Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 1 of 21
'

S1cPI¥.Al '""'!IS Rl rQT:SI: I I - ;z353iS
Name and Prisoner/Booking Number
ARizoliA STAT!: Pttt~N ComfLa-J"i,c;op
Place of Confinement
PoST OFF.:R'e ta,ox. ~ P+o l
Mailing Address
"TtJC.SON, M+UMI'f 1r5'134-Y'+Ot
City, State, Zip Code

---FILED --RECEIVED=

s SEP 13 2013 s

CLERK Us DIS

BY=

DISTRICT OFTRAICT COURT RIZONA

==::::-::::==::;:::;=--DEPUTY

(Failure to notify the Court of your change of address may result in dismissal of this action.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

cleV 114 9 TUC CKJ ~TEPHG.N

Lo< II5

("\
n.

U

O

I

S

I

l

L ,

)
)

'

(Full Name ofP!aintift)

Plaintiff,

13~-

vs.
(1) CHAB.LG:S R~AN

) CASE N O . - - - - - - - - - - - -

)

(To be supplied by the Clerk)

)

(Full Name ofDefendant)

)

.~,==.(2)~R...o..i..!....I!!I~II;L40E"""'"'B~T......___.__P.L.JI«l"--LT--l!I-3oo~£..LN~--' )

)
(3) THERESE. SC.HBoED£R , )

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT BY A PRISONER

)

:JUR.';! TR:s:Al DEP'\HJOED

4),1...-.....MD,q_A-I.Lbf.._I__,A'--L..O!!!!Iol_L~UN~n:..Jo.,e~E.o..L:R-G.L----'
.!,...!.(

)

~ Original Complaint

Defendant( s).

) D First Amended Complaint

.!::::O::!-C-hec_k_if-there_are_a_ddi-·tio_nai_D_efe_nd_ants_an_d_attac_hp~ag_e1_-A_Iis_tin_gth_em_._ _)

D Second Amended Complaint

A. JURISDICTION
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to:
m28 u.s.c. § 1343(a); 42 u.s.c. § 1983
D 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). D Other:----------------------~-----
2. Institution/city where violation occurred: ARI2cuA STAT~ P.U:SDN Ct>tn,pl ex-T\l<:SOJJ .

Revised 5/1/2013

1

550/555

,.

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 2 of 21

B. DEFENP.ANTS

1.

..Name

o.ffrrst.Detftetn.(dSPaosEritiiotcn:_.:.a.C..r.n~dlotTl.B.iJtA0I,."...!..LR~L..E.-.5-.J..l---l.R-31,d~LA:LJaWLtX-B_·_Rr_ZC_W.AThDe,ff;PirAstEDrr(IlennsffteWitnutTdioano)nFt

is ~mployed as
<!Ot<:eFcm>/!5. ·

2..· Nameofsecond0efendant: Rol3E«.T.
. . . DrlltSXON OrR,E-C.To~ (Position and Title)

89TTON · .' ThesecondDef~ndant is employed as
at OP::Fe:.l\lDER OPE'S.ATIOI\}5 ·.. (Institution) ..

3.

Name ofthird Defendant: THIZRE:S.E WAt<Debl
(Position and Title)

5CHBt>G. QEf< . The third Defendant is e:rnployed as:
at6fa;:2.o.vA STATe' Pla;sot4 CNht?i..EK-Tve-st>tJ
(Institution)

4.

N~D~aE_m.Pe~U~oIfa.f.o:Hu:!r-t'hWLDlo!e.Lf~ue.Rn~Owd.:Ea..n...t.:...::D!tJ,_A__N_'C_AL_ (Position and Title)

L•m1Dt;E8G . The fourth _ _ _atflRz:zaM STAT~

Defendant is employed as

fRzsa.J Com.pl.IEX-'Jj !f£S &

(Institution)

·

)

If you name more than four Defendants, answer the questions listed above .for each additional Defendant on a separate page.

C. PREVIOUS LA\VSUITS

1. · Have you filed any other lawsuits. while you were a prisoner? .· J81 Yes

0No

.1. ··.. 2: · Ifyes~ how .many lawsuits h~ve you f1I'ed?

Describe the previous 'lawsuits:

a.

First prior lawsuit:

. .. . .

1. , Partie.s: SUP/IG:N i.o,n:.s li;looi?£ .·

2. Court and case ~umber: \).S. ·OtS,Wit;f;

.

3. Result: e~t61W~

.(Was the case dismissed? Was it a
L_q,d fieA,v,2:.E!. SeJ+I.oJ f4£..

.·· ·.

v.

Ro-,~fi>r!.D

t!hvJ-r~

· .
:!AIL

e,o,Jid: t,..J~ OtV~=asirl "F !st. C...•·

ppeakd? Is it still pending?)MeJb eA,.eiJf,/Jri

/!4c:e. IAJ' I "0?-.g.~ C/MS- rtc·.Ji),J, :

.
·

b. Second prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: NOT AP(]JTCAf3LG

v. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

· 2.
3.

RCeosuurltt:an(dWcaassethneuicnabseerd: is-m- isse-d?-\V-as-it-ap-pe- ale-d?-Is-it-sti- ll p-en- din-g?-)_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

c. Third prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: NDT APPLJ:C..AGLG.

v. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

2. 3.

RCeosuurltt:an(dWcaassethneumcabseerd: is-m-iss-ed-?

-------Was it appealed?

--
~sit

-. still

..,.-----pending?),_ _ _ _

---_ _ __

If you

filed

more

than.

three.lawsuits,

answer

the

questions

listed

above
'

for

each

additiona.l

lawsuit
.

on

a

separate

page.

2

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 3 of 21

D. CAUSE 01' ACTION

· 1.
OE

State the coustitutioual or
7#-le LQul., .fnshrcl

oit"hetr fbed~eraFlOc«ivJidlCTriO€gfUb#.tNItThTJa.tIJw/alsinvAioJJaDteMd:fiE·tlQf ouFAtJL..SP.Ce.Qadr. S~cl:.itrurtoiocoJl

·

2.

