate fees and costs at that time and if reasonable attorney's fees and costs cannot be agreed upon within sixty (60) days after dismissal, the parties will engage in mediation. If the fees and costs are not resolved through mediation within 60 days, the plaintiff then may pursue judicial relief. The parties agree that the district court may maintain continuing jurisdiction after dismissal of the case with prejudice for the sole purpose of determining reasonable attorney's fees and costs if the parties fail to reach agreement through negotiation or mediation. Plaintiff agrees to provide defendants with quarterly summary billing statements for fees and costs for
13

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 14 of 15

defendants’ review starting July 15, 2015.

14. The Parties' breach, or alleged breach, of this Agreement (or of the terms

contained herein) shall not be used by any party as a basis for any further litigation other than

this case.

15. Each of the signatories to this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Defendants

represent that they shall take all necessary steps to comply with the Plan of Compliance.

16. By mutual agreement in writing, the Parties may change the terms of this

Agreement, including, but not limited to, the timetables for the Implementation Plan in Section

III.I.2.b.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Settlement Agreement have executed the

same, through the signatories below:

For Plaintiff:

For Defendants:

________________________________ Designee DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA, INC.
Dated:___________________________

________________________________ Designee FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Dated:___________________________

________________________________ Designee WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.
Dated:___________________________

14

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 59-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 15 of 15
SITE VISIT PROTOCOL DADE CI INPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UNITS
Exhibit A
• Three (3) day visit
• Limited to two (2) experts each side, two (2) attorneys per party, one (1) party representative each, one (1) Wexford staff member to conduct tour, Warden and security staff as is necessary to escort the group
• Questions may be asked by Experts of staff accompanying site visit group. All other interviews of staff will be conducted at a time and place designated for this purpose. All questions will be asked solely by the Experts uninfluenced by the attending attorneys or party representatives.
• Informal cell front or day room interviews with inmates may be conducted only by the Experts during site tour.
• Observe Treatment-Specific Activities: group sessions, dayroom activities, therapeutic recreation activities
One group session will be made available for observation in each unit (East and West). Each observation will be arranged to minimize the disruption to the group session itself. (Each group session will be observed only by the two mental health experts from a distance and as unobtrusively as possible.)
• Observe Treatment Team Meetings - one observation in each unit (East and West)
• Observe medication management process
• Overview provided by designated unit staff of the initial assessment process for a new admission; questions by Experts only.
• Introduction and Exit Meetings will be conducted to make sure areas of focus determined by the Experts have been fully addressed

 
 Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2015 Page 1 of 1

United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida

Disability Rights of Florida, Plaintiff
v.
Michael D. Crews as Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and Florida Department of Corrections, Defendants

)

)

)

) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 14-23323-Civ-Scola Consolidated Action Case No. 1424140-Civ-Scola

)

)

)

Order Administratively Closing Case Upon Notice Of Settlement The parties have settled this matter and filed a motion seeking administrative closure for two years while the settlement agreement is implemented. (Joint Motion, ECF No. 59.) It is highly unusual for a Court to stay a matter for over two years to allow for the implementation of the parties’ settlement of the case. The Court recognizes that this is not a usual case. Upon the Court’s review it appears that the Private Settlement Agreement allows the Parties until January 31, 2016 to agree on a Plan of Compliance. If the Parties are unable to agree on such a Plan, they shall declare an impasse and file a joint motion to reopen the case for litigation on or before January 31, 2016. After January 31, 2016, the Settlement Agreement can only be set aside upon the Plaintiff’s alleging and proving a material breach of the Agreement by the Defendants. If no breach is alleged by the Plaintiff then the Agreement calls for the Court to dismiss the case with prejudice on May 31, 2017. Under those terms and conditions, the Court grants the Joint Motion for Administrative Closure of the Case. (ECF No. 59.) The Court directs the Clerk to close this case. Any pending motions are denied as moot.
Done and ordered in chambers, at Miami, Florida, on April 13, 2015.

________________________________ Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

ANDRE CHAPMAN, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF DARREN RAINEY, on behalf of the Estate, and on behalf of Darren Rainey’s Surviving Relatives, Andre Chapman, Renee Chapman, Deborah Johnson, Chnieaqua Breelove and Harold Marr,

Plaintiff,

v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an Agency of the State of Florida, CORIZON, L.L.C., an out-of-state limited liability corporation doing business and registered in Florida, ROLAND CLARKE and CORNELIUS THOMPSON,

Case No. 14-23323-Civ-SCOLA; Consolidated Action Case No. 14-24140Civ-SCOLA

Defendants. ________________________________/

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Introduction

Darren Rainey was a 50-year-old mentally ill man serving a two-year sentence for a

minor drug offense. Correctional officers, Defendants Roland Clarke and Cornelius Thompson,

forced Mr. Rainey into a scalding hot shower for almost two hours, killing him in the process.

The officers subjected Mr. Rainey to the “shower treatment” in retaliation for conduct that was

the result of his mental illness. After ignoring his pleas for help, the officers found Mr. Rainey

lying in the shower with no pulse and no respiration. Mr. Rainey’s skin was peeling off. The

deliberate conduct of each of the Defendants caused Rainey’s untimely and horrific death.

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 2 of 16
Parties 1. Plaintiff, Andre Chapman, is the duly appointed Personal Representative of the Estate of Darren Rainey, having been appointed Personal Representative by the Probate Division of the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, File No. 14-1535. This action is brought by Andre Chapman, brother of Darren Rainey, in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Darren Rainey, on behalf of the Estate of Darren Rainey, and on behalf of Darren Rainey’s surviving relatives, Andre Chapman, Renee Chapman, Deborah Johnson, Chnieaqua Breelove and Harold Marr. 2. Andre Chapman, Renee Chapman and Deborah Johnson are Darren Rainey’s adult siblings. 3. Chnieaqua Breelove and Harold Marr are Darren Rainey’s adult niece and nephew. Ms. Breelove and Mr. Marr are the surviving children of Darren Rainey’s deceased sister, Charlene Chapman. 4. At all times material to this action, Darren Rainey was an inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC). Mr. Rainey was housed at Dade Correctional Institution (Dade CI) in Florida City, Florida, a correctional institution operated by the FDOC. 5. Defendant FDOC is an Agency of the State of Florida. Defendant FDOC administers and operates the Florida prison system, including Dade CI. Defendant FDOC receives federal financial assistance and is covered by the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant FDOC is a public entity within the meaning of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 6. Corizon, L.L.C. (Corizon) is a private limited liability corporation doing business and registered in Florida. Corizon, L.L.C. was formerly Corizon, Inc., the company that was
- 2 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 3 of 16
under contract with the FDOC in 2012 to provide care, including mental health care, to inmates housed at Dade C.I. Corizon, Inc. converted to Corizon, L.L.C. on December 31, 2013 and has all of the assets and liabilities of Corizon, Inc. Corizon’s contract with FDOC required the provision of inpatient mental health care services to inmates housed in the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI. Corizon’s contract with FDOC was in effect at all times material to this action.
7. Roland Clarke was a Correctional Officer employed by the FDOC from April 2010 until he resigned in July 2014. At all times material to this action, Defendant Clarke worked at Dade CI. Clarke is sued in his individual capacity for damages.
8. Cornelius Thompson was a Correctional Officer employed by the FDOC from March 2010 through 2013. At all times material to this action, Defendant Thompson worked at Dade CI. Thompson is sued in his individual capacity for damages.
Jurisdiction and Venue 9. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, as well as being brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (A.D.A.), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and the Federal Rehabilitation Act, 20 U.S.C. § 794. 10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. 11. The venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district.
- 3 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 4 of 16
Facts
12. The FDOC operates an inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI for the purpose of providing treatment to seriously mentally ill inmates.
13. At all times material to this action Corizon provided treatment staff for the inpatient unit at Dade CI pursuant to a contract with the FDOC.
14. On June 23, 2012, Darren Rainey suffered an agonizing and untimely death at the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit. Defendants Clarke and Thompson killed Mr. Rainey by intentionally confining him in a scalding hot shower for almost two hours.
15. Mr. Rainey had a history of chronic and severe mental illness, and FDOC was made aware of that fact when Mr. Rainey was placed in FDOC custody in February 2012.
16. When Mr. Rainey was received by the FDOC in February 2012, he was diagnosed by the FDOC with schizophrenia. FDOC continually maintained Mr. Rainey’s diagnosis of schizophrenia throughout the duration of his incarceration through the date of his death.
17. Mr. Rainey was an individual qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of FDOC’s services, programs, or activities.
18. Mental illness impaired one or more of Mr. Rainey’s major life activities. 19. At all times material to this action, Mr. Rainey was housed on the inpatient mental health unit at Dade CI for the purpose of receiving treatment for his chronic and severe mental illness. 20. Mr. Rainey required regular use of psychotropic medications to manage his mental illness and required the highest levels of inpatient mental health care provided by the FDOC while he was in its custody.
- 4 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 5 of 16
21. On June 18, 2012, the mental health staff on the Dade CI inpatient unit noted Mr. Rainey was disheveled and had poor functioning, distorted thinking, and was smearing feces all over his cell.
22. As a result of these manifestations of his mental illness, the staff gave Mr. Rainey an emergency involuntary injection of Haldol to manage the symptoms of his serious mental illness.
23. Five days later, on the evening of June 23, 2012, Mr. Rainey again smeared feces on himself and his cell.
24. Mr. Rainey’s action of smearing feces on himself was caused by and was a manifestation of his serious mental illness.
25. On that same evening, Defendants Clarke and Thompson were on duty in the inpatient unit where Mr. Rainey was housed.
26. Defendants Clarke and Thompson observed Mr. Rainey smearing feces in his cell. 27. Defendants Clarke and Thompson removed Mr. Rainey from his cell. 28. Standard procedure on the inpatient unit would have been for Defendants Clarke and Thompson to notify mental health staff of Mr. Rainey’s actions and to escort him to the closest shower for cleaning and decontamination. 29. Showers on the inpatient unit at Dade CI are single-person cells that are locked from the outside. Once placed inside, inmates cannot leave the shower unless released by the officers. 30. Inmates locked in the Dade CI inpatient unit shower cannot control the water pressure or the water temperature. The water flow is controlled from outside of the shower and the water temperature is pre-set to avoid extreme temperatures or inadvertent scalding.
- 5 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 6 of 16
31. One shower on the second floor of the Dade CI inpatient unit was altered or broken in a way that allowed correctional officers to control the water temperature. Officers could increase the temperature of the water so that the shower reached scalding temperature.
32. Correctional officers on the inpatient unit at Dade CI, including Defendants Clarke and Thompson, had previously used this shower to torture and retaliate against mentally ill inmates on the unit. This was known to the officers, inmates and staff on the inpatient unit as the “shower treatment.”
33. Instead of following standard procedure, Defendants Clarke and Thompson escorted Mr. Rainey past several properly functioning shower units to the altered or broken shower on the second floor and locked him inside it.
34. Defendants Clarke and Thompson maliciously and sadistically turned on scalding hot water in Mr. Rainey’s shower in retaliation for Mr. Rainey smearing feces on his body and cell.
35. Mr. Rainey was heard screaming for the water to be shut off and begging to be let out of the shower. Defendants Clarke and Thompson ignored his pleas.
36. At 9:30 p.m., nearly two hours after they confined him in the shower, Defendants Clarke and Thompson found Mr. Rainey unresponsive in the shower.
37. Defendant Thompson walked into the nurses’ station and asked the nurses to examine Mr. Rainey.
38. Upon arriving at the shower, the nurses found Mr. Rainey lying on his back on the shower floor. Mr. Rainey was unresponsive, had no pulse and had no respirations.
39. Mr. Rainey was placed on a stretcher and the nurses started chest compressions. A nurse ordered staff to call 911.
- 6 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 7 of 16
40. A nurse taking Mr. Rainey’s vital signs noted his tympanic body temperature was 104.9 degrees Fahrenheit with no pulse, no respiration and no blood pressure.
41. A medical note, with a time of 9:40 p.m., noted that Mr. Rainey was “burned over 90% of his body, skin was hot/warm to touch and skin comes off when touched.”
42. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue arrived and Mr. Rainey was declared dead at 10:07 p.m. 43. The abuse and torture of Mr. Rainey by Defendants Clarke and Thompson was because of and based on Mr. Rainey’s mental illness. 44. As a result of Defendant Clarke and Thompson’s malicious and sadistic actions of placing Mr. Rainey in the shower and leaving him there to die, Mr. Rainey suffered a horrific death. 45. Prior to Mr. Rainey’s death, the FDOC knew about widespread abuse by correctional officers upon inmates with mental illness on the Dade CI mental health inpatient unit. 46. In 2011, a psychological counselor at Dade CI reported several instances of physical abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient unit to prison officials at Dade CI, including the warden. The counselor indicated that the abuse included officers kicking and beating an inmate while he was restrained. 47. The counselor reported that abuse of inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit by correctional officers occurred on a regular basis. 48. The counselor filed a variety of complaints with the Dade CI prison officials and the FDOC Inspector General’s office about the abusive treatment but never received a response.
- 7 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 8 of 16
49. Additionally, inmates on the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit complained to FDOC staff that officers were using the “shower treatment” to retaliate against the most mentally ill inmates on the unit.
50. Dade CI correctional officials, including supervisors on the inpatient unit and the prison warden, had actual knowledge of the widespread abuse of inmates on the inpatient mental health unit by correctional officers but failed to take any steps to stop the abuse.
51. Mr. Rainey’s death was a result of Defendant FDOC’s deliberate indifference to the ongoing discrimination and abuse by correctional officers against inmates with mental illness on the Dade CI inpatient unit.
52. The Dade CI inpatient unit treatment staff employed by Corizon had knowledge of the abuse of inmates by correctional officers in the Dade CI inpatient unit.
53. Corizon treatment staff working the inpatient unit had actual knowledge that correctional officers were abusing inmates as retaliation for the behaviors of mentally ill inmates on the Dade CI inpatient unit.
54. Inmates on the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit complained to Corizon staff that officers were using the “shower treatment” to retaliate against the most mentally ill inmates on the unit.
55. Some of the treatment staff working the Dade CI inpatient unit reported the abuse to Corizon supervisory staff. Corizon supervisory staff did nothing to report the allegations of abuse or investigate the allegations of abuse.
56. Corizon supervisory staff told treatment staff not to do anything regarding the allegations of abuse.
- 8 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 9 of 16
57. In spite of the actual knowledge of the abuse, Corizon supervisory staff at Dade CI made no attempt to report or stop the abuse by the Dade CI inpatient unit correctional officers.
58. Corizon had a custom, policy, and practice of failing to intervene or failing to report instances of abuse by correctional officers of inmates in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit
59. As a result of Corizon’s custom, policy and practice of failing to intervene, failing to report correctional officer abuse, and affirmatively telling staff not to do anything in response to concerns about abuse, Mr. Rainey died.
Count One Violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and Federal Rehabilitation Act by Defendant FDOC 60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 59 as if fully set forth herein. 61. Count One is a claim for disability discrimination against Defendant FDOC for violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) (public entities). Title II of the A.D.A. prohibits disability-based discrimination by any public entity. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1213112132, 28 C.F.R. § 39.130. 62. The Federal Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against an individual based on disability by any program or entity receiving federal funds. 29 U.S.C. 794(a) and (b)(2)(B). 63. These disability anti-discrimination laws impose an affirmative duty on public entities to create policies or procedures to prevent discrimination based on disability. 64. Mr. Rainey was disabled as defined at 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), as he suffered a mental impairment that substantially limited one or more of his major life activities.
- 9 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 10 of 16
65. Defendant FDOC is a program or entity which receives federal financial assistance.
66. Defendant FDOC is a public entity as defined by Title II of the A.D.A. 67. Defendant’s prison, Dade CI, is a facility and its operation comprises a program and service for purposes of Title II of the A.D.A. 68. Mr. Rainey was an individual qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of FDOC’s services, programs, or activities. 69. Mr. Rainey was abused because of his disabilities by FDOC’s agents and employees at Dade CI. Such abuse constitutes discrimination against individuals based on their disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the A.D.A. 70. FDOC’s agents and employees discriminated against Mr. Rainey by abusing him specifically because of his mental illness and excluding him from treatment programs by subjecting him to discrimination. This action is in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the A.D.A. 71. The abuse of Mr. Rainey on the Dade CI inpatient unit was carried out by Defendant FDOC’s agents and employees at Dade CI while acting within the scope of their employment by FDOC. Defendant FDOC is liable for the actions of its agents and employees when they committed the violations of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the A.D.A. alleged herein. 72. FDOC discriminated against Mr. Rainey by failing to provide a non-abusive, safe treatment environment on the inpatient unit and, as a result, Mr. Rainey died.
- 10 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 11 of 16
73. As a result of Defendant FDOC’s deliberate indifference to ongoing discrimination against Mr. Rainey as a result of his mental illness, Mr. Rainey suffered a horrific death.
WHEREFORE, on this Count One, as a result of the tragic and untimely death of Darren Rainey in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and the A.D.A., the Estate of Darren Rainey and the surviving relatives of Darren Rainey have sustained the following damages, and therefore seek same from Defendant FDOC:
A. The Estate of Darren Rainey seeks the following damages: 1. loss of prospective net Estate accumulations; 2. loss of earnings of Darren Rainey from the date of his death, less lost support of his Survivor excluding contributions in-kind with interest; and 3. Mr. Rainey’s pain, suffering, emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life.
B. Andre Chapman, Renee Chapman, Deborah Johnson, Chnieaqua Breelove and Harold Marr, as the surviving relatives of Darren Rainey, seek the following damages for mental pain and suffering and emotional distress caused by the loss of their relative.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court award Plaintiff the aforementioned damages, any and all other compensatory damages suffered by Plaintiff, attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Count Two Violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by Defendant Corizon 74. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1through 59 as if fully set forth herein.
- 11 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 12 of 16
75. This Count is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
76. Defendant Corizon held the contract to provide mental health services at Dade CI and was acting under color of state law at all times material to this action.
77. The physical abuse and brutality by FDOC correctional officers against Mr. Rainey caused his death.
78. Defendant Corizon had knowledge of the abuse of inmates on the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit and knew that the abuse posed a pervasive risk of harm to Mr. Rainey and other inmates on that unit, but Corizon employees failed to report the abuse or to otherwise intervene to halt the abuse.
79. The actions and inactions of Corizon’s employees were the result of Corizon’s custom, policy or practice of failing to report or intervene in instances of abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit, including Darren Rainey.
80. Defendant Corizon’s custom, policy or practice of failing to report or intervene in instances of abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit constituted reckless disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm to those inmates, including Darren Rainey.
81. Defendant Corizon’s custom, policy or practice resulted in Darren Rainey’s death in violation of his rights as guaranteed by Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, on this Count Two, as a result of the tragic and untimely death of Darren Rainey, the Estate of Darren Rainey and the surviving relatives of Darren Rainey have sustained the following damages, and therefore seek same from Corizon:
- 12 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 13 of 16
A. The Estate of Darren Rainey seeks the following damages: 1. loss of prospective net Estate accumulations; 2. loss of earnings of Darren Rainey from the date of his death, less lost support of his Survivor excluding contributions in-kind with interest; and 3. Mr. Rainey’s pain, suffering, emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life.
B. Andre Chapman, Renee Chapman, Deborah Johnson, Chnieaqua Breelove and Harold Marr, as the surviving relatives of Darren Rainey, seek the following damages mental pain, suffering and emotional distress caused by the loss of their relative.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court award Plaintiff the aforementioned damages, any and all other compensatory damages suffered by Plaintiff, attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Count Three Violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
by Defendants Clarke and Thompson 82. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1through 59 as if fully set forth herein. 83. This Count is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. 84. At all times material to this action, Defendants Clarke and Thompson were employed by the Florida Department of Corrections at Dade CI. All actions performed by the Defendants were done under color of state law and constitute state action. 85. Defendants Clarke and Thompson’s actions in forcing Mr. Rainey into a scalding hot shower were done maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm to Mr. Rainey. These actions were not done in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.
- 13 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 14 of 16
86. Defendants Clarke and Thompson’s actions were a proximate cause of Rainey’s death.
87. Defendants Clarke and Thompson’s actions violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and caused physical pain and suffering, emotional distress to Rainey and his Estate and, ultimately, death to Rainey.
88. Defendants Clarke and Thompson are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for compensatory damages.
WHEREFORE, on this Count Three, as a result of the tragic and untimely death of Darren Rainey, the Estate of Darren Rainey and the surviving relatives of Darren Rainey have sustained the following damages, and therefore seek same from Defendants Roland Clarke and Cornelius Thompson:
A. The Estate of Darren Rainey seeks the following damages: 1. loss of prospective net Estate accumulations; 2. loss of earnings of Darren Rainey from the date of his death, less lost support of his Survivor excluding contributions in-kind with interest; 3. Mr. Rainey’s pain, suffering, emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life; and 4. punitive damages.
B. Andre Chapman, Renee Chapman, Deborah Johnson, Chnieaqua Breelove and Harold Marr, as the surviving relatives of Darren Rainey, seek the following damages: 1. mental pain, suffering and emotional distress as the result of the loss of their relative; and
- 14 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 15 of 16
2. punitive damages.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court award Plaintiff the aforementioned damages,
any and all other compensatory damages suffered by Plaintiff, attorneys’ fees, and such other and
further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues that can be heard by a jury.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Peter P. Sleasman Peter P. Sleasman, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 367931 Lead Trial Counsel
Kristen Cooley Lentz, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 649635
Florida Institutional Legal Services Project Florida Legal Services 14260 W. Newberry Road, #412 Newberry, FL 32669 (352) 375-2494 (telephone) (352) 331-5202 (facsimile) peter@floridalegal.org kristen@floridalegal.org
David Boyer, Esq. Florida Bar No. 90917
Molly J. Paris, Esq. Florida Bar No. 90486
Disability Rights Florida 1930 Harrison St Ste 104 Hollywood, Florida 33020 (850) 488-9071 (telephone) (850) 488-8640 (facsimile) davidb@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org mollyp@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org
- 15 -

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2014 Page 16 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this pleading was served on the Defendants on December 18, 2014,

via CM/ECF or U.S. Mail at the following addresses:

Gregg Toomey, Esq. Counsel for Corizon, L.L.C. via CM/ECF

Susan Maher, Esq. Counsel for Crews via CM/ECF

Devang Desai Counsel for Wexford via CM/ECF

FDOC 501 S. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32399

Roland Clarke 1221 NE 42nd Ave Homestead, FL 33033

Cornelius Thompson 1470 NW 59th Street Miami, FL 33142

/s/ Peter P. Sleasman Peter P. Sleasman

- 16 -

 
 Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2016 Page 1 of 6

United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida

Andre Chapman, representative of Estate of Darren Rainey, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
Florida Department of Corrections, Corizon, LLC, Roland Clarke, and Cornelius Thompson, and Jerry Cummings, Defendants.