Count L Identify the issue involved. Check only

0 Basic necessities

0 Mail

D Disciplinary pr«)CPA:dings . 0 Property

oae.
0 0

State additional issues Access to the court
Bx.ercise ~f re~

in

separate counts.
0 Medical care D Retaliation

Rea 0 Excessive force by an officer 0 Threat to safety ~Other:

A L DTSCgTJn'tplf'WlJL

Fa._ ec3ai.teiDbgSDuleepgfpeaonlrdatiaaun.gttdhid~Oor dr i8Sdl'tgDaUtODetladesDo.bttshr.iaetfvlyiaoslpao~sys·oi·bulrertihgehtFsA. SCtTaStesthueppfoacrttisncgleCaorluynitnI.y

Descn"be exaCtly what·

our ownwords without

.

·

LtJt"k:leX,zA:t.!wi.z.aM~:4 :SbJa~-k~r:(~M)s•;so~J~tj'>Mm~Pf/e~;t.i~-T~tJGr..:SPttJ:i:'~:!tev·!~4~J=aectlliN~7i&J<:;;So~teJ,x

hSW [bo'&}vIt:sT:nefAcu;J:' .R.S.a:Joi:.ND.crJ9de.UhtIo!oYajv:hJl?=dtA,(bmsAicZ-hJAAASArPeoi zPfs:A'&sr AJ•o~l+x&•u•t.",TihM .e:C,4;.r:k(.trlJn' ;.~a1ttat±s~asZO:obl''o<uIjT"JC!xJoxmA,.AIt,nUmf6ge-.,r;Sst:•z.l1oNL&rJJo::t.z;g:Nu:~lcJe.;Hcr-S.Er1S,ucTq.Eo-Rec,.UJ. 111tf1

==~~~~ 4. Injury. State bow you were injured by the actions or inactions ofthe Defendant(s).

.

.

(~ee. 1\-t-+~c. h)

5. Admiaistrative Remedies:

a. An, there any admiDistrative remedies (grievance pmced.ures or administrative appeals) available

at your institutimi? ·
b. Did you submit a request for administrative reliefon Count I?

1!.Yes 0 No ~ Yes :D No

rcA Ill ·c.
cL

Did you appeal your request for reliefon Count I -rthe highest level?

Ifyou did nOt submit or appeal a request for administrative reliefat any

you did not. NOT 8 pPl

S L E

level,

Yes 0
briefly explain

No
why

3

r-~···--

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 4 of 21

1

2

D.. C.~vs£ oF Ac..-rx:orJ

3

3 .. SuppoR+;"'~ Fac..+s ( C.o.v+ttJ ve.d)

4 u f\J (-t: e1.-f:. +-h-<Z.. fYlt+I\J ZAN r+A tJt--t ~-t • tJ Po tJ r AJ-FotJ..rl1ttt4-i'otJ

5 6

t1Nd.. be.b·e..-F, C.4f?t;.fo(e. o-f"

Pl4t.J+-~-Ff S4LfS +he. V'V},qllfz.A-JJ/M LhJl•-t. i hov51fJ~ A-ff~ox&'.'n~-telq ~(V'e. hu~-~cl~ecl-

s

~ ~ ® 7
s
9
1o

(s oo) .!CNI'h~;#:es.
PlArJJ+if'~ ; s

Pfi.e.se~ff t;!,

.
~~ housr,Jt:j VnJ't-t. ~It c;;,cJe:.

oF
hc..s lil

..ff.G fY1AI0U\-N&+Ifl u.0,·-t-.
z.t doub le.-buNkfoeds

HouS\tJ~
> 4custro~s

Ul'tl•'t
vwti::..

1.-A
.i.- lll

s rd~
5tde.

11

12 13
14

he.. s 1 d.ou b(e.-lou'"k.bed.s Ci I\)d... IJ.. S;111<3le..-beJ5 {
fr.ii.i"»t"{!iAJf-ei.~W( iA+hO.AP)~.ysOt~Ne...+lh.Ge.lt~;5~-4t1.orotlfftefs/l,A~~1,1-1C*..JAAA,Jq.Jwr-t/+.fht v, ,t.'M:>t:~.-i

15 16

Hovso~ lwuSi ,v~

uo;i.J 5
u,/.C1

J..-
-7. <./-

4- htts 4'1 etovb
clovble.-fou"" "-bee!:.

k..;bvNkbeds IN O>.cJ,
o,J A-5 td~ RAJ(/. :J.lf

LN.Ji;>~ll'lt;.+l t7
18 19

dou(,le. - bwkbed s oAJ ~J srJ.e. 1tJ ecu:.lv vf\lrt; kt>ust"":J u,.,;-.-c

5 h.c.-s

:2.. 'f-

dovlo le.- bv.JI<Ws

.

CJ,.J

A- Sl'de 4Ncl.
1

~4

4"te..b~N.i--

eetreF bed.s 20
21

O,J I!>- side.. Vpo N

OJJ a.AJJ

I L --·.•Q I rrT/1..51,.., .J

VNI £ C.1 (p1o1 ft..e IYI4N4'1;;Jt#l vwit)1 htl*s' % S ll-l-lG.J {e_- beds

22 IYleefil:"' \ Nec4 ~ 'Z.VM&•:Ies <VIe. hoo ~<>4• UfoN IJVIilllmaliCoJ .:;Nd

23 24

&I.-e.F -l-he. Oe.ko~-h'otJ vwt-1:. ( o,J file- m/Wz..+U/:111 urvt-1:..) ht+s 13 dotJio /e. - bvNI<./oc.d S ( .i. double-lwtJJ;.beJ. iN s ec..cJ.. crf .fhe1.. 1 <:.ells:.\ ...

25 26

atJd-

+wo ce.lls

4!£+1..- 1..

Sil'{)/e-W

1,.; ~ct..

~ .
Ce,fli

>JJ
o..

27 +rrl-cc,t oF I~ ~e,fls t,.; f~e. def~frov UIJtf::.. •

~

3-A

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 5 of 21

1

D. CAU5f. OF Ac.liON

2

'3. SvPPo~+itJ~ Pae-+S{co~V4-tl\lud)

3 Q£) Defe....clc..J-t:.1 <: hA"'- k.s RyA-nJ is -1-he.. 0 IRo={o~ o-F +he..

4 S~+e.. o-f A~i~!VA 0epc...IP.1-me-I\J-t:;, oF C.O(lfl.ec.fl~s_. He iS

5 ~~~H") t<~spol\l'Otb/e- ~~+he- OU~ct/1 of~-1-to,.J oF fh.e

6 Fl. I{ i z.o N f! De(lA .a.-t:,.,er~-t. & F CoMe.::.-1-lorJ 5 ~ ~ 7 J:#~-H+v+lo...S VAJcle..~ i -1-s Jv R Isd lc.+ibtJj { ,.vc.r..tcli "":l

8 9

AI.fJl.ihze.o.,.~.t

A S f<i.+e... fJ'{;S D
PIAi.J-1-iF+ t S

.J <:om ple.x.- luc.. s o..J fl11!'l"'Z.l'riJI·ht
Pf<e-5U4-I<j 4avse-.d.1 .

Ufjit.
'

10 Oe.+"e...t44N'f.1 ~ !,11-"" J.L'<> eyi!N du+tes ett'Z<a.. ll.s fed u~IR

11 Alt<i:z.o All't Re.tJlse.J S-k.d-v ~s , SecA-to,..l If 1- I(, o 't; wln.tc h.

12 ·r<.e..cu!s f ,J fJeA-4-\"'~--t:- P14~+:, {s) 01-5 Fo Hows:

13 ' ' Sf LJ 1- t(,o t.f. Du-+t~ cwd. Pow~ s crF dtiO.e.c.+oR

14

A. ~e. dtr<.sec..to~ Shea ll:

15 '- ~ ~po.J5ib/2- -h>R 4-t,..e- C)Ue.A<tll e>f~.{tom <Wd

16

flo 1(C{es o+ -J..h~ de.pt:::t~+M~ -1::. a

17 .2.. IYI<tiu+AltJ ANd admtNis-kR ctll XNS+i-kJ+!o.rs o.oJ

1 18 f'ri{o~P.~MS tJt~~N ~ cJe.pA.<t+me.o~-i: i llldUcl.tN':> flRiscNSJ

19 20

Co~l>p'lM-tJH.,to-tfJ-~""C-o"l'c2l.~dec.i+<-»t'joNllOleS.·lH~c. <Ce.;,.l{;e.R.~ S1 Co .JSSe<.Rk.u.ohrt-o1o+rhJeC.Ra..mpsJ

21 -Fctc..rliHes £t.ucl P~o<J,Q..AIYl<S 4'5 #'net~ be- ~utA!lJ. a..~

22
23

~ es+o.bl~ ; s~Re.fhoA#\b+ihlIe+.c-dCWv..sJ+oocfl<' ;a!

, CD~ l,
It Ac:d.vrt

CoRRe.c.-Hou;
O#e.N.\eJ<S

~t-
who

24 O..@R.... C..oh\Mr-+4-eJ to -4-h-e... de..PV:=l-R--hvne.Nt t' . ., · - . "'-

~ ~ P~> 25
>l- 5: &..

po..t St'ble- f011. deve.!opme,.d: t7f Hct'e.s a..,J

26 PRo~RFtvnS ~..!: ~k~tt £:,~ l'{.ec.omMe.vdecL t-o +"~ lj~o~

27 ClNd -1-M- le13ts lc...Wf.e. f'o>"- +he.- poP..foSe. of- iMptro1HtJ5 -+he

~

3-6

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 6 of 21

1

D. C.AVSc OF Ac-rrorJ

2

3• SuPPoR+i~~ ~+s (c..~itJueJ)

or 3
4 5

~ II<>.RiC>V adu t t

C..
,

•oiF.)eR.veepo.tl>o..f.-/o-(o.JN~

c..+~ Co RRe OMI>. I ~ J e.:>-4-t:..b tc•s a.
S+ed·i s-b'c.s as

f.lRo :1 R~M
liN!'.J:'o,o,m
R.e.lcJ.eJ. -fo

s.
3-lc.k. -1--1-.\..:;

-l+.ts
w ide.

Sl'idYI·e6.f.~.c•l

eh.Pr pAA. 11

be+'e..~cle.nt, A~ 6

C. kMie.s R.1fltJ 's A-M&Des s is:. /6oI Wes-t

7 JoFfe({soN $ .ff<.e.e..-t.., Pfu:;e.w tX, ( :Z.OJOII/- 'if:')o o '1·

Oe.Fe.-~a~, C.h~>ctR/e.s s9

l<.'fM is suecf. .l::#Jlt;icJuo..lt';1 o,..ul..

C.c,~d+~· +~-s tn~+ioNed i~J CM.~s v~~ lrU his o-H::lda.l

f\-t o.ll

10
11

-1-h.\5
Co\oR

OC'oTl'\p$lo.i~ llli=1

l0.~./ew.o.JciANt-1

RyM t::\c..hl,

-fk_

12
@ 'De.~.,.Jt1 Otv!'slo.~ 13 ·.·Olf'~~ 6flReo.b.e~RIO-tt:J«P,"'+iNtorJ+hies.. 4Aiz.:,..,o4 0D\Reep.cA..~-/;-lR{;&;:t

14
15 16

:e>ri= e<~:ooP.,IZJe.c.S+<-4o$.,eS:t•: Ro~-t. P.,++oo) .; 5

·

jH'5urP:e:hc,o.Leo...NX.dN\xdc.&h1 vA.is~dsZvizoio.s,..l:llf~lI

loe. I We::
?JSoo'1.
t 6\1\lc.l. N

;~ + ~
hts

17
18
19

o.f:c-FI' C.Ia. I e.Ap"'c3+<1 • A-t. c.. II +rmes VYleJJ4-tol\lecL.

L.or<>j!/"-1
C.o to A

..rl.::., o-F

Oe,+Ewd.wt:1 Robe..-tt '5~-+e.. I1\-W.

P"" ++oi\J

t:t.c-/ecL

V

fAl -1-hts
old~ -l+.e_

20 21
22 23 24 25 26 2278

,.CLO1u~SJ..~I.i\roQ,fJJ·'tdtes{M.A}e,Ae,e.(#'..(.~ePf_..o1,...f.+D~,JfIh'Y·Aoet~e-l--c.,FRF.,.--iI1\MeJC+uDdt0<rc1.2j.(e-.mAVf.Lo~.lANI-me(.~5FCl..elvf{.lsDl:talt.o:"JDw.'IfJloI.>tZe:''t:f1CN,e\(~A>.ci.JY.t>eRte-<:M;l7e'so7+~.uc,lo.or7-,d.Joulo~t<otAi,I.Z~J.Jd0(cf:rQifsfL"obic".,~.-..I,mf-S~.cH:;~..o..rCefv.:i~ +~-.OJ'ofe;~\s.~Ne~tA6otdf4al!-fc.:Liu.laiiR-uo'e,A3f<~tJ~G'~eV.;~f)(s5!AN(iu.:·~ s,bi&pts•O.D.tl+vei~{re~:.e.k{.tI)JJs).t;(fw~l~vht~Kt::~I,

2-c..