)

)

)

) ) ) )

Consolidated Action Case No. 1423323-Civ-Scola (Orig. Case No. 1424140-Civ-Scola)

)

)

Omnibus Order on Motions to Dismiss

Darren Rainey, a fifty-year-old mentally-ill inmate, was serving a twoyear sentence for a minor drug offense in the Dade Correctional Institution. According to the Second Amended Complaint, in June 2012, guards forced him into a scalding hot shower and confined him there, unattended, for nearly two hours. Upon the guards’ return, Rainey was unresponsive, not breathing, and without a pulse. He had burns over ninety-percent of his body and his skin sloughed off when touched. Rainey died as a result of his injuries.
The Plaintiffs, Rainey’s estate and various family members, have since lodged a four-count complaint against various defendants. (2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 104.) Count One alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Rehabilitation Act against Defendant Florida Department of Corrections. (Id. at ¶¶ 60–73.) Counts Two through Four allege § 1983 claims against, respectively, Defendant Corizon; Defendant guards Roland Clarke and Cornelius Thompson; and Defendant warden Jerry Cummings. (Id. at ¶¶ 74– 98.) Cummings and FDC have both filed motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 124, 125.) For the reasons set forth below, Cummings’s motion (ECF No. 124) is denied and FDC’s motion (ECD No. 125) is granted.

1. Legal Standard
When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all of the Complaint’s allegations as true, construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). A pleading need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2016 Page 2 of 6
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). A plaintiff must articulate “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Thus, a pleading that offers mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not survive dismissal. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Yet, where the allegations “possess enough heft” to suggest a plausible entitlement to relief, the case may proceed. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557. “[T]he standard ‘simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence’ of the required element.” Rivell v. Private Health Care Sys., Inc., 520 F.3d 1308, 1309 (11th Cir. 2008). “And, of course, a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and ‘that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
2. Cummings’s motion to dismiss is denied.
A. The Complaint is not a shotgun pleading.
Cummings complains that the Estate’s Second Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading because the count against him, Count Four, reincorporates all of the allegations against the other defendants raised in the three preceding counts. Because of this, says Cummings, it is “virtually impossible” for him “to frame any intelligent affirmative defenses or otherwise respond to the allegations against him in a meaningful way.” (Cummings’s Mot., ECF No. 124, 3.)
The principal problem with shotgun pleadings is that they “fail to one degree or another, and in one way or another, to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015). Although it is true that each count in this Complaint explicitly

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2016 Page 3 of 6
“repeats and realleges” all prior paragraphs “as if fully set forth herein,” the Complaint nonetheless clearly states the issues and each count differentiates between the various defendants, specifying distinct support for every separate count. This is not the type of pleading that makes it “exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to know which allegations pertain to [each] count (according to its label), to separate the wheat from the chaff . . . [thereby] unnecessarily tax[ing] the time and resources of the District Court as well as the Court of Appeals.” Keith v. DeKalb Cty., Georgia, 749 F.3d 1034, 1045 n. 39 (11th Cir. 2014).
Unlike the complaints in the cases cited to by Cummings, the Complaint here is not “replete with factual allegations that could not possibly be material to that specific count” and that “are buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies.” Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). In reviewing the Complaint in this case, the Court finds that “ascertain[ing] exactly which facts formed the basis of the plaintiffs’ federal law claims” is not so daunting a task. Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002) Unlike the Magluta and Strategic complaints, the pleading here contains distinct allegations as to each defendant for acts that they are each separately responsible for. See Magluta, 256 F.3d at 1284. While the better course is certainly for plaintiffs to avoid incorporating each prior paragraph into each successive count, the effect in this case is not so dire as to require repleading.
B. The Complaint sufficiently pleads a claim for relief against Cummings.
Cummings complains that the count against him “contains little factual content,” presenting “mostly conclusions, labels, and formulaic recitations of the elements of a § 1983 claim and little more.” (Mot. at 4–5.) This is a mischaracterization of the Complaint’s allegations. The Plaintiffs’ factual contentions include:
 Prior to Mr. Rainey’s death, . . . Cummings knew about widespread abuse by correctional officers upon inmates with mental illness on the Dade CI mental health inpatient unit. (2d Am. Compl. at ¶ 45, ECF No. 104, 10.);
 In 2011, a psychological counselor at Dade CI reported several instances of physical abuse by correctional officers on inmates in the Dade CI inpatient unit to prison officials at Dade CI, including the warden, Cummings. The counselor indicated that the abuse included officers kicking and beating an inmate while he was restrained. (Id. at ¶ 46.);

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2016 Page 4 of 6
 Dade CI correctional officials, including supervisors on the inpatient unit and the prison warden, Cummings, had actual knowledge of the widespread abuse of inmates on the inpatient mental health unit by correctional officers, but failed to take any steps to stop the abuse. (Id. at ¶ 50.);
 At all times material to this action, the Dade CI inpatient mental health unit had a history of widespread abuse of mentally ill inmates by Dade CI officers. Defendant Cummings knew and/or should have known about the widespread abuse and the necessity for correcting Dade CI officers’ conduct, but failed or refused to stop the constitutional deprivations to Dade CI inpatient mental health unit inmates who were being abused by officers. (Id. at ¶ 92.)
 The constitutional deprivations that constitute widespread abuse, which were sufficient to put Defendant Cummings on notice of them and the necessity for correcting Dade CI officers’ conduct, were inclusive of, but not limited to, numerous occurrences of Dade CI officers depriving inmates of food as punishment or for retaliation against inmates, the use of excessive force against inmates and the ‘shower treatment,’ which were obvious, flagrant, rampant, and of continued duration, and not merely isolated incidents. (Id. at ¶ 93.)
These are not mere “conclusions [that] are simply speculation” or “magic words” as maintained by Cummings. (Mot. at 6, 7.) Instead, these allegations, if accepted as true, articulate “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). These allegations, together with the rest of the Complaint, amount to “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Complaint is not a mere “unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted).
Further, Cummings’s contentions that “[n]owhere in the Complaint does the Plaintiff allege Cummings knew of the shower, knew of its use, or that anyone reported to him inmates were being abused by being place therein” are unavailing. (Mot. at 5.) Cummings cites no case law to support his apparent claim that a § 1983 supervisor-liability defendant have knowledge of the specific manifestation or form of the abuse ultimately inflicted on a plaintiff. Nor does he cite any support for his position that the Complaint fails because there is “no allegation that Cummings was at DCI on the date and time of the

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2016 Page 5 of 6
incident.” (Mot. at 5.) As set forth in the Eleventh Circuit’s Pattern Jury Instructions, supervisor liability can be established simply by a showing that there was “[a] history of widespread abuse [that] put [the supervisor] on notice of the need to take corrective action and [he] failed to do so.” Eleventh Circuit Civil Pattern Jury Instruction 5.8. Contrary to Cummings’s submission that the Plaintiffs’ allegations “reveal nothing more than isolated incidents at best,” the Complaint explicitly asserts: that there was a history of widespread abuse by correctional officers upon inmates with mental illness; that Cummings had knowledge, or should have had knowledge, of the widespread abuse; that at least one psychological counselor at Dade CI reported several instances of abuse by correctional officers on inmates directly to Cummings; and that Cummings failed to act in the face of this knowledge.
Based on the factual allegations directed towards Cummings, the Court finds that Count Four “possess[es] enough heft” to suggest a plausible entitlement to relief. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557. Cummings appears to conflate allegations of facts with the actual proof of those facts. The Plaintiffs have sufficiently plead the facts of their case; whether they can establish actual proof of those alleged facts will be determined as this case progresses. Dismissal of the count against Cummings is not warranted at this time.
C. Cummings is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Cummings contends that Count Four fails to establish that Cummings: was aware of the abuse or that the abuse posed a serious risk of harm; recklessly disregarded the risk; was more than just negligent. (Mot. at 13.) Because of these flaws, argues Cummings, he is entitled to qualified immunity.
The qualified immunity defense is applied in dismissing a complaint at the 12(b)(6) stage where:
from the face of the complaint, [a court] conclude[s] that (even if a claim is otherwise sufficiently stated) . . . the law supporting the existence of that claim—given the alleged circumstances—was not already clearly established . . . to prohibit what the . . . defendant is alleged to have done . . . before the defendant acted.
Marsh v. Butler Cty., Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1023 (11th Cir. 2001). As set forth in the preceding section, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ claim is sufficiently pleaded. In support of his defense of qualified immunity, Cummings merely rehashes his arguments regarding the sufficiency of the Complaint. He fails to even allege that, “considering the preexisting case law of this circuit,” “no reasonable [government-official defendant] could have concluded that the alleged conditions . . . failed to pose a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 1034. Further, Cummings’s contention that the Complaint fails to allege that

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2016 Page 6 of 6
he was deliberately indifferent to a known danger is without merit: the Plaintiffs’ allegations assert Cummings’s subjective awareness of the substantial risks to inmate safety and Cummings’s response, or lack thereof, was patently unreasonable. (Compl. at ¶ 94 (“Cummings condoned, tolerated and through actions or inactions thereby ratified the . . . officers’ conduct in abusing the inmates.”) See Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1029 (“This alleged lack of action is not reasonable under the alleged circumstances.”). Ultimately the Court finds that “Plaintiffs adequately allege facts which (if true) show that, at the time of the incident, [Cummings’s] acts were not even arguably reasonable in . . . light of the clearly established law.” Id. at 1034. As such, Cummings is not entitled to qualified immunity.
3. Defendant Florida Department of Corrections is entitled to dismissal as to the individual family-member plaintiffs.
Count One of the Complaint states claims against FDC for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Rehabilitation Act. However, only Rainey’s estate can maintain this claim: Rainey’s survivors, under the allegations of this Complaint, do not have standing to bring either a Title II ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim. See Popovich v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Div., 150 F. App'x 424, 427 (6th Cir. 2005). The Plaintiffs have conceded this point and agree that the Count One claims of Plaintiffs Andre Chapman, Renee Chapman, Deborah Johnson, Chnieaqua Breelove, and Harold Marr, in their individual capacities, are due to be dismissed.
4. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Cummings’s motion to dismiss and for qualified immunity (ECF No. 124) is denied; and Defendant Florida Department of Corrections’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 125) is granted.
Done and ordered in chambers, at Miami, Florida, on October 28, 2016.
________________________________ Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2018 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 14-24140-civ-Scola

ANDRE CHAPMAN, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF DARREN RAINEY, on behalf of the Estate, and on behalf of Darren Rainey’s Survivors, Andre Chapman, Renee Chapman, Deborah Johnson, Chineaqua Breedlove and Harold Marr,
Plaintiffs
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, as an Agency of the State of Florida, CORIZON, LLC, an out-ofstate limited liability corporation doing business and registered in Florida, ROLAND CLARKE, CORNELIUS THOMPSON and JERRY CUMMINGS

Mediation Report

Defendants. ______________________________________/

Pursuant to Rule 16.2 (f) of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the undersigned Mediator reports that a Mediation Conference was held in the above-styled case on Wednesday, January 10, 2018. All required parties were present, except Roland Clarke and Cornelius Thompson, who were given permission to absent themselves. The Mediation ended in a SETTLEMENT of all claims with all defendants.
Respectfully submitted, /s/
H.T. Smith, Esq. ht@htsmithpa.com Mediator

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2018 Page 2 of 2
2655 Lejeune Road Suite 304 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Office: (305) 324-1845 ht@htsmithpa.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 11, 2018, I filed this Mediation Report with the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF electronic filing system. I further certify that the foregoing document was served on Milton C. Grimes, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiffs at miltgrim@aol.com; Vicki I. Sarmiento, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs at vsarmiento@vis-law.com; Annette Newman, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiffs at annettenewmanesq@gmail.com; Catherine Sweetser,Esq., Attorney for Plaintiffs at csweetser@sshhlaw.com; Lisa Kuhlman, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Florida Department of Corrections at lisa.kuhlman@myfloridalegal.com; Sheridan Weissenborn, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Jerry Cummings at sweissenborn@duttonlawgroup.com;; Gregg Alan Toomey, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Corizon, LLC at gat@thetoomeylawfirm.com; Lourdes Espino Wydler, Esq., Attorney for Defendants Roland Clarke and Cornelius Thompson at lew@marrerolegal.com; Oscar E. Marrero, Esq., Attorney for Defendants Roland Clarke and Cornelius Thompson at oem@marrerolegal.com; Monica Galindo Stinson, Esq. Attorney for the Florida Department of Corrections at monica.stinson@myfloridalegal.com
_/s/ H.T. Smith_ H.T. Smith Mediator

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:14-CV-23323-SCOLA/OTAZO-REYES DISABILITY RIGHTS OF FLORIDA, INC., on behalf of its clients and constituents,
Plaintiff,
VS.
JULIE JONES, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, in her official capacity; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.
------------------------------~/
PRIVATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Plaintiff, as a Protection and Advocacy System (P&A) under federal law to "ensure the rights of individuals with mental illness are protected," seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of persons with mental illness confined by the State of Florida at Dade Correctional Institution (Dade CI). Through a series of mediations, the Plaintiff and Defendants have reached a Private Settlement Agreement as to a plan for settling this litigation. The Court stayed the case while the matter was in mediation. Upon execution of this Private Settlement Agreement, the parties agree to submit a joint motion to administratively close this case until May 31 2017, in accordance with the tenns of this Agreement The Private Settlement Agreement is contingent upon the Court's ordering the administrative closure of the case during the implementation of the Agreement The Agreement of the parties is as follows:
1

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This Agreement is entered into to address the issues raised in the above named case
involving inmates with mental illness confined at Dade CI in the institution's Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) and Transitional Care Unit (TCU). The Plaintiff claims there has been abuse and discrimination against inmates with mental illness at Dade CI as well as inadequate mental health care. This Agreement is intended to resolve the claims raised in this case as outlined below. II. DEFINITIONS
I. "Assessment" means a review of the adequacy in the provision of mental health treatment services and a review of policies and procedures for addressing and minimizing abuse and discrimination for inmates in the CSU and TCU at Dade CI by consultants based upon their site visits for the purpose of providing the Parties with reports and recommendations. The parameters for conducting the site visits are attached as Exhibit A, Site Visit Guidelines.
2. "CAPs" means Corrective Action Plans issued by the Department of Corrections in connection with contract compliance audits.
3. "Confidentiality Agreement" means the agreement entered into by the parties allowing access to and protecting the confidentiality of any health care information of current or former inmates housed in the CSU or TCU at Dade CT. The agreeement is attached as Exhibit B.
4. "Contractor" means Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. 5. "CSU" means crisis stabilization unit as defined in Florida Administrative Code 33-404. 6. "Dade CI" means Dade Correctional Institution. 7. "Department" means the Florida Department of Corrections.
2

8. "Full Security Staffing" means that all security staffing posts at Dade CI will be funded and available for staffing by the Department.
9. "Implementation Plan" means the agreements contained in this Settlement Agreement including the Plan of Compliance.
10. "Inpatient Units" means the CSU and TCU at Dade CI. 11. "Mental health services" means those services and activities defined in Florida Administrative Code 33-404.101(1). 12. "Plan of Compliance" means the plan agreed to by the Parties based on the recommendations contained in the reports by the consultants after the assessments. 13. "Security staff' means any staff involved in the direct supervision and control of inmates in the CSU or TCU at Dade CI, or in supervising staff with such responsibilities. 14. "TCU" means transitional care unit as defined in Florida Administrative Code 33-404. III. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN A. Crisis Intervention Training The Department agrees to provide Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) to all security staff, including correctional officers, correctional officer supervisors, lieutenants, captains, assistant wardens and the warden at Dade CI. This initial CIT was completed as of December 31, 2014. The Department further agrees to provide Crisis Intervention Training to all new correctional officers at Dade CI when they are hired. B. Specialized Training for Inpatient Units The Department agrees to provide specialized training to all correctional officers posted in the TCU/CSU at Dade CI. This specialized training consists of eight (8) hours and focuses on
3

the supervision and care of inmates in the mental health inpatient units (TCU/CSU) of Dade CL [See Exhibit C.] This specialized training has been completed. Subsequent training will be provided to new staff no less than annually but more frequently as new staffing due to turnover dictates. C. Hands-On Training of Supervisory Staff and Other Key Staff in Inpatient Units
The Department agrees to temporarily transfer experienced supervisory security staff from other agency inpatient mental health treatment units to Dade CI for up to one week of supervisory training and oversight. This enhanced training occurred in December 2014 and has been completed. D. Security Enhancements
The Department agrees to upgrade and enhance the security video monitoring system in the TCU/CSU at Dade CL The Department also agrees to a pilot program for an audio monitoring system enhancement in the TCU/CSU at Dade CT. These enhancements were completed as of December 31, 2014. E. Authorization for Fnll Security Staffing at Dade CI
The Department agrees to authorize hiring for all security vacancies in accordance with the requirements for full staffing at Dade CI. The hiring process has commenced and is ongoing. F. Creation of Position of Assistant Warden for Inpatient Mental Health Unit at Dade
CI The Department agrees to create an additional Assistant Warden position with specialized duties assigned for the management and oversight of all operations and services in the CSU/TCU at Dade CI. Additional duties shall include but are not limited to coordinating with the Clinical Director of the mental health unit and with the Mental Health Ombudsman to ensure compliance with Department policies and security operations responsiveness to the issues
4

and concerns identified by the Mental Health Ombudsman. This position shall be established and filled by March 31, 20 15. G. Creation of Central Office Mental Health Ombudsman Position and Regional
Mental Health Ombudsman Position for Region III The Department agrees to establish Mental Health Ombudsman positions at the Department's Central Office and Region III. The Central Office and Region Til Mental Health Ombudsman positions have been established and advertised. The Region III Mental Health Ombudsman shall be located at Dade CI and shall serve the inpatient mental health units located at Dade CT, South Florida Reception Center, and Charlotte Correctional Institution. The Regional Mental Health Ombudsman position shall report to the Central Office Mental Health Ombudsman. The Central Office Mental Health Ombudsman shall report to the Director of Mental Health. The Central Office Mental Health Ombudsman shall be responsible for the administration of the Mental Health Ombudsman program, and provide leadership and supervision over all its activities to ensure ongoing review of inpatient mental health treatment, services and required activities. H. Installation of Televisions in Common Areas for Therapeutic Out of Cell Activities The Department agrees to install televisions in the common areas of the inpatient units at Dade CI for use in therapeutic activities and programming as well as for leisure-time activities. The televisions have been purchased and installation shall be completed as of February 28,2015. The Department also has taken other steps within the inpatient units at designated locations to encourage and enhance out of cell therapeutic activities and programming.
5

I. Delivery of Mental Health Services The Department agrees to assure that the Contractor performs the contract and provides
treatment as mandated by the contract for services. The Department reserves the right to renegotiate any contract or re-procure mental health services as may be necessary.
1. Contract Compliance The Department agrees to routinely audit the performance of the Contractor in accordance with the performance measures provided for in the contract and agrees to issue and monitor implementation of any corrective action plans (CAPS) necessary to bring the treatment provider into compliance with the contract performance measures. Copies of any CAP together with the responses to the CAP shall be provided to Plaintiff and its counsel upon issuance. A failure of the Contractor to meet any particular performance measure shall not constitute a material breach of this settlement agreement unless it evidences a material breach of constitutionally mandated care. The Contractor agrees to implement and conduct the following in order to provide treatment as mandated by the contract for services: a. The Contractor agrees to provide specialized training to all current and new hires at the TCU/CSU at Dade CI as it relates to reporting workplace violence/bullying. Further, each Contractor's employee will be provided with a policy regarding incidents of violence in the workplace and/or workplace bullying and reporting the same. Each employee will be required to acknowledge receipt of said policy and this acknowledgment will be maintained by the Contractor in the employee's personnel file. This specialized training and the execution of the Contractor's policy has already been implemented.
6

b. The Contractor shall advise its employees that they are to directly report any incidents of abuse at the TCU/CSU at Dade CI directly to the Contractor's Florida Director of Operations, the State of Florida Inspector General's Office or to the Contractor's Regional Manager. c. The Contractor agrees to hire an additional 3.4 Behavioral Health Technicians for the TCU/CSU at Dade CI in order to provide quality healthcare to the inmates at the TCU/CSU at Dade CI and ensure for contract compliance. The hiring of these additional Behavioral Health Technicians has already commenced. d. The Contractor agrees to conduct a weekly internal audit often (1 0) charts at the TCU/CSU at Dade CI to ensure that performance measures established under the contract are being adhered to and that any corrective actions that need to be made are being made to meet the minimum standard of care required by the U.S Constitution. This weekly internal audit often charts has already commenced. e. The Contractor agrees to conduct bi-monthly visits by Senior Officials to the TCU/CSU at Dade CI in order to audit twenty (20) charts randomly selected by the Department's statistician to ensure that performance measures established under the contract are being adhered to and that any corrective actions that need to be made are being made to meet the minimum standard of care required by the Constitution.
2. Other Corrective Action Through Assessments: a. The Assessments: The Department and the Contractor agree to engage consultant Dr. Jeffery Janofsky, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Director of the Psychiatry and Law Program at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Clinical Professor of
7

Psychiatry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, to conduct an assessment of the mental health services at the CSU and TCU at Dade CI for the purpose of providing the Department with the status ofthe level of mental health care in those units and any corrective actions that may need to be made to assure that the level of care meets the standard of care required by the Constitution as reflected by community standards. The Department further agrees to engage one additional consultant with expertise in the area of correctional security to review and provide recommendations with regard to the claims of abuse and discrimination against the residents in the CSU and TCU units at Dade CI. The Plaintiff agrees to engage a team of two similar consultants: Dr. Kathryn Burns (psychiatrist) and Philip Wise (security expert). The consultants for Defendants and Plaintiff shall conduct assessments and provide reports on the timetable set out below or on some other timetable as agreed upon by the Parties and supplemented as an amendment to this agreement. The assessments will address the following areas related to delivery of mental health treatment services: (I) provision of therapeutic group therapy sessions; (2) provision of therapeutic out of cell activities and programming; (3) provision of individual counseling sessions; (4) adequacy of needs assessments; (5) adequacy of the Individualized Service Plans (ISPs), and (6) adequacy of systems to prevent abuse and discrimination of residents of the CSU and TCU at Dade CI.
After receiving the reports and recommendations of the consultants, based on the timetable below, the Parties shall have 60 days, with the assistance of a mediator if necessary, to jointly create a mutually agreeable Plan of Compliance based on the recommendations provided in the reports. If the Parties cannot agree on a mutually agreeable Plan of Compliance, then any Party may file a motion to reopen the litigation of this case.
8

If the Parties do agree on a Plan of Compliance, the Department in conjunction with the

Contractor, will be given a period of six months to implement the Plan of Compliance. Upon

completion of the implementation phase, the Parties shall conduct independent assessments to

determine if compliance with the recommended benchmarks for assuring the constitutional level

of mental health care and preventing abuse and discrimination have been achieved.

b. The Assessment and Implementation Schedule:

•

February 2, 2015: Generate separate lists of all inmates housed in the CSU and

TCU at Dade CI and provide to counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

March 2015 - Apri12015: Copy complete inpatient and outpatient mental health records of inmates on original sampling list and provide to counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants in electronic format. Schedule and conduct site visit to the CSU and TCU units at Dade CL For parameters of conducting the site visit, see Exhibit A.