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 7 of 21

1

D. CAuse. oF flcr:rotJ

2

3.. SuPfot!t}i"AJ~ FCiC.+'5 ( ~oN+i"iJuec\)

3 trlA';! XtnpALt. +I-.e. S&c+e. cwd. ~c..Ui{<e. ope.~·HotJ5 l!l~

4 +he. p({iS.o"-ls: I/

5 upo.J :CIJ-i='<>tl!m<;:kor-1 ~wd &lte..f: 0tA~o-~s IWl. ~ W~

6 ~;1:::. AiliZooJI\. Ck.(JM.fme..J-6 oF CoRP.ec.+,-0/lls' PP.t'soNS Re.po~ -to

7 Oe.fe,~A~I Ro~t Pt\+1-otJ., 4-~ DtvtSt\lN o,. ~e.cfe.( ~

8 () ~qe-~ ope.~{e..fto..rs I f-j.,(>..ou~ h fl>e. 4fPt<o pll..iq;{t!. Rej ft.rirAL

9 10 11

foi~Rp<o:e,i.'aYP'lcrt.fplt~.,(.fJ",SsA~ottt-DJ1-lc'P:.)~e/RciD.imwohcl>1ct-i,l'.&tvt~i~1NNc~t.'~Is,AJrc:(~lJAu<d)Dt\Flf'eil.t,~:Jc+b.,'.4.dlrt'SeN(J.I<oco.-utM"A.eCI:ItY~I W'S+\h~l.R·.~s~--fTt.h05

12
13

~~up
PhysiCLAt

issue-s
S+Rvc

t1Nc1.
+u({e

::t..~t:;.s+~tuc...+uAe.. det"YJtJi.tJdS oJJ sj Pla.vJ+$ .. (s-e-4.. 0e,A.I{~ ol<c.l~

'2o

\

1.' w {( (. 14 .DVIVJ~ lfaou~\1,·+~

J

15 upoll1 XN'fDt:tl'V\4-+t~,.J AAJd. ee.He.f M,'z.o,JA f?t\\sorJS 4D1t\)JO...~d.

16 ·~ ~W\c-..c+ro,J ~+e,. Sh-ee..~ ..fo +ltte.. t)(lli $loi'J Di" RE:.cJoR

17 fl:,~ D.f+ewcleP. ope~+totJS 4hP..ec..t~~ ~ a('fa..op({ta..ie-

18 l?e.~tc..J{X\ op~oiJ':> D1Pec.Ao~ +o~ St~rJt:t+uRe- ~ PlcceMe.Jt

19 tN+o +h.e.. Dffe.Ncte..R D1'eA..od-to.us rvt~ &!d. RecoRd. •

20
21

(see.~~ o~ 7oi:IiJ~A<:cov..Jf4ilt-fi?ol ([.'3.:2.))
Vfot-J ~RW"\6..-+to,.l A-Nd 8e/i~ +h~ D~~ ~\J(Ce....s

© 22
23 24
25

f!>uReo-u 'Y'f)qi~IIJ A (>e~fYlAtJewt: ~Rd., -FD~ h\SfoR.,--ea._\

pufJ.pose-s1 oF \)tPec.:\:·oR o.ppt<c,\JeJ. <::.~-to becls}CoutJ+sj

~s

w~e-.R\\.lCd\o~w~ t1 ~'I'O"e.'d.e~.~+Stc'."hoR!ole'cliLD~ ~i s

Shee...~S-
~e.. (J~

o-F

26

~t"Zol\Jil ~ f'P-tsotJ Co""pi...7<.-TL1C..SoNj a."t:? lo,ooo

27 '5o u+h. LJfl..,ot Ro,..J.., Post: o.f.Ftc.e. lb o l<. :l. '1-qo ; Tuc..s o"-' ,
28 ~~Zo"'~ 9s'ls&~4-'t-eo. '3~D

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 8 of 21

1

D.. C.AuSk: oF lie.Tio/V

2

3. SuPPoA+\rJtj F~-+5 ( C:o!V·/-i"IVued)

3
4
5 6

~fo:;~R,zo.#+l.heNe. .~ot,~.'J--oerlhf~e\R-1ER>eos-&FeF.A,cSqcdi.zhl.~oe-i1c\J-etA.ade-.SeI-~.VtJ+Z feni-stirPl/ete\sl.s~oi4l\AUlJ-~TfR4ueec..s..spo~ £Wt\.sf1.\.Zlaoo1..ENt0!CA.../.
~-lrt4e- p~; 5.,10 er:,,.,.,PI.e-x-Tuc..sotJr l'Aldud~"'1 Plctlll-ftffls t.kl~.

7 D~M-t., 'Th~e.se. ~~eR is suet;!- .n.tdtvrJuo.lt"i

8
9

tWcf. f.v
\ tJ -\-'-t'O

hC~of\1o\f(=J Flctl\er-lJa-t.:ItClAJepfoe.-c,:vi:t+lA<1,v•-tA:.-tf.hec.:t/~1es+ei!t.r..e

SSc!V.lheA~H--eIo-.JRed,

10
11 12
13 14
15 16
t7
18 19
20
21

tte.+ect- v~e.R ~e. C.olo~ ·D+ ~ /Aw. ·
\+v£0S\.w7\I\.u1.-v.oh,1Rbo.rd.cl;m~~.l..l~el_.e..3,;~telP0l.~.d.~.~.WutlCo~I&.1ht-'.co.c.:~.I!e5vd:o'-\dsu>u-.FDt,·-ot'.I:fJ~:.I-Il:H/~t1lUfDV.tc+\t,2eeleU.rve..J1tcs~-o"'L3(lF.t..'..ol5>-bRq~coC>elI,\IA0.~.R~'~f.P~I,.,deofe~N-~ .4,oR5.-:o.h.211t.~.A's.-1.-o,p+.1Nde<o'b-.e7."[rwsep"~ s\tJo)"cfedSc"jl1Pso.t'sief1li-o.\'W5.14i(".OibaJo'/1N,..~'R;.A.:.'44te-l.oiJs1.J-+'WeJtI-SWeF',.1wl-o..Stsp'C>~s4&~cle.&C1W..WS<.H/Sh-O-.I'/:JleU.".:..(e.wio.oI.ARNtvtr~'\ao~JJSNel"oe!"b'-ev.".fesc"U~.S1C'o-'P/je-liNC-ltsl-.~.-.l-&.tUe~o1/eDwoLRRANsLai)l~•:u.~z+eJ.-..+)to/w;he,.JY...-Mc\·phi...~'J3ceo:;i,;~l:._.~e,N•~-:J

t'"-' 22
23 24

''~Ct..~oOI+.\prhloe+.fe<.v.e..•spo/,1R•-{.~:.; .,~fo..f*'~t.~OtvOi.so-tfpc.R-~op0R1.iRoe..c{.e-..loR~~;~o..,.o._-tF-ofekNRck.R.+_wrj.s

~ l'tv~i-I..,J rh.P,I~ 25 tl1Pec:\·ot2,1 4.V';i S iof•"C<t.rf: (JRolclev., $ OuQ..j"s t N ') -/kofrl. PR1";5Ml

26 c l'{olt-ci1 t1 NLlvcl\,v'J bvt tvo-f:.. I

to Retc..a.l

/

2~7 iII'\b.;lq,Jce.1 Po-/>e.Ji..'o.. I 3se~cE.VtRt+tj -Uv!e,. t: 1Rcup i -ssve.-s cwcl

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 9 of 21

1

D.. C.Au~ oF AcT.rotJ

2

'3. SuPPoA.+tN'j F=4c..+s (COt.JI..ttJu&L)

GJ 1 ~-t I~G ~ .fZ,~ 3
4
5 6 7

iCPNooFrsMor--e.(FDs!eo~+~---u-ff~ecTlo'.lu.tctWcI..Y:Pe:.IIAA..sNe.otrZt3.N,AojOMxdAi.e~f~tN.l>,,'.iq'+Al.VA-.'LAfeJOc-JLislstius1:~Toed,vN/;bt0c:e..1sAoPo.Ah~oA~•':o'.JlZ{1S.s0I.iSe1\'co+l.u."Mhl-"UeJS'--,~SffO~AWlvfece.i.1p-l.lmiVc.J.Pfr'of-I<'.!!-e{JtrWs:"~{"oP JA"~ Ll)f'~f~oo.

8
9
10
11 12
13
u
15
1 16
17

:+4::Li+tPt-:ShNt't'luf">>\tmolzi-,Nd,r.e'M:l.h;edcwo0-lsoeb\A,1;~\.ueedACIS-S~uY•oo'"e~ZH\-1tet'FJq>"lo.1'Ip,.1\J/ADN\+~e0i-c-)Dt4"~C.otDeo.t.te,td.J.-i-e.d.FeAevpT1._.d1:LV+1otWu 1.~.~.AcReLtiIi..".u\fsr.~ .'J,J"mof~-Ye~'/N<.Ih1,DI,:I1W)r!ttDfAb:h:s5tZ:A:«"Mter'."I1xoic.oe0N)..41.·o.fCttpliu=ll.o-o5rLFNtC/l.+cf.f:lC..o.Lu<..o{i-~{uJAt'6oulJM.,A.otl.:'H~rwi4llF:ile:):b-,'e~h~-C'/<cD5.~jf)feo-!?-sel/lWto{"e-fJet.e-isce1As..{.p5te'>l-+rlu<o.<l:h~lt~!l.5Ii/teS·AAleeu.~N~e:siA..W(bi.fJ::tt(t~kuo1...D\".-'-4oFl'tM<d5lW-+.l~f~it~kt-tj.:-\f

J OR.cl~ (ofe.f.A-f,~~~,L ~~) 1189

11'\I'Wvc,.( {c"-""-p-Jer?. ?oo

~e.: G41c~~c.l ~+tONs·"~t: 20
21
22

7 ~ f. 1•_.?u.~, -.-v T ,e.

o{.of I.0f., 3'
.v, s

t...,.o_o..J,J..DI,"."-'-I~=.- ·(l,'.oR•Re..1"..:.>fIl.p:,'lo(N~ Sr?ibe.f.ldt'-iHe<si..sOtfZe/.{Ue.c·+wtcsw:s)

/.j
)
-fl,~

f?~ DfRec_to~ I""-~ ~ fhe. /!ffP.Off{,'D._{e..

i ONcd 0 f€.11-.<>rfiOIJ<i>

~ t%.1'\\SjJU~ ~om ~Wt:lb.!~l 23
24
1 25
26
27
2s

-OSPlDiuuolf'ecR;l~.Fjd.l'ev"eu.<ecf.l>:.,{f_l.c-t,ilJ.r'e1J,w\I~to-,t.ibS'A:f.ev.,.JcotdD..U~AspN(fNPitItO&-{Do/~-I\'.hJJ1-l/tm€+c.PL1Ih.h1tm uk)y~'5.stt~.t{'.c~1.~,-~I·W~-5vstso-if,·f"(PRd'v"c;uc),..-icA-h.5l,v's'tSel.R.s\usee{sPfsuj"cJ".w,A~'(R-{ItdMJ+S.e<o~jv~/uf(f).f,~ lscr~lbR.e.t.~.t.d.~stc~