May 2015 -June 2015: Records review to be conducted.

July 2015- August 2015:. Consultants conduct interviews of inmates included in random sample records reviews. For parameters of conducting interviews, see Exhibit D.

•

October 31,2015: Dr. Janofsky and Dr. Burns submit their assessments reports

and recommendations to the Parties and their counsel.

•

November 2015- December 2015: The Parties shall meet to negotiate a

mutually agreeable Plan of Compliance based on the assessment reports ..

January 31,2016: If the Parties cannot agree to a Plan of Compliance, they shall declare an impasse and shall file a joint motion to reopen the case for litigation.

February 2016- July 2016: Recommendations contained in the Plan of Compliance shall be implemented over six months by the Department and the Contractor.

•

August 2016- October 2016: At the conclusion of the six-month implementation

period the Parties' consultants shall conduct a follow-up site visit and record

reviews to determine if the Plan of Compliance has been properly implemented.

The schedule of the site visit shall be determined by agreement of the Parties and

may include resident interviews as requested by the Parties' consultants.

9

•

November 30, 2016: The Plaintiff provides notice that corrective action is

needed.

•

December 2016- May 2017: Notice and Cure period. See Section IV. 8-11

below.

•

May 31, 2017: Jurisdiction over the case terminates and the Court dismisses tbe

case with prejudice unless a motion to continue tbe case is filed by Plaintiff

alleging and factually supporting that a material breach of the agreement by

Defendants has occurred.

IV. AGREEMENT

1. The parties agree that the Implementation Plan is structured to address all issues

which have been raised in the Amended Complaint in this cause and/or are addressed in this

Settlement Agreement, and shall be implemented.

2. Defendants have entered into this Agreement in order to avoid the necessity of

litigation. Nothing in tbis Settlement Agreement shall be construed as an admission of liability

by Defendants, and this Settlement Agreement cannot be used as an admission by any Party in

this or any other proceeding.

3. The Implementation Plan, and this Settlement Agreement, are the product of

extensive negotiation sessions and resulting compromise by botb Plaintiff and Defendants.

4. To ensure effective implementation of this Settlement Agreement, tbe Defendants

have received input, through counsel from tbe Plaintiff, who represents tbe intended

beneficiaries of the Plan of Compliance.

5. The Parties may schedule meetings of representatives for the Plaintiff and

Defendants to discuss the Plan of Compliance and its implementation, as necessary The Parties

agree that free, open and frank discussions of problems, limitations and successes will further the

achievement of the goals of the Plan of Compliance.

10

6. During the six-month implementation period of this agreement described in Section III.I.2 b, the Defendants shall provide, upon request by Disability Rights Florida, Inc., the following records:
a. Structured Activities Monitoring Instrument, as generated Nothing in this agreement prohibits either Disability Rights Florida, Inc., (DRF) or Florida Institutional Legal Services (FILS) from having reasonable access to clients and the records of the clients during the six-month compliance period; however, access by the experts or consultants ofDRF or FILS will be permitted only upon agreement of the Parties and the attorneys of the Parties. 7. The Parties agree that the Court's jurisdiction continues in this litigation until May 31, 2017, at which time this case will be dismissed with prejudice. However, nothing in this agreement is intended to give the district court jurisdiction to enforce this Settlement Agreement. Further, the Plaintiff may seek to reopen the case from administrative closure and pursue any of the relief requested in this lawsuit only if Plaintiff alleges material breach as evidenced by systemic deficiencies in the Defendants' implementation of the Plan of Compliance, or this Settlement Agreement. In any motion to the Court, Plaintiff shall allege the material breaches and allege that the material breach was identified and proposed to the Defendants, consistent with the Notice and Cure provisions set forth below in paragraphs 8- 12 below, that the action requested by the Plaintiff is required by existing law, and the Defendants have refused to take the action required by law. Such relief may not be sought afterthe scheduled dismissal of the litigation. Absent the presence in a pending motion of a factually-supported allegation of material breach as described above, the Court shall dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice on May 31, 2017. If the case continues beyond May 31, 2017, based upon the timely filing of a motion
II

of material breach, the parties agree to file a joint motion requesting an expedited disposition by

the Court of whether a material breach has occurred and continues. If the Court finds no material

breach has occurred and continues, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice.

8. No later than November 30, 2016, Plaintiff shall notifY Defendants in writing of any

issues which are believed to be in material breach ofthe implementation of the Plan of

Compliance or the Settlement Agreement which would provide a basis to prevent dismissal on

May 31, 2017, and reopen the case. Notice shall be provided to counsel ofrecord for each of the

Parties via email and U.S. Mail. 9. Defendants shall provide a written response to Plaintiff within 30 days of receipt of

notice of material breach. Defendants' written response shall contain an outline of the action the

Defendants took to investigate the issue(s), the results of the investigation and a specific plan to

address the stated issue(s). If no corrective action is anticipated, Defendants' response shall

include the rationale and any statutes, regulations or other foundation upon which Defendants

rely. I 0.

If Defendants' response includes a plan of corrective action, Defendants shall

provide Plaintiff with the results of their corrective action by March 31,2017.

11. If, after the Plaintiff receives Defendants' response and results of corrective action, if

any, Plaintiff believes that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with the terms ofthis

Agreement, Plaintiff shall give Defendants notice of its intention to terminate this Agreement,

continue jurisdiction of the Court, and pursue any of the relief requested in this lawsuit to

counsel of record for Defendants no later than April 30, 2017. 12. No provisions of the notice-and-cure period shall apply if emergency circumstances

render their application impracticable. For purposes of this paragraph, emergency

12

circumstances affecting the plaintiff means the systemic failure of the Department of Corrections and/or the Contractor to provide constitutionally adequate mental health treatment services to inmates housed in the inpatient mental health unit at Dade Correctional Institution which are not addressed by a Corrective Action Plan and which present an immediate and irreparable harm to those inmates. I f such emergency circumstances are present, the paintiffmay bypass the noticeand-cure period and file a motion alleging material breach as required by this agrement For purposes of this paragraph, emergency circumstances affecting the defendants means emergent circumstances beyond the control of defendants that would prevent either the Department of Corrections or the Contractor from complying during the notice-and-cure period due to acts of nature such as hurricanes, tornados, floods, and fires, and any catastrophic destruction or national, state, or local emergency affecting Dade Correctional Institution. If such emergency circumstances occur, the notice-and-cure provisions shall be deferred until after the emergent conditions or state of emergency has passed.
13. This Settlement Agreement does not address attorneys' fees. Attorneys' fees and costs will be negotiated separately from this Agreement. However, as part of this settlement agreement, defendants [Department of Corrections and Wexford] agree to pay the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs within a mutually agreed upon designated time after the terms of the settlement are fully executed and the case is dismissed with prejudice. The parties agree to negotiate fees and costs at that time and if reasonable attorney's fees and costs cannot be agreed upon within sixty (60) days after dismissal, the parties will engage in mediation. If the fees and costs are not resolved through mediation within 60 days, the plaintiff then may pursue judicial relief The parties agree that the district court may maintain continuing jurisdiction after dismissal of the case with prejudice for the sole purpose of determining reasonable attorney's
13

fees and costs if the parties fail to reach agreement through negotiation or mediation. Plaintiff agrees to provide defendants with quarterly summary billing statements for fees and costs for defendants' review starting July 15,2015.
14. The Parties' breach, or alleged breach, of this Agreement (or of the terms contained herein) shall not be used by any party as a basis for any further litigation other than this case.
15. Each of the signatories to this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Defendants represent that they shall take all necessary steps to comply with the Plan of Compliance.
16. By mutual agreement in writing, the Parties may change the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the timetables for the Implementation Plan in Section IILI.2.b.
17. Tn order to facilitate the execution of this Agreement, the Agreement may be signed in counterparts. A complete set of original signatures, whether in counterpart or otherwise, shall be maintained by the Office of the Attorney General in conjunction with the case file in this matter.
REMAINDER OF PAGE PURPOSELY LEFT BLANK
14

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Settlement Agreement have executed the same,

through the signatories below:

For Plaintiff:

For Defendants:

Maryellen McDonald Executive Director DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA, INC.
Dated:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Julie L. Jones, Secretary FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Dated:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Elaine 1. Gedman, CCHP EVP & Chief Administrative Officer WEXFORD HEALTI-l SOURCES, INC.
Dated _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

15

 
 Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 334 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2018 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Consolidated Case No. 1:14-cv-24140-RNS
ANDRE CHAPMAN, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF DARREN RAINEY, on behalf of the Estate, and on behalf of Darren Rainey's Surviving Rel3;tives, Andre Chapman, Renee Chapman, Deborah Johnson, Chineaqua Breelove and Harold Marr,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an Agency of the State of Florida, CORIZON, L.L.C., an out-ofstate limited liability corporation doing business and registered in Florida, ROLAND CLARKE, CORNELIUS THOMPSON and JERRY CUMMINGS,
Defendants.
--------------------------- I PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMAN'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS TO SUTTON LAW GROUP, P.A. TRUST ACCOUNT
COMES NOW, Andre Chapman, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Darren Rainey, and files this Motion For Entry of Order Authorizing Release of

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 334 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2018 Page 2 of 8
Settlement Proceeds to "Sutton Law Group, P.A. Trust Account." As grounds it is alleged:
1. On February 26, 2018, this Court entered an order approving a $4,500,000 settlement of this case and designating Sutton Law Group to receive the funds into its trust account. (Dkt. #266). For reasons stated below, that order was later vacated. Plaintiff hereby requests that the Order be reinstated or a new Order authorizing same be issued such that the settlement funds are ordered released to "Sutton Law Group, P.A. Trust Account."
2. Probate Circuit Judge Maria Korvick found that the settlement funds were not an estate asset and approved the settlement on July 24, 2018.
3. This Court has jurisdiction to determine matters in this case because an earlier appeal by Linda Commons to the Eleventh Circuit Court was dismissed on October 4, 2018. (Dkt. #333).
4. Counsel participated in a "meet and confer" on October 19, 2018 before the filing of this motion and the following were the respective positions:
All defense counsel (Greg A. Toomey, Lourdes Espino Wydler, Monica Stinson, and Sheri K. Weissenborn) had no opposition to the motion except they requested 30 days from the date of this Court's order to make payment of their respective settlement funds.
Christopher Q. Wintter, on behalf of Estate ofDaralyn Joyce Anderson, does

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 334 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2018 Page 3 of 8
not disagree with the gross settlement amount, but will oppose the tnotion for other reasons. 1
5. While a Motion to Intervene filed by Joyce Anderson as Personal Representative of Daralyn Joyce Anderson is pending in this Court, and Linda Commons still claims entitlement to some attorney's fees (even though she has no standing), on information and belief, they do not object to the amount of the gross settlement, but object to the apportionment of the settlement proceeds.
6. Pending resolution of the apportionment, and in view that defendants do not object to the release of the settlement funds, settlement proceeds should be released to the "Sutton Law Group P.A. Trust Account" so that the defendants and their counsel can be relieved frotn further participation in this action.
7. In addition, Plaintiffs contend that for the following further reasons the funds should be released as requested herein:
A. Ms. Commons lacks standing to object to the gross amount of the settlement. Her Attorney Charging Lien was stricken by order of this Court on April 13, 2018. (Dkt. #279). She distnissed her Eleventh Circuit Court appeal of the order. (Dkt. #333).
B. Joyce Anderson's only interest, if any, is limited by Fla. Stat.
1Linda Commons, who is not a party to this action and whose attorney lien was stricken by this Court and who dismissed her appeal re same, also participated in the meet and confer and objects to the motion.

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 334 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2018 Page 4 of 8
768.24 to eight months loss of support and services Darren Rainey tnay have provided to her deceased daughter, Daralyn Joyce Anderson, who died eight tnonths after Darren Rainey. Darren Rainey was incarcerated and would have been incarcerated during this entire eight month period (had he not died), so the claim is questionable since he could not have provided any support or services to her. The claim, even if valid, is limited to eight months because Daralyn died eight months after Darren Rainey when she was 28 years old, and this case had not even been filed or this settlement obtained. (Fla. Stat. 768.24- Death of a Survivor Before Judgment). 8. Andre Chapman signed the settlement "Release" document as ordered by the probate court and it was delivered to Defendants' counsel on July 30, 2018. 9. This Court first approved the gross amount of settlement and directed Andre Chapman to deliver a signed release and that settlement proceeds be deposited in the Sutton Law Group trust account in February 2018. That order was vacated when, in an abundance of caution, Chapman sought probate court approval of the settlement first which has now been obtained. 10. For the reasons stated, Andre Chapman requests that this Court reinstate its Order, or issue a new Order, that Defendants deliver to John R. Sutton of the Sutton Law Group P.A. their respective portion of the gross settlement amount of $4,500,000 via settlement drafts payable to "Sutton Law Group P.A. Trust

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 334 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2018 Page 5 of 8

Account," within 30 days of such Order.

Dated: 10/19/18

By:

Is/ Milton C. Grilnes

MILTON C. GRIMES, Esq. (CA BarNo. 59437)

(adtnitted pro hac vice)

LAW OFFICES OF MILTON C. GRIMES, APC

3774 W. 54th Street

Los Angeles, CA 90043

Tel. (323) 295-3023

Email: tniltgrin1@,aol.cotn

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 334 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2018 Page 6 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 19,2018 a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMAN'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
ORDER AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS TO SUTTON LAW GROUP, P.A. TRUST ACCOUNT and all attachments has been filed with the Court utilizing its CM/ECF system, which will transmit a notice of electronic filing to all counsel or parties of record registered with the Court for
that purpose.

By:

/s/ ANNETTE NEWMAN

Annette Newman, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 84537

LAW OFFICE OF ANNETTE NEWMAN, LLC

101 NE 3rd Ave., Suite 1500

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-1181

Tel. (888) 333-5580

Email: annettenevvn1anesq (cz),gtnail.conl

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 334 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2018 Page 7 of 8

Monica Stinson, Esq. Senior Assistant Attorney General OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL The Capitol- PL01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Phone: (850) 414.3300 Fax: (850) 488.4872 Email: Monica.Stinson@myfloridalegal.com Attorneys for Defendant FDOC

Gregg A. Toomey, Esq. THE TOOMEY LAW FIRM LLC The Old Robb & Stucky Building 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 203 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Phone: (239) 337-1630 Fax: (239) 337-030 Email: GAT@thetoomeylawfirm.com hms@thetoomeylawfirm.com alr@thetoomeylawfirm.com Attorneyfor Defendant Corizon, LLC

Sheridan Weissenborn, Esq. DUTTON LAW GROUP, PA 9700 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 940 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (786) 871-7971 Fax: (239) 337-030 Email: sweissenborn@duttonlawgroup.com nvallecillo@duttonlawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant Jerry Cummings

Lourdes Espino Wydler, Esq. Oscar Marrero, Esq. Alexandra C. Hayes, Esq. MARRERO & WYDLER Douglas Centre PH-4 2600 Douglas Rd. Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 446-5528 Fax: (305) 446-0995 Email: lew@marrerolegal.com dinah@marrerolegal.com oem@marrerolegal.com ach@marrerolegal.com nv@marrerolegal.com Attorneys for Defendants Roland Clarke and Cornelius Thompson

Christopher Q. Wintter, Esq. WINTTER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 14 Rose Drive Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Phone: (954) 920-7014 Email: cqw@wintterlaw.com

John R. Sutton, Esq. SUTTON LAW GROUP, P.A. 7721 SW 62nd Ave., First Floor South Miami, FL 33143 Phone: (905) 667-4481 Email: Info@SuttonLawGroup.com

Max Price, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MAX R. PRICE, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 104 Miami, FL

Linda Bellomio Commons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LINDA B. COMMONS, P.A. P.O. Box 340261 Tampa, FL 33694

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 334 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2018 Page 8 of 8

Phone: (305) 662-2272 Email: mprice@pricelegal.com

Phone: (352) 610-4416 Email: lcommons@aol.com

 
 Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 335 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 1 of 8

United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida

Andre Chapman, representative of Estate of Darren Rainey and others, Plaintiffs,
v.
Florida Department of Corrections, Corizon, LLC, Roland Clarke, and Cornelius Thompson, Defendants

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Consolidated Action Case No. 1423323-Civ-Scola (Orig. Case No. 1424140-Civ-Scola)

Omnibus Order

Andre Chapman, in his representative capacity, sued the Defendant prison, prison officials, and prison employees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for the wrongful death of his brother, Darren Rainey, in 2012. After years of litigation, the mediator in this case notified the Court, on January 17, 2018, that this matter had settled in full. (Mediation Rep., ECF No. 241.) On that same day, the Court administratively closed the case and directed Chapman to file a stipulation of dismissal or a motion to dismiss. (Order, ECF No. 242.) Also on that same day, attorney Linda Commons, who had worked with Plaintiff’s counsel at some point in this litigation, filed a notice of a charging lien. (Not. of Charging Lien, ECF No. 243.) This notice spawned ten months of legal wrangling—in this Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the state probate court,— and the case, to this day, has yet to be dismissed.
Now pending before the Court are (1) Chapman’s “Petition for Determination and Allocation of Wrongful Death Damages” (Pl.’s Pet., ECF No. 314); (2) a motion to intervene regarding that petition filed by the personal representative of the estate of Rainey’s daughter1 (Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 318); and (3) Chapman’s motion for the entry of an order authorizing the release of settlement proceeds to attorney John R. Sutton’s trust account (Mot. for Release Auth., ECF No. 334). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Chapman’s petition for allocation (ECF No. 314); denies Anderson’s motion to intervene (ECF No. 318); and grants Chapman’s motion for an order authorizing the release of settlement funds (ECF No. 334).

1 Rainey was survived by a daughter, Daralyn Anderson, who died eight months after he did. Long after this case was filed—in fact, after it had been settled—Joyce Anderson, Daralyn’s mother, was appointed the personal representative of Daralyn’s
estate. Going forward, the Court will refer to the personal representative of Daralyn’s estate as “Anderson.”

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 335 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 2 of 8
1. Background
In attempting to facilitate the parties’ settlement while Commons’s charging lien issue was pending, the Court ordered the Defendants to release their respective shares of the settlement proceeds to the Sutton Law Group2 Trust Account upon their receipt of an executed release from Chapman. (Order Re Settlement Distr., ECF No. 266, 1.) The Court further allowed that, “[o]nce the funds deposited in Mr. Sutton’s trust fund have cleared, the Plaintiff may recover his share of the proceeds and cause it to be deposited into the designated estate depository.” (Id.) At the same time, the Court required the remaining funds to stay put while the Court sorted out the issues raised by Commons’s attempt to impose a charging lien (including her claim that Chapman’s counsel was not entitled to any fees whatsoever). (Id.) The Court did not reserve any jurisdiction over the settlement fund amounts that were due to Chapman apart from any portion that was related to fees and costs.
The Court entered this order in February 2018. In April, the Court struck Commons’s charging lien and ordered the parties to confer regarding “the resolution of Commons’s entitlement to any of the fee amount retained in Sutton’s trust account.” (Order Granting Mot. to Strike, ECF No. 279, 4.) At this point the Court assumed, mistakenly, that any of the settlement funds that were not related to fees and costs had already been distributed. In any event, thereafter, the parties notified the Court that they were unable to reach an agreement regarding Commons’s entitlement to fees. (Jt. Status Rep., ECF No. 281.) Additionally, unhappy with the Court’s striking of her lien and, apparently, the parties’ inability to otherwise reach an agreement regarding amounts Commons claimed entitlement to, Commons then filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order. (Commons’s Mot. for Reconsid’n, ECF No. 282.) In denying this motion, the Court also ordered the parties to show cause why the Court should continue to be involved with sorting out the distribution of the settlement funds in this case.
It was not until May 9, 2018, upon notice from Defendant Corizon, LLC, that any of the parties bothered to alert the Court that Chapman had yet to execute the releases and that, as a result, no settlement funds had been tendered. According to Corizon, Chapman’s attorneys advised they were seeking approval from the probate court for Chapman to execute the releases. Upon receipt of Corizon’s notice, the Court set the matter for a status conference. At the status conference, attorney Sutton advised the Court that
2 Attorney John R. Sutton filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Chapman’s counsel, Milton C. Grimes and his law offices, in response to the issues relating to Commons’s claims. (Not. of Appearance, ECF No. 256.)