3-F

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 10 of 21

1

D. C.Aust: oF Ac.TIOrJ

2

"3... SVPPoR+\rJ~ Frlc..+s (Co/Vh'NudJ

3 itJ f'e~+il\t4Jt f'ec.~t: /.. 5#~,~-1, '"The. u.v&t Depv+'jW~-E'.l3

4 $ 'v~n ~eutew +hil- Arms Schedule~ Fof<. ~ovst.u3 Re.cornmel\ld-

5 d+tOIJ~ 4wd. ~ app~ue ot'J. dewl;{ hoost,v~ ctSStjllf~
6 a.vcl cloe.uM..e,.rt. clec.fs i aJS ow-~-~~ A.ppRofl{ •4+e.. Ar ~.s 7 Sc.Reel\f,. The. vwt-t:: De.pv+~ WA-~e.J SM.tt b.a.. +he. -f1·N'~l
8 App~otJ~l t\Utho~'+ti fi:>~ ~ll hoos1~ ctSSl'jtJmetJ+s.''
® 9 t\LL Qe.f'eNd<W-1? ~e. Sued., .1:"-ldl\1&'dV<I.tl'1, Ad iN 4-l,et~
10 CtA..uc.l ~~o-F #ternJ D~'C.lo. l e.APl\.C.t-\-'1, A-t. Cill +tM~S 11 1>)€./J-Uo"'ecl trJ #-ts C.OWiplo.ltJi=- ec...cJ.. ~1::. 4<::.-led.
12 UIUcle-tR.. th-e. C.o /o~ o-1= .S~fe, lAw ..
13 Q;) p IAt"'-1-r-ffl 'i) ~pi-=J Loui<;, RudtiS m. til ~es +hc.-t q I \ ~f
14 ' f-he. IVAmed. elef"eNJ.A,vfs i 1J His C-t>Mp l<>.i..rl:: GI-ft~
15 5 tjSk~+ic..~ If~ S~Re.~c,.+i/1.1') xw ~~~ b ~ r'<4.<:.e._ t 1J
16 housi 4 Ass i<3JJMetv+s t4t +he... A~t:Ze>tJA ~ P~ts()l\)

17 C..Omplex- TVc.SotJ'S ll'\14A1ZAA1t-h'\ UAlt'"-f::;,.

~ ct~ 18

Cct,VC<\ s t o.N ( whUe.) ..:C•IImc..fe.s

cl.ou b Ie.- buo1KeJ. WI'.Jh

19 (!) +"'eit Wlu·k. IIV~-4-es 01\JI~ •
20 QL') (?, IA<:. k XiJll'k\-leS "'.~e double - bVIVkecL Wt'-M, D-1-/;..e.l~

21

r3 IAc.K. ~"' Mtt ole s o IVl tj •

22 @ rY1e.xic.A''-' <J.rM/o~ H(&1fttlh"-'tc. :t:tJIVlct-les ~e. clovb le -J,urJ

23

A.Jt+h o+h.e..R fV\e.-)(t'"GAt-J ~~/oA HtsfRtJ{ c.. .IiV'rn4-\e. s ·

24 @ NC\+tlle. ~~tc..AN .:t:~HYlA.-1-e.S 6t~e. douloJe.- buNk-ed wt{h.

25

tV~4t\fe. Am~ e,lfl-nJ :t:.111~fes.

26 @> Ufoi'J ::bJ--h>Rrn6\+i"o,V t?ti\Jd &h'e.~ :I/\J~fes- c.-1: ~H o-F

1 27 +he. VI\Jifs( Riwc.o.J1 Wtl\lc.h~s-kR S141'1ffl- t'<i.J-A, YYli.JoR..\s
28 C.irYlt1\R~o tJ 1 Whe.+S.foiU€r C. OU) ~~ A~iZI:>tJI-\ S+C\ +e..

3-G

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 11 of 21

1

D. L.Aus£ oF Ac.T:r:otJ

2 3
4

3. SVPPo~+c"nJ:\ Ff\t:~ (Cottl-1-at.sud)

PR\'5ol\l C.omfle.x- "1\.Je-~otJ 1 0\.Ae..
~Re~a.-\ecl b'1 ~e:t.ce.. {,v housh.>~

lve.t~~ S\JS-Ierv\e..-ii' e~\\ ~
cvs~\~"'tnew-t5 { i"ttJ -+'-'~

4~-t: 5
6 7

{dl(.§..)C..Ut~k'foo.-iF'J$1+L-qV-.h.+JeOe totdv-'oYFuleAbri-?lfteaoZ,,J-..obANu,A,vvtJ5k.slOoAe-.1e.\lltt:Lep.fd1Mo..u:~b:t/ie~U..~-e{eo..e.f~ll

S ) ...
a-t 0\ l \ Of
t!.oiZfR.ecf{oiJSI

8 9 10
11

'PA.\soN s(fAdv I-I: fYio.{e... C..01>1(11e.)f.)1 (
s ()oc.JGL 1\ 1 (,<)!I:tJSLd IA11 FLo l'l..:=-tJct1 Ft
E"~m~l\1 1 GLofb£, APAcHe:, PHo61\lXX
be-1N') S'1 sk."" 4+ i C..ll':\ Se<jo<le-:J<~.-kcl.-

\ s j L &.WI5 '!1 VIY\f\

· G. R.<WT1 SA FFo1~I), 1

~t"'cl ~e:A..s,)~

1
b '1

fl.~

/ tJ

lwus Wj

12 4. s~t~~~s ( ··.v He tt~et\. t>.P ftae- dou!a/e-bvtJI<S /IN:i dovhle--'

13 c.e1 \ '5 )#

14
15 16
17

~.
@

0V·b\PoSfIoSoA\.-tt\RIJjJJt..,J.P:~C-.~IfeI<'-r\F:ll.ftOt~WSet~dM1OcC\r{S1t.keu~r..cJLJA4OAt~-e.."tJcfo-€l-H.tb.:.~e,.aN~.ffAt\eINo:Rf.tF.~.O-.Lli:A-~J.hJH~hm.~Aec.A..+-\fekeSt.sslefR'IbA~t~J.CAe-.~fJt<V,JOSS(iS.J--<~ fhje-

18
19

dA.~ rYll4':1 a.vd Sys-/eofh'c.

I

Si e1 <~j~~c't>.)+viDtbNo

vt ~\4 \ 01SC.R\mtw4-f..toAl
o+ ~ks. l,v +h~

1 20
222t
23 24 25 26 27

o·~ RpJo~ e'bo.,eb.~tst-c.f(J:-oP+;-oFvPIMuos.h-O.o.l,+ev·.s.Tok.riN:Feho.1..ef.tu.D~J.t1:iItv?.&vdt-'uf5pre~ih~to.vR-A:"e['.'yI.:cFl-PlHteNftvAo~)vtdvcfv.'fi.<{l.e~io'.4~~M pCl•J~'o&~+-tFDe.Io.<fv'ife:v.t>o.:l->:l>"ca~'~.s.t"cPANl~({".o--~tfr'-<-r+i:Ho:Jl~J\;1u......-......