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 335 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 3 of 8
not only was the requirement that funds be deposited into his account “probably unnecessary,” it was also “perhaps incorrect.” (Hr’g Tr. 5:7–9, ECF No. 306, 5.) According to Sutton, Chapman had filed a motion for approval of the settlement with the probate court and the parties could make use of a restricted depository rather than his trust account.
Immediately thereafter, the Court vacated that part of its earlier order directing the Defendants to pay the settlement proceeds into Sutton’s trust account. (Order on Settlement Issues, ECF No. 298.) “In sum, the Court relinquishe[d] the jurisdiction it retained with respect to the finalization of the distribution of settlement funds in this case.” (Id. at 2.) The Court then ordered the parties to file their dismissal paperwork on or before July 23, 2018. Commons then, on the same day, filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order striking her charging lien. (Not. of Appeal, ECF No. 300.)
In the meantime the probate court approved the settlement, to an extent, and “authorized Andre Chapman as personal representative of the Estate of Darren Rainey to sign documents related to approval of the settlement.” (Pl.’s Mot. for Ext., ECF No. 307.) At the same time, the probate court also ordered Chapman to “file in federal court a petition for determination of heirs because the probate court deemed the settlement to be for wrongful death and, therefore, NOT an [e]state asset.” (Id. at 2 (capitalization in original).) As a result, Chapman sought an extension of fifteen days within which to submit his dismissal paperwork. (Id.)
Chapman then filed his “Petition for Determination and Allocation of Wrongful Death Damages,” certifying that the requested relief was opposed by the Defendants as well as attorney Christopher Wintter who claimed to represent the personal representative of Rainey’s daughter’s estate. (ECF No. 314, 2). At the time the Defendants filed their opposition, they expressed, among other issues, their concern that the Court likely lacked jurisdiction over the settlement proceeds while Commons’s appeal was pending. (Def.’s Opp., ECF No. 315 (joined by all Defendants (ECF Nos. 316, 317).) The Court joined the Defendants in this concern. But Commons has now voluntarily dismissed that appeal. And the Court has now reviewed the motion. The Court has also now reviewed Anderson’s motion to intervene “regarding determination and allocation of wrongful death damages” (ECF No. 318) as well as Chapman’s motion for an order authorizing the release of the settlement proceeds (ECF No. 334).
2. Discussion
The complaint in this case is based on federal law, alleging various violations of Rainey’s rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—violations that resulted

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 335 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 4 of 8
in his death. The claims allege disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The parties to this action have settled the controversy between them. Despite this settlement, Chapman has filed a petition asking the Court to make a determination of Rainey’s heirs and to allocate “wrongful[]death damages.” Anderson, on behalf of her daughter’s estate, seeks to intervene in that determination.
Chapman does not identify what specific legal authority requires, or even allows, the Court to make the determination he is asking the Court to make. Instead, he points to the probate court judge’s having “directed [him] to file ‘a determination of heirs’ in [f]ederal [c]ourt.” (Pl.’s Pet. at 3.) Chapman also sets forth the framework, under § 1988, that “establishes a three-step formula for the selection of the appropriate substantive law in civil rights cases.” (Id. at 5.) But he does not explain why, in light of the parties’ settlement, the Court must even go through this analysis. Rather, his concern is centered on his preemptive argument that Anderson, or her daughter’s estate, is not entitled to any portion of the settlement.
Nor does Anderson, in her motion to intervene in the Court’s determination of Chapman’s petition, provide support for the Court’s involvement in determining the heirs in this case. Instead, even Anderson describes Chapman’s efforts as “improperly asking this Court to adjudicate that Andre and Renee Chapman are the sole persons entitled to the proceeds generated by th[is] lawsuit.” (Anderson’s Mot. at ¶ 5.)
The probate court’s labeling of the proceeds of the settlement in this case as “the proceeds of a wrongful death settlement,” does not compel a different result. (Probate Court’s Order Approving Wrongful Death Settlement, ECF No. 318-3, 2.) Neither party argues that the probate court’s summary characterization of the settlement proceeds is any way binding on this Court or requires this Court to apply any of the provisions of Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to the handling of the settlement proceeds in this case. For her part, Anderson claims her daughter’s estate is entitled to intervene because the estate “has a right to the proceeds generated by th[is] lawsuit.” (Anderson’s Mot. at 6.) This right, Anderson explains, stems from Daralyn’s status as “Rainey’s sole ‘survivor’ under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act”; Daralyn’s status as “Rainey’s sole intestate heir under the Florida Probate Code”; and “Daralyn’s right to Darren Rainey’s intestate property vest[ing] on the date of Rainey’s death.” (Id.)
In urging the Court to look to Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to support Daralyn’s rights to the settlement proceeds, Anderson points to § 1988 which she claims “requires application of state survivorship law.” (Id. (emphasis

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 335 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 5 of 8
supplied).) This is so, she says, because § 1983 “is silent or ‘deficient’” in “provid[ing] for the survival of a civil rights action in favor of another upon the death of the injured party.” (Id.) But whether or not § 1983 is deficient in affording relief in this case is not at issue: a mediation here resulted in the settlement “of all claims.” (Med. Rep., ECF No. 241, 1.) Neither party, then, has presented any reason why the Court must resort to Florida law to effectuate the purposes of § 1983 in this particular case. Because none of the parties in this case argue that the civil rights statutes are “unsuited or insufficient to furnish suitable remedies,” Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 588 (1978) (quotations and citations omitted), there is no reason to look to state law to fill any gaps in the relief afforded by § 1983. The Court finds nothing in §§ 1983 or 1988 that requires the Court to apply Florida law to determine how to divide the proceeds of a personal representative’s § 1983 case that has settled.
Perhaps if Anderson were to seek her own relief against the Defendants, her claim that “there is no question that § 1983 is ‘deficient’” and that therefore “§ 1988 directs that this gap be filled by Florida law,” would apply. It is also possible, however, that, upon analysis, a Court might determine that application of Florida law in that context would be “inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a). And thus “state law [would] be disregarded in favor of the federal common law.” Heath v. City of Hialeah, 560 F. Supp. 840, 841 (S.D. Fla. 1983). In any event, here, where Anderson is not seeking her own relief against the Defendants, but merely trying to lay claim to a settlement between other parties, the parties have presented no discernable basis supporting the application of Florida law.
Lastly, Anderson’s claim that “[e]ach of the counts in Plaintiff Chapman’s Second Amended Complaint seek[s] damages on behalf of the ‘Estate of Darren Rainey’ based upon the damages scheme set forth in the Wrongful Death Act,” is without merit. Nothing in the complaint mentions the Wrongful Death Act or even Florida law. (Anderson’s Resp. to Pl.’s Pet., ECF No. 322, 12.)
A. Intervention
Anderson seeks to intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). Among other things, a party seeking to intervene under this rule must establish that “[s]he has an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.” Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989). Anderson’s claim that Daralyn’s estate has a right to the proceeds of the settlement is based on her contention that Florida’s Wrongful Death Act and Florida’s Probate Code

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 335 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 6 of 8
should be applied to the Court’s evaluation of this case. As set forth above, neither party has established this to be the case. Again, there is no continuing § 1983 controversy before the Court—the case has been settled by the parties to this action and administratively closed. There is thus no reason for the Court to look to § 1988 “to fully carry the civil rights statutes into effect,” Sharbaugh v. Beaudry, 267 F. Supp. 3d 1326, 1330 (N.D. Fla. 2017), and therefore no reason to apply Florida law. Other than this hook, Anderson has not proffered any other basis upon which the Court could find she has an interest, under Rule 24(a)(2), that would require the Court to allow her intervention. On this basis alone, the Court denies Anderson’s motion to intervene (ECF No. 318) and will not consider her opposition in evaluating Chapman’s petition.
B. Chapman’s Petition
According to Chapman, the probate court has authorized and directed him to sign the required releases related to the settlement of this case. At the same time, the probate court’s approval of “the global gross settlement of $4,500,000” was made “contingent upon this [Court’s] approval of this settlement.” Again, the Court does not find anything ripe for its approval: if the parties’ settlement agreement requires Chapman to execute a release in exchange for the Defendants’ releasing the settlement funds and if the probate court has directed Chapman to sign the release, then Chapman should sign the release and the Defendants should thereafter release the proceeds of the settlement. Anderson is not a party to this case and the Court has denied her request to intervene. The Court has stricken Commons’s charging lien and she is not a party to this case either. Because the actual parties in this case have settled their dispute, there is no occasion for the Court to apply state law to fill in any gaps left by § 1983—the Plaintiff appears to have been afforded adequate relief without relying on the Court’s analysis in that regard. And no one is complaining about the adequacy of the settlement amount itself. The Court simply does not consider the settlement of this case to be a settlement of a wrongful-death claim under Florida law. Therefore, court approval under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act is not implicated or warranted.
To the extent the probate court’s approval of the settlement in this case was contingent on any order issuing from this Court, that contingency should be removed. All parties in this matter have been represented by competent counsel and the mediation that resulted in settlement was presided over by an experienced and well regarded member of the Florida Bar. No one who is actually a party to this case has objected to any of the terms of the settlement. If either party refuses to consummate the settlement in this case, a motion to

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 335 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 7 of 8
enforce the settlement agreement can be filed at which point its terms might then be tested. Short of that, though, there is simply no reason for the parties in this case not to comply with their respective obligations under their agreement. The matters before this Court do not warrant a determination of heirs; if the probate court finds it must make such a determination itself, for its own purposes, that is a separate issue. But that issue, whatever it is, should not delay the Defendants from tendering the proceeds of this settlement and finally ending their further involvement in this case.
Corizon, in its response to Chapman’s petition, raises theoretical concerns, prompted by Anderson, Commons, and Wintter’s involvement in this case, that Chapman might never have had the authority, as the personal representative of Rainey’s estate, to litigate and settle this case. Corizon is also concerned that Anderson might move to set aside the settlement. While parties and counsel are always free to raise objections, file motions, or execute any other legal maneuver, Rule 11 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure serves as a mechanism to protect parties from improper, frivolous, or unsupported filings. While this may not be the “bulletproof order” (Corizon’s Resp., ECF No. 315, 6.) Corizon was hoping for, between the passing of the limitations period, the Court’s denial of Anderson’s motion to intervene, and whatever rights and obligations are afforded under the parties’ settlement agreement, this should be enough.
The Court also finds Chapman’s request that the Court approve his attorneys’ claims for fees and costs to be improper. If counsel and his client are in agreement about the division of the proceeds, this Court does not perceive, on the record before it, any impediment to such a distribution. Further, since Commons has dismissed her appeal of the Court’s order striking her charging lien, the Defendants’ tendering of the settlement proceeds should no longer be delayed on that basis.
C. Release of Settlement Proceeds
Lastly, Chapman seeks an order authorizing the Defendants to release the settlement proceeds to the Sutton Law Group, P.A. Trust Account. None of the Defendants oppose this request. Chapman advises that Anderson, on behalf of her daughter’s estate, intends to oppose this motion and that Commons also objects to the motion. Neither is a party to this case. Therefore, upon what the Court construes as the parties’ joint motion, the Court orders the Defendants to comply with the parties’ settlement agreement by delivering their respective portions of the gross settlement amount to the Sutton Law Group, P.A., Trust Account on or before November 26, 2018.

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 335 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 8 of 8
3. Conclusion
As set forth above, the Court finds that neither the Plaintiff nor Anderson has persuaded the Court that Florida law should be applied to a determination of the distribution of the settlement proceeds in this case. The Court thus has no occasion to either allocate the funds or to approve the settlement itself. The Court thus denies Chapman’s petition (ECF No. 314). Additionally, Anderson’s motion to intervene was premised on her theory that Florida law applied to the distribution of the settlement funds here. Since she has not established that the Court must apply Florida law, she has also not established an interest that would support her motion to intervene. The Court therefore also denies Anderson’s motion to intervene (ECF No. 318). Finally, the parties have jointly asked for an order directing the Defendants to tender their portions of the settlement amount. As indicated above, the Court grants this motion (ECF No. 334).
Lastly, the Court orders the Plaintiff to file his dismissal paperwork on or before November 30, 2018.
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on October 26, 2018.
________________________________ Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2017 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA, INC., on Behalf of its Clients and Constituents,

Plaintiff, vs.

Civil Action No. 14-23323-Civ-SCOLA Consolidated Action Case No. 14-24140-CivSCOLA

JULIE JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, in her Official Capacity; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an Agency of the State of Florida,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF COURT’S JURISDICTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE
In April 2015, this Court issued an Order administratively closing this case for

approximately two years to allow time for implementation of a Settlement Agreement that could

resolve the case. (Doc. 61). Per the Agreement and Order, the case was to be dismissed with

prejudice on May 31, 2017 unless the Plaintiff filed a timely Motion to Reopen the case alleging

breach of the agreement. (Id.). For the reasons stated below, the Parties respectfully request the

Court extend the date for dismissal or reopening this case by six months, until November 30, 2017.1

(1) This action for injunctive and declaratory relief was brought by Disability Rights

Florida (DRF), an organization empowered and charged by Federal law to protect the rights of

1 This request should not affect any case management deadlines or activities in the matter of Chapman, et al. v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, et al., which is currently consolidated with this case.

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2017 Page 2 of 6
mentally ill individuals in Florida, including persons with mental illness confined by the State of Florida at Dade Correctional Institution (Dade CI). (Doc. 46, ¶ 4). DRF is the Protection and Advocacy System (“P&A”) in Florida mandated under federal law to “ensure that rights of individuals with mental illness are protected.” 42 U.S.C. § 10801(b)(1).
(2) This case was originally stayed in November 2014 to allow the Parties an opportunity to settle the case. (Doc. 27).
(3) Through a series of mediations, the Parties reached a private Settlement Agreement (Agreement) intended to resolve and eventually dismiss this litigation. (Doc. 59-1). The Agreement provided for expert assessments and recommendations for improvements of the inpatient unit, development of a plan to implement those recommendations, a period for implementation of the plan and follow-up monitoring of the implementation. (Id.). The Agreement also contained time frames for carrying out the Agreement over a two-year period. (Id.).
(4) The Agreement was contingent on this Court entering an order administratively closing the case until May 31, 2017 to allow the parties to carry out the terms of the Agreement. (Id.). If all aspects of the Agreement were complied with, the Parties were to file a stipulated dismissal of the case at that time. (Id.).
(5) The Parties filed a joint motion for administrative closure of the case to allow time for the implementation of the Settlement Agreement. (Doc. 59).
(6) On April 15, 2015, this Court granted the motion and directed the clerk to administratively close the case. (Doc. 61). The Order states that the case will be dismissed with prejudice on May 31, 2017 unless the Plaintiff files a timely Motion to Reopen the case alleging breach of the agreement. (Id.).
2

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2017 Page 3 of 6
(7) Since the Court’s Order, the Parties have followed the timeline provided in the Agreement including: the Parties’ experts conducted multi-day visits at the Dade inpatient mental health unit to assess and identify any issues with the care and treatment being provided on the unit; the Parties’ experts drafted reports regarding their findings; and the Parties, with the assistance of a mediator, created a Plan of Compliance based on the experts’ findings and recommendations.
(8) The Defendants had an agreed upon implementation period during which to implement the Plan of Compliance. After that time, in accordance with the Agreement, the Parties’ experts again engaged in multiple multi-day visits to determine the level of compliance with the Plan of Compliance. Based on its expert’s conclusions, Plaintiff sent a Notice of NonCompliance as required by the Notice-and-Cure Provision of the Agreement.
(9) In response, the Defendants created a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). Per the Agreement, there was a CAP implementation period and follow-up monitoring of the CAP as required by the Notice-and-Cure Provision.
(10) After the CAP monitoring, Plaintiff sent a Notice of Intent to Re-Open the case as the result of concerns regarding compliance with the Plan of Compliance and CAP, in accordance with the requirements of the Agreement. Instead of reopening the case now, the Parties have agreed to request an additional six months to allow substantial compliance with the agreement in an effort to avoid litigation. In addition, Defendant Jones and the Department of Corrections have recently decided to change the vendor providing mental health services at Dade. The additional six months will allow for transition to a new vendor.
(11) The Parties submit that the relatively brief extension of time requested is justified by the strong possibility that it will avoid the prospect of reopening litigation.
3

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2017 Page 4 of 6
(12) The Settlement Agreement allows the Parties to change the terms of the Agreement in writing by mutual agreement. (Doc 59-1 at p. 14). The Parties have jointly agreed to extend the date by which Plaintiff is required to dismiss or re-open the case with the Court by six months with all other terms of the Agreement remaining unchanged.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW This Honorable Court has the authority to continue the administrative closure of this case. A federal court has the inherent authority to manage its docket. See In re Application of Alves Barga, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2011). Administrative closings provide a “familiar way” in which courts can remove cases from their active files without making any final adjudication. Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC, 166 F.3d 389, 392 (1st Cir. 1999). The method is used in various districts throughout the nation. Id. As the First Circuit has noted, “an administrative closing has no effect other than to remove a case from the court's active docket and permit the transfer of records associated with the case to an appropriate storage repository.” Id. Further, “designating a case ‘closed’ does not prevent the court from reactivating a case either of its own accord or at the request of the parties.” Florida Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Bush, 246 F.3d 1296, 1298 (11th Cir. 2001) (Citing Lehman with approval). The Parties respectfully submit that an additional six months of administrative closure and retention of jurisdiction will permit the Parties to allow for transition to the new vendor and compliance with the Agreement is in the interest of judicial convenience. The extension of the Agreement does not require the Court’s active involvement or enforcement of the terms. The Parties recognize that it is “highly unusual” for the Court to stay a matter for over two years while the parties pursue Settlement. (Doc. 61). However, the Court also noted that
4

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2017 Page 5 of 6
“this is not a usual case.” (Id.). The Parties respectfully submit that any burden or
inconvenience created by the brief extension of the deadline in the Agreement for dismissal or
reopening is more than outweighed by the possibility of avoiding extended litigation.
WHEREFORE, the Parties jointly request this Court extend its jurisdiction over this case
to allow an extension of the deadline for dismissal or reopening of six months, until November
30, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Peter P. Sleasman
Counsel for Plaintiff Peter P. Sleasman, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 367931
Kristen Cooley Lentz, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 649635
Disability Rights Florida 2473 Care Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 850-488-9071 (telephone) 850-488-8640 (facsimile) PeterS@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org KristenL@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org
PAMELA JO BONDI ATTORNEY GENERAL /s/ J. Lee Marsh JAMES LEE MARSH Chief Assistant Attorney General Florida Bar No.: 854611 / A5502261 Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Suite PL-01 Tallahassee Florida 32399-1050 Telephone: (850) 414-3300 Facsimile: (850) 488-4872 Lee.Marsh@myfloridalegal.com Attorney for Defendants Julie L. Jones, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Corrections
5

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2017 Page 6 of 6
/s/ Devang Desai Devang Desai, Esq. Florida Bar No. 664421 Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli & DiMatteo 420 South Dixie Highway, 3rd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33146 ddesai@gaebemullen.com Attorney for Defendant, Wexford CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this pleading was served upon the Defendants via CM/ECF on May 19, 2017. /s/ Peter P. Sleasman Attorney for Plaintiff
6

 
 Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2017 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA, INC., on Behalf of its Clients and Constituents,

Plaintiff, vs.

Civil Action No. 14-23323-Civ-SCOLA Consolidated Action Case No. 14-24140-CivSCOLA

JULIE JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, in her Official Capacity; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an Agency of the State of Florida,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS AND RETAIN JURISDICTION FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES In April 2015, this Court issued an Order administratively closing this case for approximately two years to allow time for implementation of a Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) that could resolve the case. (Doc. 61). Per the Agreement and Order, the case was to be dismissed with prejudice on May 31, 2017 unless the Plaintiff filed a timely Motion to Reopen the case alleging breach of the agreement. (Id.). The Parties requested, and the Court granted, an extension of the administrative closure through November 30, 2017. (Doc. 191, 196). The Parties now notify the Court that the Plaintiff will not file a Motion to Reopen the case due to breach. Additionally, the Parties request the Court dismiss the case with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and, in the Order of Dismissal, specifically retain jurisdiction

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2017 Page 2 of 6
over the case for the limited purpose of determining reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in the event the Parties are unable to resolve the issue through negotiation or mediation.1
(1) This action for injunctive and declaratory relief was brought by Disability Rights Florida (DRF), an organization empowered and charged by Federal law to protect the rights of mentally ill individuals in Florida, including persons with mental illness confined by the State of Florida at Dade Correctional Institution (Dade CI). (Doc. 46, ¶ 4). DRF is the Protection and Advocacy System (“P&A”) in Florida mandated under federal law to “ensure that rights of individuals with mental illness are protected.” 42 U.S.C. § 10801(b)(1).
(2) This case was originally stayed in November 2014 to allow the Parties an opportunity to settle the case. (Doc. 27).
(3) Through a series of mediations, the Parties reached a private Agreement intended to resolve and eventually dismiss this litigation. (Doc. 59-1). The Agreement provided for expert assessments and recommendations for improvements of the inpatient unit, development of a plan to implement those recommendations, a period for implementation of the plan and follow-up monitoring of the implementation. (Id.). The Agreement also contained time frames for carrying out the Agreement over a two-year period. (Id.).
(4) Additionally, the Defendants agreed to pay the Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs after the case is dismissed with prejudice. (Id.). The Parties agreed to negotiate fees and costs and if reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs cannot be agreed upon within 60 days after the dismissal, the Parties will engage in mediation. (Id.). If the fees and costs are not resolved through mediation within 60 days, then the Plaintiff may pursue judicial relief to resolve fees and
1 This request should not affect any case management deadlines or activities in the matter of Chapman, et al. v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, et al., which is currently consolidated with this case.
2

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2017 Page 3 of 6
costs. (Id.). The Parties specifically agreed that the District Court may retain continuing jurisdiction after dismissal of the case for the limited purpose of determining reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if the Parties fail to reach agreement through negotiation or mediation. (Id.).
(5) The Agreement was contingent on this Court entering an order administratively closing the case until May 31, 2017 to allow the parties to carry out the terms of the Agreement. (Id.). Absent the presence of a pending motion for material breach of the Agreement, the case was to be dismissed with prejudice at that time. (Id.).
(6) The Parties filed a joint motion for administrative closure of the case to allow time for the implementation of the Agreement. (Doc. 59).
(7) On April 15, 2015, this Court granted the motion and directed the clerk to administratively close the case. (Doc. 61). The Order states that the case will be dismissed with prejudice on May 31, 2017 unless the Plaintiff files a timely Motion to Reopen the case alleging breach of the Agreement. (Id.).
(8) On May 19, 2017, the Parties jointly moved the Court for a six-month extension of the Court’s jurisdiction and the administrative closure. (Doc. 191). The Court granted the Parties’ request and extended the administrative closure through November 30, 2017. (Doc. 196).
(9) The Plaintiff will not be filing a Motion to Reopen the case for breach of the Agreement.
(10) Additionally, the Parties have started negotiations to resolve Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Parties are attempting to resolve the matter as quickly as possible per Section IV (13) of the Agreement. The only issue to be resolved among the Parties is the reasonable amount of the fees and expenses.
3