@WI\I~"P'laa.AAir-J1.f-l.ee,-J.-.ff++-:eWf~v~,vodek......+.'ef1JD.~eoA+&V1J3':J.)..AlfI5-,.tt,L~f I~;l;:l.te> 1.3s

~~#11\l ~4tN
Re~Aitd;-....-~

28

H // CjiiJ

II.J m 4.--l-e.. G({;e.IIAN£. e..
3-

(. 1\JVWibe.A. I '3- C 14-- 0 't'4) C<!Wd. 1

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 12 of 21

1

D, CAus£ oF Ac..7IDJJ

2

'3J SuPPe>l{..f..\1\1~ Ft:lc.+s C<!ol'l-4-iNu-ed)

3 D+h,-e...~ fV\C'\.+-\-e...~S • ::CJ;Jm~.J..e... @, "-ie...VANc.e. Num/o~: 1~-
4 CtL.f- o 44 1 iS a.l;,oui:. ~~t~1 \)j'~~imtNa..-1-toiV a,uol Se~~-

5 tj&\+iold 0, t. lf,qi~oJJ~ g~fe {Jf{tS otJ C..o!Yl (1/e.y.-Tut!..S CN •.

6 PIA\w1-t.f'-f lt\ltO~Meal Oe~A".ct1 ChAt<tkS /?'jA-N -f-lva.t +k..

7
8 9

ulcs. Sup~em.-e... rl\l' ::J"ohN~OrJ v. ~o.lt~f{l\)a~ (;(ooS)lS'f3

u. S. 4t.}~ (
b~ f?t<\sot-l

l:l. s s. ~-t.. lltt \) l-te,ld, +hAt
offi~c..t'C\ Is .q~e UI\Jlttw-Fu L

~cra.t ~f~ssifl~~Ho
utJ Jess l-tre. ~()<le6Q.n)...

10 11

me.,vt CIA-tJ (>t'{ou~
~ i loAe-d.. \'VleASul'l,e.

~t
s .U.a..t

4-h~ Poltci"es
-h,~U,eJt C.o

\.'l4·~ Ntt>t~'RotJJ~
Mfe.ll~~ ~ov=.w

-

12
13
1 14
1 15
16 17
18 19

@:YtCp-.on~£.~ef1hm."-NAlPHd'.'rltT~e-oLoN"\_l.-e-_ifle\c~\"-l+l)sli'((+~H{-.{'ie:Ttf(.!J~:~:s~veFO1.A-t\.\t\:J.+Jt~ S.-~.Jtod'UeoletN..-J~-,J.dt'A0.A.s-~·S5JP-~tmI•1Atfl~rJC~HNe':NU~4.ISf-f.&+l1.wJ~~-I-J~Fe:1fdLo~+~.t~lJ..\'o.t1s.s.-llYe.t3t:ttA-3X?1)Sec~tp~bo.t-\e..l~h5.+tStvjofe1v.,OAc.e-e.15L.Pse:po:.-...~i~faZ?tdk-o~.oe-,£AJMSp~\A<tf:e\:Dt'l0lo:~5.~<-t-hlF/.GvRA!t.fos>.?oflr.eliso'\e<:{h:~~ R~J\e-~.RtlJRa(~~~Msde"t-:~:"-,..~i~\(e')-..3...l

20 -r\-te..P..e.Se.. <Oc.~RbedeR 1 'f<.e.-pl ';l Wt<\5 d~+ecL "'SutJe... "11 ~o J3.
21 Qcl'~~"'t, ~~~ese 5c.J'"lt:toe.cleR1 ~ r<e.fJ'1( ~~~) W4$

22 c\.e..liv~ecL tv fLAi.J+;:.f+· b~ Com k~Ro/,'iVe.. WAShiV)ci\J 6tJ

23 o~ ex:.c.OLS i o rJ ,q""c\. b:! t:>eJe.NdA...li:1 OA"'\.f\L Lu..,dheR~ otJ

24
25
26

ct N o+~e..R. Ol!-C.C\. S l 0 t\.) ,

@

Pl~iM-\-l'Ff" LurJd.beR~

wAS ::t:~\Jte.we.J. oN' lYl-A~ :J...3t {Lot 3j

b~ ~c!~.J-t:, D4~t~\ ~~A~,...~ ·J?l~t~+i'f-fs

27 1e..-He.12-(s) 4-o Oefet-.tdev\lt T~~.e-se.. -5 c.hRce.ele.tt ~IOf'<.

28 'De~l:\.10-l e.h,f\r'-\.le.s ~~AN; t:\bout ~c.to.t Ots~t-~~·ADH>N

~-1

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 13 of 21

1

D. C.A\JSE oF Ae.--r:tol\1

2

:3... 5vPPoRt1-t'rJ~ Rtc.+s (cotJ.+t!'Jt>ecl)

3 OtNA ~R~C\+roru c* .ItJAII~+e.s, a.s ~..Ve-Il £\S ~ V\'\4~$..

4 @ Plo.,;t.r+t-YF, R.ee et,v.e, A Re,.p I~ le~ ~oM f}e.futd<l."-'t:J

1 5
6
7
8
9
10

·'DCU'VtCt \ 1-uN-c\be.P..~ ~~~A.~rrJ9 ~e.. ~\Jie~ held

1 ·()tJ ·Yh4';! Q31 ~ol3 4loou
Se.c.1~ct+tC>N ~~ .:z::...tm~deS Lu~lo~':) ~e.pl~ ~ t

t
S

Rctc.l~l Dl'"Sc.r{tl'l').tf\1-~+rotLJ ~1\)cl h~ Rc..ce.. • .De~ddrJi- 1)(\~~~
d.octeA, IV)~\\ ~~c z.ot 3~ ~

@ orJ
tSorn-e..