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2017 Page 4 of 6
(11) The Parties request the Court enter an order dismissing the case with prejudice but retaining jurisdiction for the limited purpose of determining reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in the event the Parties fail to reach agreement through negotiation or mediation. At the end of the 120-day negotiation/mediation period specified in the Agreement, the Parties will notify the Court regarding the status of the matter of attorneys’ fees and expenses. If the parties require the Court to resolve the matter, Plaintiff will request permission to file a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) allows for voluntary dismissal of a case at a plaintiff’s request by court order on terms the court considers proper. Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this section is without prejudice. In the instant case, after nearly three years of negotiations, agreement on settlement, implementation of settlement and monitoring of settlement, the Plaintiff is requesting a dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The Plaintiff will not be seeking to reopen the case for breach of the Agreement. Per the terms of the Agreement, this allows the Court to dismiss the case with prejudice. Additionally, the Parties jointly request that the order of dismissal with prejudice specifically retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of determining Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in the event the Parties are unable to resolve the matter through negotiations or mediation. When the dismissal is pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), which specifies that the action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request by court order on the terms that the court considers proper, the court's “retention of jurisdiction” over the settlement contract may, in the court's discretion, be one of the terms set forth in the order. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994). The Eleventh Circuit also held that a court has
4

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2017 Page 5 of 6
jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement following the dismissal of a case if the
court issued an order retaining jurisdiction prior to the case being dismissed. Otegui v. City
Works Constr. LLC, 2017 WL 945638 at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2017) (citing Anago Franchising,
Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2012)). In the instant case, the Parties are
requesting an order of dismissal that expressly retains jurisdiction for the limited purpose of
determining reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses as contemplated by the Parties’ Agreement.
(Doc. 59-1 at 13).
WHEREFORE, the Parties request the Court dismiss the case with prejudice and
expressly retain jurisdiction after dismissal for the sole purpose of determining reasonable
attorneys’ fees and expenses if the Parties fail to reach agreement through negotiation or
mediation.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Peter P. Sleasman
Counsel for Plaintiff Peter P. Sleasman, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 367931
Kristen Cooley Lentz, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 649635
Disability Rights Florida 2473 Care Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 850-488-9071 (telephone) 850-488-8640 (facsimile) PeterS@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org KristenL@DisabilityRightsFlorida.org
PAMELA JO BONDI ATTORNEY GENERAL /s/ J. Lee Marsh JAMES LEE MARSH
5

Case 1:14-cv-23323-RNS Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2017 Page 6 of 6
Chief Assistant Attorney General Florida Bar No.: 854611 / A5502261 Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Suite PL-01 Tallahassee Florida 32399-1050 Telephone: (850) 414-3300 Facsimile: (850) 488-4872 Lee.Marsh@myfloridalegal.com Attorney for Defendants Julie L. Jones, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Corrections /s/ Devang Desai Devang Desai, Esq. Florida Bar No. 664421 Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli & DiMatteo 420 South Dixie Highway, 3rd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33146 ddesai@gaebemullen.com Attorney for Defendant, Wexford
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this pleading was served upon the Defendants via CM/ECF on November 8, 2017.
/s/ Peter P. Sleasman Attorney for Plaintiff
6

 
 Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 1 of 32
AOR,CLOSED,MEDIATION,REF_DISCOV
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−23323−RNS

Disability Rights Florida v. Crews et al Assigned to: Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes Case in other court: USCA, 18−12213−C Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/09/2014 Date Terminated: 01/17/2018 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Disability Rights Florida, Inc. on Behalf of its Clients and Constituents

represented by David Allen Boyer Disability Rights Florida 1930 Harrison St. Suite 104 Hollywood, FL 33020 (850) 488−9071 Fax: (850) 488−8640 Email: davidb@disabilityrightsflorida.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E. Schulz , Jr. Holland & Knight LLP 50 North Laura Street Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 904−353−2000 Fax: 904−358−1872 Email: buddy.schulz@hklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen Cooley Lentz Disability Rights Florida 4723−B NW 53rd Avenue Gainesville, FL 32563 850−488−9071 Fax: 850−488−8640 Email: kristenl@disabilityrightsflorida.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly Jean Paris 2335 East Atlantic Blvd. Suite 410 Pompano Beach, FL 33062 9545669040 Fax: 9545680803 Email: molly@fla−lap.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Prescott Sleasman Disability Rights Florida 4723−B NW 53rd Avenue Gainesville, FL 32653 850−488−9071 Fax: 850−488−8640 Email: peters@disabilityrightsflorida.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 2 of 32

V.
Consol Plaintiff
Andre Chapman as Pesonal Representative of the Estate of Darren Rainey, on behalf of the Estate, and on behalf of Darren Rainey's Surviving Relatives, Andre Chapman, Renee Chapman, Deborah Johnson, Chnieaqua Breelove and Harold Marr

represented by Annette Newman Law Office of Annette Newman, LLC 1 Ocean Blvd. Stuart, FL 34994 United Sta (772) 291−2528 Email: equalemploymentattorney@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Sweetser Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP 11543 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 396−0731 Email: csweetser@sshhlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Allen Boyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/23/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Iverson Matthew Jackson Law Offices of Milton C. Grimes, APC 3774 W. 54th Street Los Angeles, CA 90043 323−295−3023 Fax: 323−295−3708 Email: mattj57@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristen Cooley Lentz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/23/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Milton C. Grimes Law Offices of Milton C. Grimes, APC 3774 W. 54th Street Los Angeles, CA 90043 323−295−3023 Fax: 323−295−3708 Email: miltgrim@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Jean Paris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/23/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 3 of 32
Paul L. Hoffman Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP 11543 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 310−396−0731 Email: hoffpaul@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Prescott Sleasman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vicki I. Sarmiento Law Offices of Vicki I. Sarmiento 333 N. Garfield Avenue Alhambra, CA 91801 (626) 308−1171 Email: vsarmiento@vis−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Richardson Sutton Sutton Law Group, PA 7721 SW 62nd Avenue Suite 101 Miami, FL 33143−4908 305−667−4481 Fax: 305−666−2118 Email: jrsuttonlaw@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda Bellomio Commons Linda Bellomio Commons, P.A. 5629 Glencrest Blvd. Tampa, FL 33625 352−610−4416 Fax: 813−265−3010 Email: lcommons@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Richard Price , Jr. Law Offices of Max R. Price, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive Suite 104 Miami, FL 33143 305−662−2272 Fax: 305−667−3975 Email: mprice@pricelegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor Plaintiff
Per Representative Joyce A Anderson Wintter & Associates, P.A. 14 Rose Drive Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 954−920−7014

represented by Christopher Quinn Wintter Wintter & Associates 17 Rose Drive Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 954−920−7014 Fax: 954−920−7080 Email: cqw@wintterlaw.com

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 4 of 32
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Gabriel Soren Wintter & Associates, PA 14 Rose Drive Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 954−920−7014 Email: mgs@wintterlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Michael D. Crews Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, in his Official Capacity
Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
Defendant Florida Department of Corrections an Agency of the State of Florida

represented by Susan A. Maher Tallahassee, FL 32317 Email: bogart.sam@att.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kuhlman Tietig Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida Corrections Litigation Bureau PL−01, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3300 Fax: 488−4872 Email: Lisa.Tietig@myfloridalegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Devang B. Desai Gaebe Mullen Antonelli & Dimatteo 420 S Dixie Highway 3rd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33146 305−667−0223 Fax: 305−284−9844 Email: ddesai@gaebemullen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lance Eric Neff Office of Attorney General PL−01 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 8504143633 Email: lance.neff@myfloridalegal.com TERMINATED: 10/06/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica Galindo Stinson Office of Attorney General The Capitol, PL−01 Tallahassee, FL 32399 850−414−3300 Fax: 850−488−4872 Email: Monica.Stinson@myfloridalegal.com

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 5 of 32

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

J. Lee Marsh Office of the Attorney General PL−01 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 850−414−3643 Email: marshj@leoncountyfl.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kuhlman Tietig (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Julie L. Jones

represented by Lisa Kuhlman Tietig (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

J. Lee Marsh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance Eric Neff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jerry Cummings

represented by Sheridan K. Weissenborn Dutton Law Group 9700 South Dixie Highway, Ste. 940 Miami, FL 33156 786 871 7971 Fax: 786 542 6655 Email: sweisseborn@duttonlawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

represented by Andrew T. Sheeran Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, MS #3 Tallahassee, FL 32308 850−412−3630 Fax: 850−921−0158 Email: Andrew.Sheeran@ahca.myflorida.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 6 of 32

V. Consol Defendant Florida Department of Corrections Consol Defendant Corizon LLC an out−of−state limited liability corporation doing business and registered in Florida
Consol Defendant Roland Clarke
Consol Defendant Cornelius Thompson
Date Filed # Docket Text

represented by Lisa Kuhlman Tietig (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregg Alan Toomey The Toomey Law Firm LLC 1625 Hendry Street Suite 203 203 Fort Myers, FL 33901 United Sta 239−337−1630 Fax: 239−337−0307 Email: gat@thetoomeylawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lourdes Espino Wydler Marrero & Wydler Douglas Centre 2600 Douglas Road Suite PH−4 Coral Gables, FL 33134 305−446−5528 Fax: 446−0995 Email: lew@marrerolegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Oscar Edmund Marrero Marrero & Wydler Couglas Centre 2600 Douglas Road Suite PH−4 Coral Gables, FL 33134 305−446−5528 Fax: 446−0995 Email: oem@marrerolegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lourdes Espino Wydler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Oscar Edmund Marrero (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 7 of 32

09/09/2014
09/09/2014 09/09/2014 09/09/2014 09/10/2014 09/15/2014
09/15/2014
09/15/2014
09/29/2014
09/30/2014 09/30/2014 10/01/2014 10/01/2014 10/02/2014
10/03/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014

1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against Michael D. Crews, Florida Department of Corrections, Wexford Health Sources, Inc.. Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number 113C−7056164, filed by Disability Rights Florida. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summon(s) Secretary Crews, # 3 Summon(s) Wexford Health Sources, Inc., # 4 Summon(s) Florida Department of Corrections)(Sleasman, Peter) Modified text on 9/9/2014 (yar). (Entered: 09/09/2014)
2 Judge Assignment to Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga (yar) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
3 Summons Issued as to Michael D. Crews, Florida Department of Corrections, Wexford Health Sources, Inc.. (yar) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Disability Rights Florida, Inc. (Boyer, David) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
5 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga recused. Case reassigned to Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 9/10/2014. (tpe) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
6 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens, with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline by Disability Rights Florida, Inc.. Michael D. Crews served on 9/10/2014, answer due 10/1/2014. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
7 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens, with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline by Disability Rights Florida, Inc.. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. served on 9/10/2014, answer due 10/1/2014. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
8 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens, with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline by Disability Rights Florida, Inc.. Florida Department of Corrections served on 9/10/2014, answer due 10/1/2014. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
9 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens, by Wexford Health Sources, Inc.. Attorney Devang B. Desai added to party Wexford Health Sources, Inc.(pty:dft). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Desai, Devang) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
10 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 9 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Response. The time to respond is extended to October 24, 2014. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 9/30/2014. (lls) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
Reset Answer Due Deadline: Wexford Health Sources, Inc. response due 10/24/2014. (ls) (per DE #10) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
11 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Susan A. Maher on behalf of Florida Department of Corrections. Attorney Susan A. Maher added to party Florida Department of Corrections(pty:dft). (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
12 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer RE: Complaints re 1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens, by Florida Department of Corrections. (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
13 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 12 Defendant Florida Department of Corrections's Unopposed Motion for Extension to Respond. The time to respond is extended to November 7, 2014. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 10/2/2014. (lls) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
14 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Susan A. Maher on behalf of Michael D. Crews. Attorney Susan A. Maher added to party Michael D. Crews(pty:dft). (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
15 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer RE: Complaints re 1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens, by Michael D. Crews. (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
16 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 15 Defendant Michael Crews's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint. The time to respond is extended to

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 8 of 32

10/21/2014 10/21/2014
10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/22/2014 10/22/2014 11/05/2014 11/06/2014 11/14/2014 11/14/2014 11/17/2014 12/01/2014 12/10/2014 12/12/2014 12/15/2014
12/18/2014

November 7, 2014. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 10/3/2014. (lls) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
17 NOTICE by Florida Department of Corrections, Michael D. Crews of Mediation (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
18 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Lisa Kuhlman Tietig on behalf of Michael D. Crews, Florida Department of Corrections. Attorney Lisa Kuhlman Tietig added to party Michael D. Crews(pty:dft), Attorney Lisa Kuhlman Tietig added to party Florida Department of Corrections(pty:dft). (Tietig, Lisa) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
19 Notice of Mediation Hearing Thomas H. Bateman added as Mediator. Mediation Hearing set for 11/4/2014 10:00 AM (See image at DE 17 ).(yar) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
20 Clerks Notice to Filer re 17 Notice (Other). Wrong Event Selected; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. The document was re−docketed by the Clerk, see DE 19 . It is not necessary to refile this document. (yar) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
21 ORDER REQUIRING DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND ORDER REFERRING DISCOVERY MATTERS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 10/22/2014. (yar) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
22 ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 10/22/2014. (yar) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
23 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens, Unopposed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Desai, Devang) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
24 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 23 Defendant Wexford's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond. The time to respond is extended to November 7, 2014. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 10/22/2014. (lls) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
25 MEDIATION REPORT by Thomas Bateman. Disposition: Adjourned.(Maher, Susan) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
26 Joint MOTION to Stay Case Until January 31, 2015 While Settlement Negotiations Are Pending [By All Parties] by Michael D. Crews, Florida Department of Corrections. Responses due by 11/24/2014 (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
27 ORDER granting 26 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 11/13/2014. (yar) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
28 ORDER CONSOLIDATING RELATED CASES Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 11/13/2014. Associated Cases: 1:14−cv−23323−RNS, 1:14−cv−24140−RNS (yar) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
29 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens, with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline by Andre Chapman. Corizon LLC served on 11/7/2014, answer due 11/28/2014. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
30 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens, by Corizon LLC. Attorney Gregg Alan Toomey added to party Corizon LLC(pty:condft). Responses due by 12/18/2014 (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
31 RESPONSE to Motion re 30 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens, filed by Andre Chapman. Replies due by 12/22/2014. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
32 Defendant's MOTION to Sever by Corizon LLC. Responses due by 12/29/2014 (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
33 Notice of Contiuned Mediation Hearing before Mediator, Thomas Bateman filed by Michael D. Crews, Florida Department of Corrections. Mediation Hearing set for 1/6/2015 10:00 AM (Maher, Susan) Modified text on 12/17/2014 (yar). (Entered: 12/15/2014)
34 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND against Roland Clarke, Corizon LLC, Florida Department of Corrections, Cornelius Thompson, filed by Andre

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 9 of 32

12/18/2014
12/19/2014 12/19/2014
12/23/2014 12/30/2014 12/31/2014 01/05/2015
01/05/2015 01/06/2015 01/16/2015 01/16/2015 01/16/2015
01/23/2015
01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/26/2015

Chapman.(Sleasman, Peter) Modified text on 12/22/2014 (yar). (Entered: 12/18/2014)
35 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court denies as moot 30 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff has filed an amended pleading which moots the Defendant's motion to dismiss the prior pleading. See Taylor v. Alabama, 275 F. App'x 836, 838 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting that when the plaintiffs amended their complaint the defendants' motion to dismiss became moot). Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 12/18/2014. (lls) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
36 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens, with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline by Andre Chapman. Roland Clarke served on 12/8/2014, answer due 12/29/2014. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
37 AMENDED ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION before Thomas Bateman III. Mediation Hearing set for 1/6/2015 as to Disablity Rights and the Florida Department of Corrections, and 1/30/2015 as to Disability Rights, the Florida Department of Corrections, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 12/19/2014. (yar) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
38 RESPONSE in Opposition re 32 Defendant's MOTION to Sever filed by Andre Chapman. Replies due by 1/2/2015. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
39 REPLY to Response to Motion re 32 Defendant's MOTION to Sever filed by Corizon LLC. (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
40 Unopposed MOTION for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint re 34 Amended Complaint by Corizon LLC. Responses due by 1/20/2015 (Toomey, Gregg) Modified text on 1/5/2015 (yar). (Entered: 12/31/2014)
41 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 40 Defendant Corizon LLC's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond/Answer the Complaint. The time to answer the Complaint is extended to January 6, 2015. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 1/5/2015. (lls) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
Set Answer Due Deadline per 41 Order: Corizon LLC response due 1/6/2015. (asl) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
42 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Corizon LLC. (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
43 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Lourdes Espino Wydler on behalf of Roland Clarke. Attorney Lourdes Espino Wydler added to party Roland Clarke(pty:condft). (Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
44 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Oscar Edmund Marrero on behalf of Roland Clarke. Attorney Oscar Edmund Marrero added to party Roland Clarke(pty:condft). (Marrero, Oscar) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
45 Unopposed MOTION for clarification on Stay, Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ( Responses due by 2/2/2015) by Roland Clarke. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
46 AMENDED COMPLAINT For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Michael D. Crews, Florida Department of Corrections, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., filed by Disability Rights Florida, Inc..(Boyer, David) Modified text on 1/23/2015 (yar). (Entered: 01/23/2015)
47 NOTICE by Disability Rights Florida, Inc. re 46 Amended Complaint (Boyer, David) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
48 Clerks Notice to Filer re 46 Amended Complaint. Parties Not Added; ERROR − The Filer failed to add all parties. Filer is instructed to file a Notice of Entry of Parties and add the additional parties. (yar) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
49 Notice of Entry of Parties Listed NOTE: New Filer(s) will appear twice, since they are also a new party in the case. New Filer(s)/Party(s): Julie L. Jones. (Boyer, David) (Entered: 01/26/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 10 of 32

01/26/2015
01/26/2015 01/30/2015 02/03/2015
02/05/2015 02/06/2015 02/06/2015

50 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION; 45 Motion for Clarification; granting 45 Motion for Extension of Time. The Court grants Clarkes request Clarke must file a response to the Amended Complaint by Thursday February 5,2015. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 01/26/2015. (yar) Modified text on 1/26/2015 (yar). (Entered: 01/26/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings Responses due by 2/5/2015 per Order DE 50 . (yar) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
51 Joint MOTION to [Continue Stay] Until February 27, 2015 While Settlement Negotiations Are Pending by Florida Department of Corrections, Julie L. Jones. Attorney Susan A. Maher added to party Julie L. Jones(pty:dft). Responses due by 2/17/2015 (Maher, Susan) Modified text on 2/2/2015 (yar). (Entered: 01/30/2015)
52 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE STAY; 51 Motion to Stay. The Parties have demonstrated that a stay is appropriate at this stage inthe case. Settlement negotiations remain ongoing and the parties agree that if a resolution is not achieved at the next mediation, the Defendants will answerthe complaint no later than March 13, 2015. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 02/02/2015. (yar) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
53 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Roland Clarke. (Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
54 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court directs the Clerk to administratively close this case during the pendency of the stay. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 2/6/2015. (lls) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
Civil Case Terminated. Closing Case. (ls) (per DE #54)

02/27/2015 03/04/2015 03/27/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 04/14/2015 06/15/2015 06/19/2015 06/22/2015

NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014−69. (Entered: 02/09/2015)
55 Joint MOTION to Continue Stay Stay to March 16, 2015 While Settlement Negotiations Are Pending by Florida Department of Corrections, Julie L. Jones. Responses due by 3/16/2015 (Maher, Susan) Modified text on 3/2/2015 (yar). (Entered: 02/27/2015)
56 SECOND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE STAY; 55 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 03/04/2015. (yar) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
57 NOTICE by Florida Department of Corrections, Julie L. Jones [Joint] Regarding Status of Settlement Negotiations (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
58 Time Sensitive Joint MOTION Requesting Entry of Stipulated Protective Order (Time Sensitive) by Disability Rights Florida, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boyer, David) Modified text on 4/13/2015 (yar). (Entered: 04/10/2015)
59 Joint MOTION Administrative Closure of Case by Disability Rights Florida, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Private Settlement Agreement)(Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
60 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 58 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 04/10/2015. (yar) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
61 ORDER granting 59 Joint Motion For Administrative Closure of Case. Motions due by 1/31/2016. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 04/13/2015. (yar) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
62 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Annette Newman on behalf of Andre Chapman. Attorney Annette Newman added to party Andre Chapman (pty:conpla). (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
63 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Peter P. Sleasman, Kristen C. Lentz, David Boyer & Molly Paris. by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 7/9/2015 (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
65 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Milton C. Grimes and Iverson Matthew Jackson.

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 11 of 32

06/23/2015 06/23/2015 06/23/2015 12/14/2015 02/01/2016 02/02/2016
02/17/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016
02/29/2016 03/21/2016
03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/31/2016 03/31/2016
04/01/2016 04/04/2016

Filing Fee $ 150.00. Receipt # 6838. (ksa) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
64 NOTICE by Andre Chapman of Charging Lien (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
66 ORDER granting 65 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 06/24/2015. (yar) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
67 ORDER granting 63 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Molly Jean Paris; Peter Prescott Sleasman; David Allen Boyer and Kristen Cooley Lentz terminated. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 06/24/2015. (yar) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
68 NOTICE of Change of Address by Peter Prescott Sleasman (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
69 MOTION to Reopen Case and Memorandum of Law by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Court Order)(Newman, Annette). Added MOTION for Hearing on 2/2/2016 (asl). (Entered: 02/01/2016)
70 Clerks Notice to Filer re 69 MOTION to Reopen Case . Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; ERROR − The Filer selected only one relief event and failed to select the additional corresponding events for each relief requested in the motion. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual. (asl) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
71 RESPONSE in Opposition re 69 MOTION to Reopen Case MOTION for Hearing filed by Roland Clarke. Replies due by 2/29/2016. (Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
72 NOTICE by Corizon LLC re 71 Response in Opposition to Motion of Joinder (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
73 RESPONSE in Opposition re 69 MOTION to Reopen Case MOTION for Hearing filed by Florida Department of Corrections. Attorney Lisa Kuhlman Tietig added to party Florida Department of Corrections(pty:condft). Replies due by 2/29/2016. (Tietig, Lisa) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
74 REPLY in Support re 69 MOTION to Reopen Case MOTION for Hearing filed by Andre Chapman. (Newman, Annette) Modified title text on 2/29/2016 (asl). (Entered: 02/29/2016)
75 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion to Reopen Case. The Clerk is directed to reopen this case with respect to the 14−cv−24140 parties and any stay is hereby lifted. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 3/21/2016. (pes) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
Case Reopened, Stay Lifted, Florida Department of Corrections response to Complaint due 4/4/2016; Per Order DE 75 . (pes) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
76 Amended Order Requiring Discovery And Scheduling Conference ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes for Discovery Matters. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 3/21/2016. (pes) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
77 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Summons(es) against Cornelius Thompson by Andre Chapman (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
78 NOTICE by Andre Chapman re 75 Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion for Hearing Plaintiff's Notice of Showing Good Cause and/or in the Alternative, Excusable Neglect (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Matthew Jackson, # 2 Exhibit Letter from Matthew Jackson to Defendants dated September 3, 2015) (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
79 Summons Issued as to Cornelius Thompson. (asl) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
80 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Plaintiff has requested thirty days to perfect service on Defendant Cornelius Thompson. The Court finds the Plaintiff has established good cause for the extension. The Plaintiff must serve Defendant Cornelius Thompson on or before May 2, 2016. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 4/4/2016. (kbe) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 12 of 32

04/04/2016 04/06/2016
04/07/2016 04/12/2016 04/20/2016 04/20/2016 04/21/2016
04/27/2016
05/02/2016 05/04/2016
05/06/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016
05/09/2016
05/09/2016

81 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 34 Amended Complaint by Florida Department of Corrections. (Tietig, Lisa) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
82 PAPERLESS ORDER: Based on the Defendant Florida Department of Corrections' showing of good case, the Court grants 81 the Defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to the complaint. The Defendant's response to the complaint is due on or before April 11, 2016. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 4/6/2016. (kbe) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
Set/Reset Answer Due Deadline: Florida Department of Corrections response due 4/11/2016. SEE DE 82 ORDER (ail) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
83 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Florida Department of Corrections. (Tietig, Lisa) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
84 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Miami−Dade County Medical Examiner's Office to Comply with a Subpoena by Roland Clarke. Responses due by 5/9/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
85 MOTION to Amend/Correct 34 Amended Complaint by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 5/9/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Complaint)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
86 PAPERLESS ORDER Setting Hearing on 84 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Miami−Dade County Medical Examiner's Office to Comply with a Subpoena for 5/10/2016 at 2:00 PM in Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 4/21/2016. (eno) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
87 RESPONSE in Opposition re 84 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Miami−Dade County Medical Examiner's Office to Comply with a Subpoena filed by Miami−Dade County. Attorney Daija Page Lifshitz added to party Miami−Dade County(pty:ip). Replies due by 5/9/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Declaration of Kathleen Hoague)(Lifshitz, Daija) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
88 MOTION for Extension of Time to Effectuate Service on Defendant Cornelius Thompson re 80 Endorsed Order, by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 5/19/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Affidavit of Non Service − 11th Hour, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − Affidavit of Non Service − James Barnes)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
89 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 88 Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to serve Defendant Cornelius Thompson. It appears that the Plaintiff has been diligently attempting to effect service on Thompson but that service has proved difficult. The Plaintiff's new deadline to serve Thompson is July 31, 2016. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 5/4/2016. (kbe) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
90 SCHEDULING REPORT − Rule 26(f) by Roland Clarke (Marrero, Oscar) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
91 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically at 5/10/16 2:00p.m. Hearing . Attorney/Representative: Gregg A. Toomey by Corizon LLC. Responses due by 5/26/2016 (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
92 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically at 5/10/16 Hearing . Attorney/Representative: Lisa Kuhlman Tietig by Florida Department of Corrections, Florida Department of Corrections, Julie L. Jones. Attorney Lisa Kuhlman Tietig added to party Julie L. Jones(pty:dft). Responses due by 5/26/2016 (Tietig, Lisa) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
93 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 91 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically at 5/10/16 2:00p.m. Hearing. Counsel for Corizon, LLC shall call the conference number 1−888−684−8852 at the appointed time, then enter access code 4791317 and security code 0510. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 5/9/2016. (eno) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
94 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 92 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically at 5/10/16 Hearing. Attorney Lisa Kuhlman Tietig shall call the conference number

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 13 of 32

05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/10/2016 05/10/2016 05/10/2016
05/10/2016 05/11/2016 05/16/2016 05/16/2016
05/16/2016 05/16/2016

1−888−684−8852 at the appointed time, then enter access code 4791317 and security code 0510. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 5/9/2016. (eno) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
95 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically at 5/10/16 Hearing . Attorney/Representative: Milton C. Grimes by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 5/26/2016 (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
96 REPLY to Response to Motion re 84 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Miami−Dade County Medical Examiner's Office to Comply with a Subpoena filed by Roland Clarke. (Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
97 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 95 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically at 5/10/16 Hearing. Counsel for Plaintiff shall call the conference number 1−888−684−8852 at the appointed time, then enter access code 4791317 and security code 0510. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 5/10/2016. (eno) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
98 NOTICE by Corizon LLC re 84 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Miami−Dade County Medical Examiner's Office to Comply with a Subpoena of Joinder (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
99 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes: Motion Hearing held on 5/10/2016 (2:00 P.M. − 2:30 P.M.) re 84 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Miami−Dade County Medical Examiner's Office to Comply with a Subpoena filed by Roland Clarke. APPEARANCES: FOR THE CONSOL PLAINTIFF − ANNETTE NEWMAN, ESQ. AND MATTHEW JACKSON, ESQ.; FOR DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS − LISA KUHLMAN, ESQ.; FOR DEFENDANT WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. − BRIAN KELLEY; FOR CORIZON, LLC − GREGG TOOMEY, ESQ.; FOR CONSOL DEFENDANT ROLAND CLARKE − OSCAR MARRERO, ESQ.; FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE − DAIJA PAGE LIFSHITZ, ESQ. AND BERNARD PASTOR, ESQ. Order to follow. (Digital 14:03:23.) (sl) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
100 ORDER granting in part 84 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Miami−Dade County Medical Examiner's Office to Comply with a Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 5/10/2016. (eno) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
101 NOTICE by Andre Chapman re 85 MOTION to Amend/Correct 34 Amended Complaint NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF, ANDRE CHAPMAN, OF SCRIVENERS ERROR ON PAGE 1 OF HIS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Corrected Page 1 of Second Amended Complaint) (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
102 ORDER granting 85 Motion to Amend/Correct. Clerks Notice: Filer must separately re−file the amended pleading pursuant to Local Rule 15.1, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge. Amended Pleadings due by 5/19/2016. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 5/16/2016. (pes) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
103 SCHEDULING ORDER: (Trial set for 6/12/2017 in Miami Division before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.., Calendar Call set for 6/6/2017 at 9:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.., Amended Pleadings due by 6/13/2016., Expert Discovery due by 4/3/2017., Fact Discovery due by 2/13/2017., Joinder of Parties due by 6/13/2016., In Limine Motions due by 4/11/2017., Dispositive Motions due by 2/21/2017., Pretrial Motions due by 4/11/2017., Joint Pretrial Stipulation due by 5/15/2017., Joint Interim Status Report due by 8/15/2016.), ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation. Mediation Deadline 3/6/2017. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 5/16/2016. (pes) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
104 MOTION to Amend/Correct 102 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 6/3/2016 (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
105 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT and Jury Demand against Roland Clarke, Corizon LLC, Florida Department of Corrections, Cornelius Thompson filed in Response to DE 102 Order Granting Motion for Leave, filed by Andre Chapman. (See DE 104 for image).(ar2) (Entered: 05/17/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 14 of 32

05/17/2016
05/17/2016
05/17/2016 05/20/2016 05/23/2016 05/24/2016 05/25/2016 06/03/2016 06/06/2016 06/07/2016
06/08/2016 06/17/2016
06/17/2016 06/22/2016 06/24/2016

106 Clerk's Notice to Filer Re: 104 Motion to Amend/Correct 102 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand. Wrong Event Selected − Document is not a Motion; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ar2) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
107 Clerk's Notice to Filer Re: [DE 105] Second Amended Complaint. Parties Not Added. The Filer failed to add all parties associated with the case. Filer is instructed to add the additional parties by filing a Notice of Entry of Parties. It is not necessary to re−file this document. (ar2) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
108 NOTICE by Andre Chapman re 107 Clerks Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case, Notice of Entry of Parties (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
109 NOTICE by Miami−Dade County re 100 Order on Motion to Compel Notice of filing proposed confidentiality order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed confidentiality order) (Lifshitz, Daija) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
110 CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 5/23/2016. (eno) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
111 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Summons(es) for Defendant, Jerry Cummings by Andre Chapman re 108 Notice (Other) filed by Andre Chapman (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
112 Summons Issued as to Jerry Cummings. (ar2) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
113 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Roland Clarke. (Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
114 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 105 Amended Complaint by Florida Department of Corrections. (Tietig, Lisa) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
115 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 114 Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the second amended complaint. The Defendant's response to the second amended complaint is due on or before June 22, 2016. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 6/7/2016. (kbe) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
116 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Corizon LLC. (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
117 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 105 Amended Complaint with a 14 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 by Andre Chapman. Jerry Cummings served on 6/14/2016, answer due 6/28/2016., CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Andre Chapman (Attachments: # 1 Return of Service − Jerry Cummings)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
118 Plaintiff's MOTION for Service by Publication by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Diligent Search & Inquiry, # 2 Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion For Service By Publication)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
119 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 105 Amended Complaint by Florida Department of Corrections. (Tietig, Lisa) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
120 PAPERLESS ORDER: granting 119 Defendant Florida Department of Corrections' second motion for extension of time to file a response. The Department's response to the complaint is due on or before June 27, 2016. Although the Court is granting the relief requested, it also directs the Department's counsel's attention to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)'s requirement that counsel "make a reasonable effort to confer" and make a "good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues to be raised in the motion." Defense counsel notes only that she "has been unable to confer with counsel for Plaintiffs." This is insufficient. "Local Rule 7.1 serves the purpose not only of attempting to avoid unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources resolving motions that are not opposed, but also to allow the Court to ascertain whether it should wait for a response from the opposing party before deciding the motion." Royal Bahamian Ass'n, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 744 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 1302 n.7 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Goodman, J.). Motions in this

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 15 of 32

06/27/2016 06/28/2016
06/28/2016 07/01/2016 07/05/2016 07/15/2016 07/18/2016 07/18/2016 07/18/2016 07/19/2016 07/19/2016
07/22/2016
07/26/2016 08/05/2016 08/08/2016

District are commonly denied for failure to follow this and other Local rules. Defense counsel shall review Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), and is admonished to take seriously the pre−filing conferral requirement in future matters before this Court. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 6/24/2016. (kbe) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
121 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 105 Amended Complaint Third by Florida Department of Corrections. (Tietig, Lisa) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
122 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 121 Defendant Florida Department of Corrections' unopposed motion for a third extension of time to respond to the complaint. The Defendant's response to the complaint is due on or before July 5, 2016. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 6/28/2016. (kbe) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
123 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Sheridan K. Weissenborn on behalf of Jerry Cummings. Attorney Sheridan K. Weissenborn added to party Jerry Cummings(pty:dft). (Weissenborn, Sheridan) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
124 MOTION TO DISMISS 105 Amended Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Jerry Cummings. Responses due by 7/18/2016 (Weissenborn, Sheridan) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
125 MOTION TO DISMISS 105 Amended Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM as to survivors by Florida Department of Corrections. Responses due by 7/22/2016 (Tietig, Lisa) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
126 NOTICE by Roland Clarke Notice of Selection of Mediator (Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
127 RESPONSE in Opposition re 124 MOTION TO DISMISS 105 Amended Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Andre Chapman. Replies due by 7/28/2016. (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
128 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Andre Chapman for Defendant Cornelius Thompson (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
129 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 105 Amended Complaint with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline Cornelius Thompson served on 7/16/2016, answer due 8/8/2016. See 128 for image (yha) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
130 Clerks Notice to Filer re 128 Certificate of Service. Wrong Event Selected; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. The document was re−docketed by the Clerk, see [de#129]. It is not necessary to refile this document. (yha) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
131 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court denies as moot 118 the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve by Publication. It appears by the filing of 128 the Certificate of Service that the Plaintiff was able to personally serve Defendant Cornelius Thompson and therefore service by publication is no longer necessary. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 7/19/2016. (kbe) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
132 NOTICE by Andre Chapman re 125 MOTION TO DISMISS 105 Amended Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM as to survivors Notice of Non−Opposition to FDOC's MTD Count 1 AS TO PLAINTIFFS ANDRE CHAPMAN, RENEE CHAPMAN, DEBORAH JOHNSON, CHNIEAQUA BREELOVE AND HAROLD MAR (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
133 REPLY to Response to Motion re 125 MOTION TO DISMISS 105 Amended Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM as to survivors filed by Jerry Cummings. (Weissenborn, Sheridan) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
134 Joint MOTION to Sever by Roland Clarke. Responses due by 8/22/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marrero, Oscar) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
135 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court denies, without prejudice, 134 Plaintiff Andre Chapman and Defendants Florida Department of Corrections, Roland Clarke, and Jerry Cummings's joint motion to sever the action initiated by Plaintiff Disability Rights of Florida from the action initiated by Plaintiff Andre Chapman. The filing parties' motion does not contain a pre−filing−conference certification, as required by the Court's Local

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 16 of 32

08/08/2016 08/09/2016
08/15/2016
08/17/2016 08/18/2016 09/13/2016 09/13/2016 09/14/2016 10/13/2016 10/28/2016 11/03/2016 11/05/2016 11/07/2016

Rules. Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requires an attorney filing a motion in a civil case to first confer with "all parties or non−parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good−faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised to be raised in the motion." The filing attorney must then include in the motion a statement explaining to the Court that (1) all or some of the issues raised in the motion are unopposed; (2) counsel conferred but could not agree on all or some of the issues raised in the motion; or (3) counsel diligently attempted to confer but was unable to reach the opposing counsel. S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3). "Local Rule 7.1 serves the purpose not only of attempting to avoid unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources resolving motions that are not opposed, but also to allow the Court to ascertain whether it should wait for a response from the opposing party before deciding the motion." Royal Bahamian Ass'n, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 744 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 1302 n.7 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Goodman, Mag. J.). Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 8/8/2016. (kbe) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
136 MOTION for Extension of Time to file Responsive Pleading to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by Cornelius Thompson. Attorney Oscar Edmund Marrero added to party Cornelius Thompson(pty:condft). Responses due by 8/25/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marrero, Oscar) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
137 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 136 Defendant Cornelius Thompson's motion for extension of time to respond to the complaint. Although the Plaintiff opposes the requested relief, the Defendant has presented good cause to support the extension. The Defendant's response to the complaint is due on or before August 18, 2016. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 8/9/2016. (kbe) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
138 TRANSCRIPT of Motion to Compel Hearing held on 5/10/2016 before Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes, 1−17 pages, Court Reporter: Carl Schanzleh, 305−523−5635. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/9/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/19/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/17/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Designation Access Form)(amb) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
139 NOTICE by Andre Chapman NOTICE OF DOCUMENT SUBPOENA (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
140 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Cornelius Thompson. Attorney Lourdes Espino Wydler added to party Cornelius Thompson(pty:condft). (Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
141 STATUS REPORT Interim Joint Status Report by Roland Clarke, Cornelius Thompson (Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
142 Amended MOTION to Sever Amended Joint Unopposed Motion to Sever by Roland Clarke, Cornelius Thompson. Responses due by 9/30/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
143 SECOND ORDER denying 142 Motion to Sever. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 9/14/2016. (yha) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
144 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Linda Bellomio Commons on behalf of Andre Chapman. Attorney Linda Bellomio Commons added to party Andre Chapman (pty:conpla). (Commons, Linda) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
145 OMNIBUS ORDER denying 124 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 125 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 10/28/2016. (yha) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
146 NOTICE by Andre Chapman Plaintiff's Notice of Document Subpoena (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
147 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 105 Amended Complaint by Jerry Cummings. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Weissenborn, Sheridan) (Entered: 11/05/2016)
148 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 147 Defendant Jerry Cummings' unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the complaint. The Defendant's response to the complaint is due on or before November 17, 2016. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 17 of 32

11/09/2016 11/09/2016 11/17/2016 11/22/2016 11/23/2016 11/28/2016
11/28/2016 11/28/2016 11/29/2016

on 11/7/2016. (kbe) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
149 NOTICE by Andre Chapman Plaintiff's Notice of Taking Video Taped Deposition of Harold Hempstead DC #268866 (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
150 NOTICE by Andre Chapman Plaintiff's Notice of Taking Video Taped Deposition of Mark C. Joiner, DC #794441 (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
151 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Jerry Cummings. (Weissenborn, Sheridan) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
152 Plaintiff's MOTION to Take Deposition from Mark C. Joiner and Harold Hempstead in prison by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Court Order − Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Depose Mark C. Joiner and Harold Hempstead in prison)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
153 ORDER granting 152 Plaintiff's MOTION to Take Deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 11/23/2016. (eaa) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
154 PAPERLESS ORDER directing the parties to file their proposed order scheduling mediation. Previously, the Court issued its 103 Scheduling Order requiring the parties to file a proposed order scheduling their mediation by October 31, 2016. Despite this deadline, the parties have not filed the required proposed order. Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to file their proposed order scheduling mediation by December 9, 2016. Future violations of the Court's orders may result in sanctions, up to and including the striking of a party's pleadings or dismissal of this case. Cf. Powell v. Siegal, 447 F. Appx 92, 94 (11th Cir. 2011). (Rule 16(f) authorizes a court to impose sanctions, including dismissal under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v), if a party fails to obey a pretrial order.) Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 11/28/2016. (kbe) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
155 NOTICE by Andre Chapman re 103 Scheduling Order, Order Referring Case to Mediation,,,, Proposed Order Scheduling Mediation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order Scheduling Mediation) (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
156 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Deadlines by Roland Clarke, Cornelius Thompson. Responses due by 12/15/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
157 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER And Order Of Referral To Mediation: ( Jury Trial set for 10/16/2017 before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.., Calendar Call set for 10/10/2017 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.., Expert Discovery due by 8/1/2017., Fact Discovery due by 6/13/2017., In Limine Motions due by 8/9/2017., Dispositive Motions due by 6/21/2017., Motions due by 8/9/2017., Pretrial Stipulation due by 9/12/2017.), ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation. Mediation Deadline 7/5/2017. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 11/29/2016. (yha)

11/30/2016 02/03/2017
02/16/2017 02/16/2017 03/01/2017 03/01/2017

Pattern Jury Instruction Builder − To access the latest, up to date changes to the 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions go to https://pji.ca11.uscourts.gov or click here. (Entered: 11/29/2016)
158 ORDER Scheduling Mediation before H.T. Smith Mediation Hearing set for 3/2/2017 Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 11/30/2016. (yha) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
159 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint Second Amended by Florida Department of Corrections, Florida Department of Corrections, Julie L. Jones. (Tietig, Lisa) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
160 NOTICE by Andre Chapman re 158 ORDER Scheduling Mediation (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
161 NOTICE of Compliance Notice of Mediation by Andre Chapman (Commons, Linda) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
162 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 110 Order by Corizon LLC. Responses due by 3/15/2017 (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
163 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 162 the parties' joint motion to amend 110 the confidentiality order entered in this case. Information from the medical examiner's file

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 18 of 32

03/01/2017 03/09/2017 03/22/2017
03/22/2017
03/22/2017
03/23/2017
03/23/2017 03/23/2017
03/23/2017 03/23/2017
04/21/2017 04/21/2017

may be shared with mediator H.T. Smith with respect to the mediation scheduled for March 2, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 3/1/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
164 AMENDED CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 3/1/2017. (eaa) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
165 MEDIATION REPORT by H.T. Smith. Disposition: Case did not settle.(yha) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
166 STRICKEN MOTION for Extension of Time TO EXTEND DEADLINES RELATED TO FACT DISCOVERY, EXPERT DESIGNATION AND DISCOVERY, AND THE FILING OF DISPOSITIVE AND PRE−TRIAL MOTIONS re 157 Scheduling Order, Order Referring Case to Mediation,,,,,, by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 4/5/2017 (Newman, Annette) Modified text per 170 Notice of Striking on 3/24/2017 (yha). (Entered: 03/22/2017)
167 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Vicki I. Sarmiento. Filing Fee $ 75.00 Receipt # 113C−9585832 by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 4/5/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Vicki I. Sarmiento, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion to Appear Pro Has Vice, Consent to Designation and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
168 STRICKEN MOTION for Extension of Time Proposed Order re 166 MOTION for Extension of Time TO EXTEND DEADLINES RELATED TO FACT DISCOVERY, EXPERT DESIGNATION AND DISCOVERY, AND THE FILING OF DISPOSITIVE AND PRE−TRIAL MOTIONS re 157 Scheduling Order, Order Referring Case to Mediation,,,,,, by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 4/5/2017 (Newman, Annette) Modified text per 170 Notice of Striking on 3/24/2017 (yha). (Entered: 03/22/2017)
169 Clerks Notice to Filer re 168 MOTION for Extension of Time Proposed Order re 166 MOTION for Extension of Time TO EXTEND DEADLINES RELATED TO FACT DISCOVERY, EXPERT DESIGNATION AND DISCOVERY, AND THE FILING OF DISPOSITIVE AND PRE−TRIAL MOTIONS re 157 Sch. Proposed Order Docketed as Main Document; CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED − Filer must File a Notice of Striking, then resubmit the proposed order as instructed in the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures (yha) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
170 NOTICE of Striking Docket Entries 166 and 168 by Andre Chapman (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
171 MOTION for Extension of Time JOINT UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES RELATED TO FACT DISCOVERY, EXPERT DESIGNATION AND DISCOVERY, AND THE FILING OF DISPOSITIVE AND PRE−TRIAL MOTIONS re 157 Scheduling Order, Order Referring Case to Mediation,,,,,, by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 4/6/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order re Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
172 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 167 counsels motion to appear pro hac vice. Attorney Vicki I. Sarmiento is given permission to appear and participate in this matter on behalf of Plaintiff Andre Chapman. The Clerk is directed to provide this attorney with notification of all electronic filings via the email address set forth in the motion. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 3/23/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
173 Second Amended Scheduling Order granting 171 Motion for Extension of Time. Expert Discovery due by 9/1/2017. Fact Discovery due by 8/14/2017. Dispositive Motions due by 8/21/2017. In Limine Motions due by 9/1/2017. Motions due by 9/1/2017. Pretrial Stipulation due by 11/13/2017. Calendar Call set for 12/5/2017 before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.. Jury Trial set for 12/11/2017 before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 3/23/2017. (yha) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
174 MOTION for Protective Order by Corizon LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
175 PAPERLESS ORDER Setting Telephonic Hearing on 174 MOTION for Protective Order for 4/24/2017 at 4:00 PM in Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Alicia M.

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 19 of 32

04/21/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/26/2017 05/04/2017 05/09/2017 05/09/2017
05/09/2017 05/09/2017
05/10/2017

Otazo−Reyes. Counsel shall call the conference number 1−888−684−8852 at the appointed time, then enter access code 4791317 and security code 0424. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 4/21/2017. (eaa) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
176 MOTION/Request to Change Telephonic Hearing Date by Andre Chapman re 174 MOTION for Protective Order , 175 Order Setting Hearing on Motion, PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO CHANGE THE TELEPHONIC HEARING DATE ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Newman, Annette) Modified to convert document to a motion on 4/24/2017 (asl). (Entered: 04/21/2017)
177 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 174 MOTION for Protective Order Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Protective Order filed by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
178 Clerks Notice to Filer re 176 Notice (Other). Wrong Event Selected − Document is a Motion; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. A motion event must always be selected when filing a motion. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document. (asl) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
179 PAPERLESS ORDER re Telephonic Hearing on 174 MOTION for Protective Order. The Telephonic Hearing set for 4/24/2017 at 4:00 PM is hereby RESET to 4/26/2017 at 10:15 AM in Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes. Counsel shall call the conference number 1−888−684−8852 at the appointed time, then enter access code 4791317 and security code 0426. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 4/24/2017. (eaa) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
180 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by Corizon LLC re 174 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Corizon LLC (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
181 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Lance Eric Neff on behalf of Florida Department of Corrections. Attorney Lance Eric Neff added to party Florida Department of Corrections(pty:dft). (Neff, Lance) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
182 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Florida Department of Corrections, Julie L. Jones. Attorney Lance Eric Neff added to party Julie L. Jones(pty:dft). (Neff, Lance) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
183 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court strikes 182 the parties' "Stipulated Protective Order." Section 3I(6) of the Southern District of Florida's CM/ECF Administrative Procedures provides that "proposed orders... shall be filed initially as an attachment to a motion, notice, or other filing" and "the final version of the proposed document must be e−mailed to the appropriate Judge." Counsel is therefore directed: to refile the proposed order according to this procedure; and to submit the proposed order, in Word format, to the Court via email. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 5/9/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
184 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Expert Disclosure, Dispositive Motions, Motions in Limine and Pre−trial Motions Deadlines by Roland Clarke, Cornelius Thompson. Responses due by 5/23/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
185 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court denies, without prejudice, 184 the parties' joint motion to extend various pretrial deadlines, including the dispositive−motion deadline. As the Court has previously advised the parties, an extension of the dispositive−motion deadline necessitates the Court's resetting of the trial date in this matter. Thus, by requesting an extension of the dispositive−motion deadline, the parties are, in effect, requesting an extension of the trial date. If that is indeed the situation, the parties must make that request clear and show good cause to support the request. If that is not the situation, the parties must explain why, given the circumstances of this case, an extension of the dispositive−motion deadline would not result in the need for a corresponding extension of the trial date. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 5/9/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
186 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Florida Department of Corrections, Julie L. Jones. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Neff, Lance) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 20 of 32

05/11/2017 05/11/2017 05/12/2017 05/16/2017 05/19/2017 05/19/2017 05/19/2017 05/19/2017
05/19/2017
05/22/2017
05/23/2017

187 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS CHNIEAQUA BREELOVE, HAROLD MARR, AND DEBORAH JOHNSON by Andre Chapman (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
188 PROTECTIVE ORDER granting 186 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 5/11/2017. (yha) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
189 Joint MOTION to Continue Trial and Deadlines by Roland Clarke, Cornelius Thompson. Responses due by 5/26/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Wydler Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
190 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by J. Lee Marsh on behalf of Florida Department of Corrections, Julie L. Jones. Attorney J. Lee Marsh added to party Florida Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney J. Lee Marsh added to party Julie L. Jones(pty:dft). (Marsh, J.) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
191 Joint MOTION for Extension of Court's Jurisdiction and Administrative Closure by Disability Rights Florida, Inc.. (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
192 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Andrew T. Sheeran on behalf of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. Attorney Andrew T. Sheeran added to party Florida Agency for Health Care Administration(pty:dft). (Sheeran, Andrew) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
193 MOTION to Quash Subpoena by Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. (Sheeran, Andrew) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
194 PAPERLESS ORDER Setting Telephonic Hearing on 193 MOTION to Quash for 5/26/2017 at 2:00 PM in Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes. Counsel shall call the conference number 1−888−684−8852 at the appointed time, then enter access code 4791317 and security code 0526. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 5/19/2017. (eaa) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
195 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 189 the parties' joint motion to continue the deadlines and trial set in this case. In consideration of the circumstances set forth in the motion, the Court, with minor adjustments, will adopt the proposed new deadlines as set forth in the parties' motion. A paper order will follow. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 5/19/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
196 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 191 the parties' (Plaintiff Disability Rights Florida, Inc. and Defendants Julie Jones, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and Florida Department of Corrections) joint motion to extend the administrative closure of this case by six months. On or before November 30, 2017, either (1) the Plaintiff must notify the Court that the private settlement agreement has been breached and therefore the Court will reopen the case; or (2) the parties must notify the Court that there is no breach and the Court will dismiss this aspect of case with prejudice. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 5/22/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
197 THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 3/5/2018 before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.. Calendar Call set for 2/27/2018 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.. Expert Discovery due by 11/30/2017. Fact Discovery due by 10/27/2017. In Limine Motions due by 12/20/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 11/13/2017. Motions due by 12/20/2018. Pretrial Stipulation due by 2/5/2018. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 5/22/2017. (yha)

05/26/2017 05/26/2017 06/19/2017

Pattern Jury Instruction Builder − To access the latest, up to date changes to the 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions go to https://pji.ca11.uscourts.gov or click here. (Entered: 05/23/2017)
198 NOTICE by Corizon LLC re 197 Scheduling Order,, of Trial Date Conflict (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
199 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by Florida Agency for Health Care Administration re 193 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (Sheeran, Andrew) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
200 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA SERVED ON MIAMI−DADE MEDICAL EXAMINER ; DECLARATION OF VICKI I. SARMIENTO by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 7/3/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 21 of 32

06/20/2017
06/20/2017 06/21/2017 06/22/2017 07/03/2017
07/03/2017 07/05/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017

Exhibit)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
201 PAPERLESS ORDER Setting Telephonic Hearing on 200 MOTION to Compel for 7/7/2017 at 9:00 AM in Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes. Counsel shall call the conference number 1−888−684−8852 at the appointed time, then enter access code 4791317 and security code 0707. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 6/20/2017. (eaa) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
202 NOTICE by Corizon LLC re 201 Order Setting Hearing on Motion, of Conflict (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
203 Joint MOTION for Protective Order FOR ENTRY OF HIPAA QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
204 HIPAA QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 6/22/2017. (eaa) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
205 RESPONSE to Motion re 200 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA SERVED ON MIAMI−DADE MEDICAL EXAMINER ; DECLARATION OF VICKI I. SARMIENTO filed by Miami−Dade County. Attorney Ryan C. Zagare added to party Miami−Dade County(pty:ip). Replies due by 7/10/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Subpoena), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Declaration of Medical Examiner Dr. Emma Lew), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Subpoena from Other Party), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Subpoena from Other Party), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Declaration of Assistant County Attorney Christopher Angell))(Zagare, Ryan) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
206 MOTION to Compel Production Pursuant to Subpoena Served on Medical Examiner by Roland Clarke, Cornelius Thompson. Responses due by 7/17/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Marrero, Oscar) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
207 PAPERLESS SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER re Telephonic Hearing set for 7/7/2017 at 9:00 AM. At the Hearing, the Court will also address 206 MOTION to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 7/5/2017. (eaa) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
208 Notice of Adoption by Corizon LLC Related document: 200 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA SERVED ON MIAMI−DADE MEDICAL EXAMINER ; DECLARATION OF VICKI I. SARMIENTO filed by Andre Chapman (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena) (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
209 PAPERLESS SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER re Telephonic Hearing set for 7/7/2017 at 9:00 AM. At the Hearing, the Court will also address 208 Notice of Adoption. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 7/6/2017. (eaa) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
210 RESPONSE in Opposition re 206 MOTION to Compel Production Pursuant to Subpoena Served on Medical Examiner filed by Andre Chapman. Replies due by 7/13/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Curriculum Vitae of Expert Werner Spitz)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
211 ORDER Continuing Hearing on 200 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel; 206 MOTION to Compel; and 208 Notice of Adoption to 7/14/2017 at 3:00 PM in Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 7/7/2017. (eaa) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
218 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes: Motion Hearing held on 7/7/2017 re 206 MOTION to Compel Production Pursuant to Subpoena Served on Medical Examiner filed by Cornelius Thompson, Roland Clarke, 200 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA SERVED ON MIAMI−DADE MEDICAL EXAMINER ; DECLARATION OF VICKI I. SARMIENTO filed by Andre Chapman, Telephone Conference held on 7/7/2017, Miscellaneous Hearing held on 7/7/2017. Total time in court: 45 minutes. Attorney Appearance(s): Milton C. Grimes and Vicki I. Sarmiento appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff; Oscar Edmund Marrero appeared on behalf of Roland Clarke and Cornelius Thomas; Gregg Alan Toomey appeared on behalf of Corizon, LLC; Lance Eric Neff appeared on behalf of the Department of Corrections; Chris Angell and Bernard Pastor appeared on behalf of the Miami Dade County Medical Examiner; Matter continued. See

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 22 of 32

07/12/2017 07/12/2017 07/13/2017 07/14/2017 07/14/2017 07/14/2017
07/21/2017 08/02/2017 08/16/2017 08/24/2017

Order entered D.E. 211 . (Digital 09:04:23) (sl) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
212 RESPONSE in Support re 200 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA SERVED ON MIAMI−DADE MEDICAL EXAMINER ; DECLARATION OF VICKI I. SARMIENTO PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA SERVED ON MIAMI−DADE MEDICAL EXAMINER; DECLARATION OF EDITH GEORGI filed by Andre Chapman. (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
213 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 200 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA SERVED ON MIAMI−DADE MEDICAL EXAMINER ; DECLARATION OF VICKI I. SARMIENTO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF VICKI I. SARMIENTO filed by Andre Chapman. (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
214 REPLY to Response to Motion re 206 MOTION to Compel Production Pursuant to Subpoena Served on Medical Examiner filed by Miami−Dade County. Attorney Bernard Pastor added to party Miami−Dade County(pty:ip). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Emma O. Lew)(Pastor, Bernard) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
215 NOTICE by Roland Clarke, Cornelius Thompson re 206 MOTION to Compel Production Pursuant to Subpoena Served on Medical Examiner Notice of Filing In Support of Motion to Compel Production Pursuant to Subpoena Served on Medical Examiner (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (Marrero, Oscar) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
216 ORDER granting 200 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel; 206 MOTION to Compel; and 208 Notice of Adoption. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes on 7/14/2017. (eaa) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
217 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes: Miscellaneous Hearing held on 7/14/2017, Motion Hearing held on 7/14/2017 re 206 MOTION to Compel Production Pursuant to Subpoena Served on Medical Examiner filed by Cornelius Thompson, Roland Clarke, 200 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA SERVED ON MIAMI−DADE MEDICAL EXAMINER ; DECLARATION OF VICKI I. SARMIENTO filed by Andre Chapman; D.E. 208 Notice of Adoption. Total time in court: 40 minutes. Attorney Appearance(s): Vicki I. Sarmiento appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff; Oscar Edmund Marrero appeared on behalf of Defendants Roland Clarke and Cornelius Thompson; Gregg Alan Toomey appeared on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC; Bernard Pastor And Chris Angell appeared on behalf of The Medical Examiner; Edith Georgi, Esq. made a presentation to the Court on behalf of the Plaintiff. See Order entered at D.E. 216 (Digital 15:04:16) (sl) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
219 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing Proceedings held on 7/14/2017 before Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo−Reyes, 1−28 pages, Court Reporter: Bonnie Joy Lewis, 954−985−8875. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/11/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/21/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/19/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Designation Access Form)(apz) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
220 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Monica Galindo Stinson on behalf of Florida Department of Corrections. Attorney Monica Galindo Stinson added to party Florida Department of Corrections(pty:dft). (Stinson, Monica) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
221 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time [PROPOSED] ORDER ON JOINT UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES re 197 Scheduling Order,, by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 8/30/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER ON JOINT UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
222 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Paul L. Hoffman. Filing Fee $ 75.00 Receipt # 113C−9998290 by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 9/7/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Certification Certificate of Paul L. Hoffman, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 23 of 32

08/24/2017 08/24/2017
08/24/2017 08/25/2017 09/15/2017 09/18/2017 09/19/2017
10/06/2017 10/06/2017 11/08/2017 11/08/2017

Order)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
223 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Catherine Sweetser. Filing Fee $ 75.00 Receipt # 113C−9998378 by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 9/7/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Certification Certificate of Catherine Sweetser, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
224 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 221 the parties' joint motion to extend the expert disclosure deadlines. It does not appear that these extensions will affect any deadlines that impact the Court's own scheduling needs (such as the deadline for dispositive motions and the trial date) and the parties are in agreement. The deadline for expert disclosures is thus extended until October 5, 2017; the deadline for rebuttal expert disclosures is extended until October 26, 2017; and all expert discovery is to be completed by December 1, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 8/24/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
225 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 222 and 223 counsels' motions to appear pro hac vice. Attorneys Paul L. Hoffman and Catherine Sweetser are given permission to appear and participate in this matter on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to provide these attorneys with notification of all electronic filings via the email addresses set forth in the motions. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 8/24/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as per DE 224 : Expert Discovery due by 12/1/2017. (lk) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
226 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines by Corizon LLC. Responses due by 9/29/2017 (Toomey, Gregg) Modified Relief on 9/18/2017 (ls). (Entered: 09/15/2017)
227 Clerks Notice to Filer re 226 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time of Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines . Wrong Motion Relief(s) Selected; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong motion relief(s) when docketing the motion. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future motions filed must include applicable reliefs. (ls) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
228 FOURTH AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: (Jury Trial set for 4/2/2018 before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.., Calendar Call set for 3/27/2018 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.., Expert Discovery due by 12/29/2017., Fact Discovery due by 11/27/2017., In Limine Motions due by 1/19/2018., Dispositive Motions due by 12/13/2017., Motions due by 1/19/2018., Pretrial Stipulation due by 3/5/2018. Defendant Corizon, LLC's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines ECF No. 226 is granted. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 9/18/2017. (mc)
Pattern Jury Instruction Builder − To access the latest, up to date changes to the 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions go to https://pji.ca11.uscourts.gov or click here. (Entered: 09/19/2017)
229 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Lance Eric Neff. by Florida Department of Corrections, Julie L. Jones. Responses due by 10/20/2017 (Neff, Lance) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
230 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 229 Defendant Julie L. Jones's counsel's unopposed motion to withdraw as counsel. The Clerk is directed to terminate attorney Lance Eric Neff from this case and he is hereafter relieved of any further responsibilities as counsel in this matter. The Defendant continues to be represented by attorneys Lisa Kuhlman Tietig, Susan A. Maher, and J. Lee Marsh. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 10/6/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
231 Joint MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice 196 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, by Disability Rights Florida, Inc.. Responses due by 11/22/2017 (Sleasman, Peter) (Entered: 11/08/2017)
232 Order of Dismissal of the Disability Rights Case Only; granting 231 Joint MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice 196 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, filed by Disability Rights Florida, Inc.. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 11/8/2017. (jas)

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 24 of 32

11/30/2017 12/05/2017 12/08/2017 12/11/2017
12/11/2017 12/12/2017 12/13/2017 12/13/2017
01/17/2018 01/17/2018
01/17/2018 02/02/2018

(Entered: 11/08/2017)
233 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Jerry Cummings. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Weissenborn, Sheridan) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
234 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 233 the parties' joint and unopposed motion to extend the discovery cut−off date. Discovery is extended through December 7, 2017 in order to allow the taking of three depositions that required rescheduling. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 12/5/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
235 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Remaining Pre−trial Deadlines by Corizon LLC. Responses due by 12/22/2017 (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
236 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court denies, without prejudice, 235 the parties' joint motion for an extension of the dispositive−motion deadline, as well as various other deadlines. An extension of the dispositive−motion deadline necessitates a corresponding extension of the trial date. So, it appears to the Court that the parties are, in effect, requesting an extension of the trial date. If that is the situation, the parties must make that request clear and show good cause to support the request. If that is not the situation, the parties must explain why, given the circumstances of this case, an extension of the dispositive−motion deadline would not result in the need for a corresponding extension of the trial date. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 12/11/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
237 Joint MOTION to Continue Joint Motion for Continue Trial and Existing Deadlines by Roland Clarke, Cornelius Thompson. Responses due by 12/27/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
238 NOTICE by Roland Clarke, Cornelius Thompson Notice of Mediation (Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
239 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants in part and denies in part 237 the parties' joint motion to continue the trial and pretrial deadlines set in this matter. A detailed scheduling order will follow. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 12/13/2017. (kbe) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
240 Fourth Amended Scheduling Order: Based on their presentation in their joint motion for a continuance, the Court, albeit reluctantly, grants in part and denies in part their request, as set forth below re ECF No. 237 . Jury Trial set for 5/29/2018 before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.. Calendar Call set for 5/22/2018 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Robert N. Scola Jr.. Expert Discovery due by 2/12/2018. In Limine Motions due by 3/6/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 1/19/2018. Pretrial Motions due by 3/6/2018. Joint Pretrial Stipulation due by 4/16/2018. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 12/13/2017. (jas)
Pattern Jury Instruction Builder − To access the latest, up to date changes to the 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions go to https://pji.ca11.uscourts.gov or click here. (Entered: 12/13/2017)
241 FINAL MEDIATION REPORT by H. T. Smith. Disposition: Settled in full.(Smith, Harold) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
242 Order Administratively Closing Case Upon Notice Of Settlement. The Court directs the Clerk to close this case. Any party may move to reopen the case if there is a problem in reaching a final settlement agreement. Any pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 1/17/2018. (jas)
NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014−69. (Entered: 01/17/2018)
243 STRICKEN per DE# 279 , NOTICE by Andre Chapman Charging Lien (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Commons, Linda) Modified on 4/13/2018 (jas). (Entered: 01/17/2018)
244 MOTION to Strike 243 Notice (Other) by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 2/16/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Andre Chapman, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 25 of 32

02/05/2018 02/05/2018 02/05/2018 02/06/2018
02/09/2018 02/12/2018 02/12/2018 02/12/2018 02/13/2018 02/14/2018 02/14/2018

Renee Chapman, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Milton C. Grimes, # 4 Affidavit Declaration of Vicki I. Sarmiento, # 5 Text of Proposed Order Text of Proposed Order)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
245 PAPERLESS ORDER: In order to expedite the briefing of 244 the Plaintiffs' motion to strike counsel Linda Commons's charging lien, the Court orders Commons to respond on or before February 12, 2018. The Court further sets this matter for hearing on February 15, 2018 at 9:30 am. Commons is directed to be prepared to explain why 243 the notice of charging lien she filed does not run afoul of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 2/5/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
Reset Deadlines per 245 Order as to 244 MOTION to Strike 243 Notice (Other) . Responses due by 2/12/2018 (asl) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
246 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically at Hearing on Motion to Strike Counsel Linda Commons' Charging Lien (02/15/2018) at 9:30 AM . Attorney/Representative: Milton Grimes/Vicky Sarmiento by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 2/20/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Text of Proposed Order to Appear Telephonically)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
247 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' counsel Milton C. Grimes and Vicki I. Sarmiento's request to appear telephonically at the upcoming hearing set in this case. To begin with, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). Second, at least one attorney representing the Plaintiffs must appear in person at the hearing who is fully prepared to answer the Court's questions and who can personally present any documents relevant to the issues raised in the Plaintiffs' motion. However, the Court will, in addition, also allow another Plaintiffs attorney to appear telephonically. Should one of the Plaintiffs' attorneys still wish to appear by telephone, he or she must provide notice to chambers (via email at scola@flsd.uscourts.gov) no later than noon on February 14, 2018. In the notice counsel must provide the case name and number, the date and time of the hearing, the name of the person who will be appearing by telephone, and the name of the parties being represented. Counsel must also provide a number to a land line where she or he can be contacted prior to the start of the hearing. Counsel may not use any speaker functions during the hearing. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 2/6/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 02/06/2018)
248 NOTICE by Andre Chapman re 244 MOTION to Strike 243 Notice (Other) PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF ERRATA IN MOTION TO STRIKE CHARGING LIEN OF LINDA COMMONS, OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ADJUDICATE THE CHARGING LIEN (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
249 NOTICE by Andre Chapman of Appearance of Max R. Price as Counsel for Attorney Linda B. Commons. Attorney Max Richard Price, Jr added to party Andre Chapman (pty:conpla). (Price, Max) (Entered: 02/12/2018)
250 RESPONSE to Motion re 244 MOTION to Strike 243 Notice (Other) filed by Andre Chapman. Replies due by 2/20/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(Price, Max) (Entered: 02/12/2018)
251 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 244 MOTION to Strike 243 Notice (Other) support of response to motion to strike filed by Andre Chapman. (Commons, Linda) (Entered: 02/12/2018)
252 NOTICE by Andre Chapman re 250 Response to Motion, of Correction to Memorandum of Law in Response to Motion to Strike (Price, Max) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
253 REPLY to Response to Motion re 244 MOTION to Strike 243 Notice (Other) Plaintiff's Reply to Linda Commons' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Charging Lien, Or Alternatively, to Approve Settlement Agreement and Adjudicate the Charging Lien filed by Andre Chapman. (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 02/14/2018)
254 REPLY to Response to Motion re 244 MOTION to Strike 243 Notice (Other) PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO EXHIBITS AND AFFIDAVIT OF LINDA BELLOMIO COMMONS RE "MOTION TO STRIKE CHARGING LIEN OF LINDA COMMONS, OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ADJUDICATE

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 26 of 32

02/15/2018
02/15/2018 02/15/2018
02/19/2018
02/22/2018
02/23/2018 02/23/2018 02/23/2018 02/26/2018 02/26/2018 02/26/2018 02/26/2018 03/13/2018
03/14/2018

THE CHARGING LIEN" filed by Andre Chapman. (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 02/14/2018)
255 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr: Motion Hearing held on 2/15/2018 re 244 MOTION to Strike 243 Notice of Charging Lien filed by Andre Chapman. Total time in court: 1 hour. Attorney Appearance(s): Milton C. Grimes, John R. Sutton, Oscar Edmund Marrero, Monica Galindo Stinson, Sheridan K. Weissenborn, Linda Bellomio Commons, Max Richard Price, Jr, Gregg Alan Toomey, and Vicki I. Sarmiento. Court Reporter: Diane Peede, 305−523−5048 / Diane_Peede@flsd.uscourts.gov. (jh) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
256 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by John Richardson Sutton on behalf of Milton Grimes. Attorney John Richardson Sutton added to party Milton Grimes(pty:ip). (Sutton, John) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
257 PAPERLESS ORDER: As directed in open court, Respondent Commons is ordered to file briefing with respect to the validity or invalidity of the Plaintiffs' contingency fee agreements on or before February 23, 2018. Movant Grimes must respond on or before March 23, 2018. The Respondent may file a reply on or before March 30, 2018. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 2/15/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
258 TRANSCRIPT of a motion hearing held on 2/15/18 before Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr, 1−33 pages, Court Reporter: Diane Peede, 305−523−5048 / Diane_Peede@flsd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/12/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/22/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/21/2018. (dpe) (Entered: 02/19/2018)
259 PAPERLESS ORDER: During a hearing held on February 15, 2018, the Court ordered counsel in this case to submit an agreed proposed order regarding the distribution of settlement funds to a trust account held by attorney John R. Sutton's law firm. Over a week has passed and no order has been submitted. Attorney Sutton is ordered to submit the agreed order to chambers by noon on February 26, 2018 or to file a status report by noon on February 23, 2018 explaining why no proposed order has been forthcoming. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 2/22/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
260 NOTICE by Andre Chapman filing Transcript of Hearing held Feb.15, 2018 (Commons, Linda) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
261 STATUS REPORT by Milton Grimes (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order AGREED ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO STRIKE LIEN OF LINDA BELLOMIO COMMONS)(Sutton, John) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
262 MEMORANDUM of Law of Attorney Linda Commons Pursuant to Court Order by Andre Chapman. (Price, Max) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
263 NOTICE by Milton Grimes re 259 Endorsed Order,, Notice of Filing Proposed Order (Sutton, John) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
264 NOTICE by Milton Grimes re 259 Endorsed Order,, Notice of Filing Proposed Order (Sutton, John) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
265 NOTICE by Andre Chapman OF RESPONSE TO PROPOSED ORDER OF ATTORNEY SUTTON AND FILING OF PROPOSED ORDER BY LINDA COMMONS, ESQ. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Price, Max) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
266 Order Regarding Settlement Distribution. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 2/26/2018. (jas) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
267 MOTION for Hearing re 64 Notice (Other) Notice of Charging Lien, MOTION to Set Status Conference, or, to Adjudicate Charging Lien by Florida Legal Services, Inc.. Attorney Andrea Costello added to party Florida Legal Services, Inc.(pty:ip). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Retainer Agreement of Andre Chapman, as representative of the estate of Darren Rainey)(Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
268 Amended MOTION for Hearing re 64 Notice (Other) of Charging Lien, Amended MOTION to Hold Status Conference, or, to Alternatively, Adjudicate the Charging Lien

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 27 of 32

03/16/2018 03/19/2018
03/23/2018
03/29/2018
03/29/2018
04/09/2018 04/10/2018 04/11/2018 04/11/2018 04/11/2018 04/13/2018
04/27/2018 04/27/2018 04/27/2018 04/29/2018 04/30/2018

by Florida Legal Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Retainer Agreement for Andre Chapman, as Representative of the Estate of Darren Rainey)(Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
269 NOTICE of Settlement /Agreement as to the Charging Lien of Florida Legal Services (Doc. 64) by Florida Legal Services, Inc. (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
270 PAPERLESS ORDER denying without prejudice 268 counsel for Florida Legal Services, Inc.'s amended motion for a status conference or to adjudicate its charging lien. Counsel advises that an agreement has been reached with respect to the requested relief. This denial is without prejudice should counsel need to revisit the issues raised in the motion. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 3/19/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 03/19/2018)
271 Plaintiff's RESPONSE to 262 Memorandum of Law by Milton Grimes. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Declaration of Sutton, # 2 Appendix Declaration of Newman, # 3 Appendix Declaration of A. Chapman, # 4 Appendix Declaration of R. Chapman)(Sutton, John) (Entered: 03/23/2018)
272 MOTION for Extension of Time by Attorney Linda Commons to Reply to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Response to Linda Commons' Memorandum of Law re 271 Response/Reply (Other), by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 4/12/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Price, Max) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
273 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 272 attorney Linda Commons's unopposed motion for an extension of time to reply to the Plaintiff's response to Commons's memorandum. Commons's reply is due on or before April 9, 2018. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 3/29/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
274 REPLY to 271 Response/Reply (Other), to Linda Commons Memo of Law by Andre Chapman. (Price, Max) (Entered: 04/09/2018)
275 AFFIDAVIT signed by : Linda Commons. re 274 Response/Reply (Other) to Grimes Response to Commons' Memo of Law by Andre Chapman (Price, Max) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
276 Plaintiff's Objection to Reply Brief to 275 Affidavit, 274 Response/Reply (Other) by Andre Chapman. (Sutton, John) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
277 AFFIDAVIT signed by : LINDA B COMMONS. re 275 Affidavit LINDA COMMONS W EXHIBIT by Andre Chapman (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit REFILE WITH EXHIBIT)(Commons, Linda) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
278 NOTICE by Andre Chapman filing affdavit with exhibit (Commons, Linda) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
279 ORDER granting 244 Motion to Strike Charging Lien. With respect to the resolution of Commonss entitlement to any of the fee amount retained in Suttons trust account, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer on or before 4/26/2018. Joint Status Report due by 4/27/2018. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 4/13/2018. (jas) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
280 NOTICE by Milton Grimes re 279 Order on Motion to Strike, Supplemental Exhibit (Sutton, John) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
281 NOTICE by Andre Chapman re 279 Order on Motion to Strike, Joint Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Time Record, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B Objections) (Commons, Linda) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
283 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Andre Chapman. (SEE DE# 281 for image). (jas) (Entered: 04/30/2018)
282 MOTION for Reconsideration re 279 Order on Motion to Strike, by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Commons, Linda) (Entered: 04/29/2018)
284 Clerks Notice to Filer re 281 Notice (Other). Wrong Event Selected; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. The document was re−docketed by the Clerk, see DE# 283 . It is not necessary to refile this document. (jas) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 28 of 32

05/01/2018 05/08/2018 05/08/2018 05/08/2018
05/09/2018
05/09/2018 05/15/2018
05/16/2018

285 ORDER denying 282 Motion for Reconsideration. Show Cause Response due by 5/8/2018. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 5/1/2018. (kpe) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
286 NOTICE by Andre Chapman Response to Show Cause Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Commons, Linda) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
287 NOTICE by Andre Chapman Request for Judicial Notice (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Commons, Linda) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
288 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 285 Order on Motion for Reconsideration by Andre Chapman. (See DE# 286 for image). (jas) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
289 Clerks Notice to Filer re 286 Notice (Other). Wrong Event Selected; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. The document was re−docketed by the Clerk, see DE# 288 . It is not necessary to refile this document. (jas) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
290 NOTICE by Corizon LLC Regarding Settlement Funds (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
291 RESPONSE to Motion re 282 MOTION for Reconsideration re 279 Order on Motion to Strike, filed by Milton Grimes. Replies due by 5/22/2018. (Sutton, John) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
292 PAPERLESS ORDER setting this matter for status conference on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 9:30 am.

05/17/2018 05/17/2018 05/23/2018
05/23/2018 05/23/2018
05/24/2018 05/24/2018

Should a party wish to appear telephonically, notice must be provided to chambers (via email at scola@flsd.uscourts.gov) no later than noon on May 22, 2018. In the notice please provide the case name and number, the date and time of the hearing, the name of the person who will be appearing, and the name of the party being represented. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 5/16/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
293 NOTICE by Corizon LLC re 292 Endorsed Order,,, Order Setting Status Conference,, (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
294 PAPERLESS ORDER: The previously scheduled status conference is RESET to May 24, 2018 at 10:30 am. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 5/17/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
295 PAPERLESS ORDER: Attorneys Sheri Weissenborn, Andrea Costello, and Milton G. Grimes have timely notified the Court that they will be appearing telephonically for the status conference on Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:30 am. To appear by telephone, from a land−line please call 1−888−684−8852 five minutes before the scheduled time. Enter access code 5939288 followed by the # sign, and then enter security code 2525 followed by the # sign. Callers must be prompt . Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 5/23/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
296 MOTION Motion for Telephonic Appearance by Milton Grimes. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sutton, John) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
297 PAPERLESS ORDER: Plaintiff's counsel Milton C. Grimes asks the Court to permit attorney Vernita Williams to appear telephonically at the status conference set for 10:30 a.m. on May 24, 2018. Grimes explains Williams is the probate attorney handing the estate of Darren Rainey and that she would be in the best position to respond to any questions regarding probate issues that may be addressed at the status conference. Although the motion is both untimely and noncompliant with the Local Rules, in the interest of expediency, the Court grants 296 Grimes's motion. Williams is directed to follow 295 the Court's instructions with respect to dialing into the conference. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 5/23/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
298 ORDER Requiring Plaintiffs to file a Stipulation of Dismissal or Motion to Dismiss. Stipulation of Dismissal or Motion to Dismiss due on or before 7/23/2018. In the meantime, this case is to remain administratively closed. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 5/24/2018. (jas) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
299 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr: Status Conference held on 5/24/2018. Court order will follow. Total time in court: 20 minutes.

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 29 of 32

05/24/2018 05/24/2018
05/24/2018 05/25/2018 05/29/2018 06/01/2018 06/05/2018 06/07/2018
07/23/2018 07/24/2018 08/02/2018
08/06/2018 08/07/2018

Attorney Appearance in open court: John Richardson Sutton, Linda Bellomio Commons, Max Richard Price, Jr, Oscar Edmund Marrero, Gregg Alan Toomey, Monica Galindo Stinson. Attorney Apperance via telephone: Sheridan K. Weissenborn, Andrea Costello, Vernita Williams, Milton C. Grimes. Court Reporter: William Romanishin, 305−523−5558 / Bill_Romanishin@flsd.uscourts.gov. (jh) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
300 NOTICE by Andre Chapman Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Commons, Linda) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
301 Notice of Appeal as to 285 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 279 Order on Motion to Strike, by Andre Chapman. FILING FEE: (NOT PAID). Within fourteen days of the filing date of a Notice of Appeal, the appellant must complete the Eleventh Circuit Transcript Order Form regardless of whether transcripts are being ordered [Pursuant to FRAP 10(b)]. For information go to our FLSD website under Transcript Information. (SEE DE 300 FOR IMAGE). (apz) Text Modified on 5/25/2018 (apz). (Entered: 05/25/2018)
302 Clerks Notice to Filer re 300 Notice (Other). Wrong Event Selected; ERROR − The Filer selected the wrong event. The document was re−docketed by the Clerk, see DE 301 . It is not necessary to refile this document. (apz) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Orders under appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 301 Notice of Appeal, Notice has been electronically mailed. (apz) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
303 Clerks Notice of Receipt of Appeal Filing Fee received on 5/29/2018 in the amount of $ 505.00, receipt number FLS100166170. (vt) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
304 Acknowledgment of Receipt of NOA from USCA re 301 Notice of Appeal, filed by Andre Chapman. Date received by USCA: 5/25/18. USCA Case Number: 18−12213−C. (hh) (Entered: 06/01/2018)
305 Corrected Acknowledgment of Receipt of NOA from USCA re 301 Notice of Appeal, filed by Andre Chapman. Date received by USCA: 5/25/2018. USCA Case Number: 18−12213−C. (apz) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
306 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on 5/24/2018 before Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr, 1−8 pages, Court Reporter: William Romanishin, 305−523−5558 / Bill_Romanishin@flsd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/28/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/5/2018. (br) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
307 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time Plaintiff's Request for Permission to Extend Time to File a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Action re 298 Order, by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 8/6/2018 (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
308 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 307 the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time. The Plaintiff shall file a stipulation of dismissal or motion to dismiss on or before August 7, 2018. Stipulation/motion deadline 8/7/2018. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. (ak02) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
309 Plaintiff's MOTION Plaintiff's Petition for Determination and Allocation of Wrongful Death Damages re 307 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time Plaintiff's Request for Permission to Extend Time to File a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Action re 298 Order, by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Petition of Heirs, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Petition of Heirs, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3A to Petition of Heirs, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3B to Petition of Heirs)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
310 Second MOTION for Extension of Time Plaintiff's Second Request for Extension of Time to Dismiss This Action re 298 Order, by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 8/20/2018 (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 08/06/2018)
311 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court denies, without prejudice, Plaintiff Andre Chapman's 309 petition for the determination and allocation of wrongful death damages and 310 motion for an extension of time because neither motion contains a pre−filing−conference certification, as required by the Court's Local Rules. Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requires an

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 30 of 32

08/09/2018 08/09/2018
08/09/2018
08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/22/2018 08/22/2018
08/23/2018 08/23/2018

attorney filing a motion in a civil case to first confer with all parties or non−parties who may be affected by the relief sought in a good−faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised in the motion. The filing attorney must then include in the motion a statement explaining to the Court that (1) all or some of the issues raised in the motion are unopposed; (2) counsel conferred but could not agree on all or some of the issues raised in the motion; or (3) counsel diligently attempted to confer but was unable to reach the opposing counsel. S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3). The purpose of the rule is to ensure judicial economy and prevent courts from considering issues the parties could agree on independently, and to ascertain whether the Court need wait for a response from the opposing party before deciding the motion. Aguilar v. United Floor Crew, Inc. , No. 14−CIV−61605, 2014 WL 6751663, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2014) (Bloom, J.). Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 8/7/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
312 Second MOTION for Extension of Time To extend Time to Dismiss this Action by Milton Grimes. Responses due by 8/23/2018 (Sutton, John) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
313 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants 312 the Plaintiff's unopposed second request for an extension of time to file his dismissal paperwork. On or before August 17, 2018, the Plaintiff must file either his anticipated petition to determine the allocation of damages or his dismissal paperwork. If the Plaintiff timely files his petition, he must then file his dismissal paperwork within seven days of the resolution of the petition. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 8/9/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
314 Second MOTION PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMANS PETITION FOR DETERMINATION AND ALLOCATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES re 311 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,,,, by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Petition, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Petition, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3A to Petition, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3B to Petition)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
315 RESPONSE to 314 Second MOTION PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMANS PETITION FOR DETERMINATION AND ALLOCATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES re 311 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,,,, by Corizon LLC. (Toomey, Gregg) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
316 NOTICE by Roland Clarke, Cornelius Thompson re 315 Response/Reply (Other), Notice of Joinder in Corizon's Response to Plaintiff's Petition for Determination of Alloocation of Wrongful Death Damages (Wydler, Lourdes) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
317 Notice of Adoption by Jerry Cummings Related document: 315 Response/Reply (Other), filed by Corizon LLC (Weissenborn, Sheridan) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
318 MOTION to Intervene by Joyce A Anderson. Attorney Christopher Quinn Wintter added to party Joyce A Anderson(pty:intvp). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I)(Wintter, Christopher) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
319 STRICKEN per DE# 321 , RESPONSE in Opposition re 314 Second MOTION PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMANS PETITION FOR DETERMINATION AND ALLOCATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES re 311 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Extension of Time, filed by Andre Chapman. Replies due by 8/29/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−G)(Commons, Linda) Modified text on 8/24/2018 (jas). (Entered: 08/22/2018)
320 STRICKEN per DE# 321 , RESPONSE BY LINDA COMMONS, ESQ. TO PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMANS PETITION FOR DETERMINATION AND ALLOCATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Price, Max) Modified text on 8/24/2018 (jas). (Entered: 08/23/2018)
321 PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court strikes 319 and 320 Linda Commons's two responses to 314 the Plaintiff's petition for a determination and allocation of wrongful death damages. Commons appears to have filed two different responses, with the exact same titles, to the same motion. The responses differ although it is unclear to what extent and why. Commons also does not offer any explanation whatsoever as to why she has submitted two responses to the same motion. Rather than waste judicial resources on

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 31 of 32

trying to figure out Commons's intent, which response is operative, and whether information in one should be considered over information presented in the other, the Court strikes both responses and orders Commons to file one amended response for the Court's consideration. Commons must file her amended response on or before August 24, 2018.

08/23/2018 08/23/2018 08/29/2018
08/29/2018
08/30/2018 08/30/2018 09/04/2018 09/04/2018

[ORDER STRIKING 319 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Andre Chapman, 320 Response/Reply (Other), filed by Andre Chapman] Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 8/23/2018. (kbe) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
322 RESPONSE to Motion re 309 Plaintiff's MOTION Plaintiff's Petition for Determination and Allocation of Wrongful Death Damages re 307 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time Plaintiff's Request for Permission to Extend Time to File a Joint Stipulation t filed by Joyce A Anderson. Replies due by 8/30/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit J)(Wintter, Christopher) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
323 RESPONSE BY LINDA COMMONS, ESQ. TO PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMANS PETITION FOR DETERMINATION AND ALLOCATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Price, Max) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
324 STRICKEN per DE# 326 , RESPONSE to Motion re 318 MOTION to Intervene REPLY BY PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMAN AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF DARREN RAINEY TO RESPONSE FILED BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE JOYCE ANDERSON ON BEHALF OF ESTATE OF DARALYN ANDERSON TO PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR DETERMINATION AND ALLOCATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES filed by Andre Chapman. Replies due by 9/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Probate Attorney Veronica Williams, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Vicki R. Sarmiento, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of John Sutton)(Newman, Annette). (Entered: 08/29/2018)
325 REPLY to Response to Motion re 309 Plaintiff's MOTION Plaintiff's Petition for Determination and Allocation of Wrongful Death Damages re 307 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time Plaintiff's Request for Permission to Extend Time to File a Joint Stipulation t, 314 Second MOTION PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMANS PETITION FOR DETERMINATION AND ALLOCATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES re 311 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,,,, REPLY BY PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMAN AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF DARREN RAINEY TO RESPONSE FILED BY LINDA COMMONS TO PETITION FOR DETERMINATION AND ALLOCATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES filed by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Vicki Sarmiento, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Probate Attorney Vernita C. Williams, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of John R. Sutton)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
326 NOTICE of Striking 324 Response to Motion,, filed by Andre Chapman Plaintiff's Notice of Striking Docket Entry 324 by Andre Chapman (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
327 Plaintiff's REPLY to 322 Response to Motion,, REPLY BY PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMAN AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF DARREN RAINEY TO RESPONSE FILED BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE JOYCE ANDERSON ON BEHALF OF ESTATE OF DARALYN ANDERSON TO PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR DETERMINATION AND ALLOCATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES by Andre Chapman. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Vernita C. Williams, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Vicki I. Sarmiento, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of John R. Sutton)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
328 NOTICE by Andre Chapman re 327 Response/Reply (Other),, PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF ERRATA RE DTK. ENTRY 327−3 DECLARATION OF JOHN R. SUTTON (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
329 AFFIDAVIT signed by : JOHN SUTTON. re 327 Response/Reply (Other),, CORRECT DECLARATION OF JOHN SUTTON by Andre Chapman (Newman, Annette) (Entered:

Case: 1:14-cv-23323 As of: 03/10/2019 05:09 PM EDT 32 of 32

09/05/2018
09/07/2018
09/12/2018 10/04/2018 10/19/2018 10/26/2018
11/21/2018 11/21/2018

09/04/2018)
330 RESPONSE in Opposition re 318 MOTION to Intervene Regarding Determination and Allocation of Wrongful Death Damages filed by Andre Chapman. Replies due by 9/12/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John Sutton, # 2 Declaration of Vicki I. Sarmiento, # 3 Declaration of Vernita C. Williams)(Newman, Annette) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
331 REPLY to Response to Motion re 314 Second MOTION PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMANS PETITION FOR DETERMINATION AND ALLOCATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES re 311 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,,,, filed by Andre Chapman. (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
332 REPLY to Response to Motion re 318 MOTION to Intervene filed by Joyce A Anderson. Attorney Max Gabriel Soren added to party Joyce A Anderson(pty:intvp). (Soren, Max) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
333 ORDER of Dismissal of USCA, pursuant to Appellant Linda Commons's motion for voluntary dismissal, this appeal was dismissed on October 4, 2018 as to 301 Notice of Appeal, filed by Andre Chapman, USCA # 18−12213−CC (hh) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
334 MOTION for Settlement PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMAN'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS TO SUTTON LAW GROUP, P.A. TRUST ACCOUNT by Andre Chapman. Responses due by 11/2/2018 (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
335 OMNIBUS ORDER denying 314 Second MOTION PLAINTIFF ANDRE CHAPMANS PETITION FOR DETERMINATION AND ALLOCATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES ; denying 318 Motion to Intervene ; granting 334 Motion for Settlement. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 10/26/2018. See attached document for full details. (ail) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
336 STIPULATION of Dismissal OF THE ACTION AND ALL PARTIES WITH PREJUDICE by Andre Chapman (Newman, Annette) (Entered: 11/21/2018)
337 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 11/21/2018. See attached document for full details. (kbe) (Entered: 11/21/2018)