:rvf\)~ "' .2.o t-s, De-fe~dt:t..rt, O~a'aJ
p~~woRl<(wAs. Respo..rse.. ~om

Lu~beA,~ +oss
'De~t:J

11 ~Rese. Sc.h"oe.clefl..~ Re_,~/~ttd1~~ Pl4tN-I-\-Ff\~ 1e..HeR ~

12
13

..r; YV)A~ }~1 ao\~J ~J_ Sfctted, '' ~~t WQ.S VI\J(.~lted .ft>P..j
Mo+h\rJ~ ~011\l~ +o hAppe,v; ~ l\ Je+~s ~et: \~

14

bt+c.l< +o me, I

({uN

~t s

p-A,.

11
St>tJ,.

Pl~tN+if.f.

·llloK.ed

15 t\t. -H,e.. fC-tfeRwDRk ~-t. Oe.~d&\Ni:1 O~.J\cd Lu~dbett~

16

toss

(:)tJ

PIC\.\tJ+~-ff's

bed.

f'l41~tf.f

t\Sk

(e-

fe.

ldl\f'.l

t
1

17 00t.Jta_l wtJd.be.R~ fOR ()a~da...Ji: LuNd.b~~ts 5-ft\~t-

18 Cet uo+ecl £\bove.) ttJ WR\ +l"t'l~, De..f.e.Jckt,J-l:, l~tJ~~l lutJd.~~

19 e\ec.l,..tJect

013 20 @ Plot'lt0-l+f.f wAofe., tW~e.~ le-H-e..e. ~d~tect. J"'u111~ ~, ~ )

21

+o Ue.~dA:1'1£11heRe.se.. SchRoecl~ Olbov-1::. St.fstem~c

22
23

~elj~~t\.+totJ; ~cl \.Ue.hJc)l',J~ A- ~p~ o-f I+ le.~ l: w~+e.
+o +he GoVe.RuoR. o-F +he. ~~+e Df At<{I~A(Hol'lo~4ble.

24 -:.!~tC€A f!>Aew~) k'~t\~d\t\1~ RAc.a'Al DtS<:..r-{lrn•'"'t\+,..cw q~

25 ~t.ts+e~~c ~~~DttlotJ ttJ A~t~"'lt S-~etk- 1'1\i"SoNS.

® 26
27

Pl4\I\Ji\ff' S:\"'\,S1..:ri\Jm4+e5 ~1:: C\t Sept.'\~4~ ~lole.s trJ
+he- tnAI\f-z:..ANt+A- vtJt'"f:.\s d'~ttJ~ ~n. Whi+e. IJJ~Yle\f.es do Atot

28 ~t Ctt +he. SAfYYZ.. di~al\llj Rcom -ktlo Ie. I.Vt+h &1A C.l<S)·f\bd-iV

3-r

..

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 14 of 21

0. CAUSE. of Ac.Trol\/

;t

3. Su(JPoR..\-i w5 Ftt~A-s ( Cof\14-ii\Jve.d.)

3 Ame.l'l..i c.~"-'; a...cL "'~ ie."lN <AtJdIo~ 1-fis (JM •<:. s. I111"""'--tes ~ ,
't SepAfJ.etfeJ. b':S I'<~~ o.--1::. +Ab k.,s tJ .J+..e MAitl:zAtJl-1-A UAJt'"..l::. cllld,'l'ltj
s hCttt-

'.7,

@ :r.w~s 4~e '5e-pAt!{et~ blj ~~e. 4t ktoles 0/\1 4{e.
.~ec.~te..t\4-totJ ·l..(Jl\-1/{d, e:x.c.ep#ot-1 he.t~J':) +he .::z:Nm4J.es ~Re ·r.'l~ltJ~ J!>oK~ e.--1:. b,Je {!)~ ~e -/-q/oJ.eS,/ J,q.VJ..I\J~ ~huV«:.h ~.

C\-t.. A #cble., OR.~.-/:: ..J-bL ')1DA ~b len

lO @ .l:NtnA-k..s t.A>ko wottk &\S btt:Rbe.A.s, us~ 5e..p~+e-

+OC' 1?>0\1l..be.R

l S1 +-ha.-1:: M-e. i Ill Se.pa.:R. ~.-te.. /3<' )(eS AlUM.~

.l.- (:, • ~~ Whif~ bAR~~ USL JooX.es NUMbe..ReJ.

:l A~ LJ5 ~}()CAIJ bPr({beP-5 v~ IJo 'Xes Num!:u~~eJ

'"\5

3; :1.. ttNGl

1b JAc.k B4&l>eA vse.. kox Nutvtht!l'<e.ci ~;

C1.Ncl +he.. Nt!t+i'"tJe. fl,r,e.~il:AIJ TbOtiJ.~ use.. box N~b«

I C.

b. l~e bA-RbeA~ LJoRk Sc...heduJ~ 't s Pos~ DAJ ~e...

11

ItJM&\:·l.e., f>u!le.+I,J bcJCtRJ..~t f-he. e.cRRec..+loNA-L tifi-~

lj'

~A>-l-RoL fboothj ~""ol -l-1-te.. C.o"-lie.c.+loAJA-L t!>FFfCe..l{ -1~

Itt

l ~ J t>-F-Fj'-c.e. ..

~ ~ @ ~ .1: rY\ "'fe. WMI<d: S Wha /455 I51:: .I:111"'"-k-5 W .J.-1-, PI,'ISi4..L :01Sttbili+a'"eSj t:\.55 ts-t: Z.N'm4.fe-S crF +he- .SAme.. Ro..c.e.. whi..te.. LAllY)t:t.-ks Otss rs-t: w h,'+e, .:t:Nflv\~fes (ADA')1

:Blctc.k. .Ihlvn4te.S 4SSts-t rb/Pcck LJmct.f..e.-S (ADA-) 5 t::tt-Jd

t'rle¥JCPttJ} Hr"$f>ANI'C, .:t:wm~.fes tilS.SfSt l'he..x..\c.A.tJJHc~t+t.J•'-c... .1JJM~4-e-s. (AOA} i tt,ud IVtJt+ive- AM~1-._c~"' ..t:l\lm~+e.s
etSS\St ~0\+lve Am~ic.A-tJ s wtf.h \Jtsokill+te.s (ADA) ..
A e.o~({e.c...+rot-JrA L o-fftc.e..~-1--h.~<.ee.. (3) a~ '4 ele.~M-w.te..
LJho wl(\ be- -€.W\(Jio~ec! t::t--b. t!~l"ou$ ::Z:WI'Vl41e- J"ob S •
3-k

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 15 of 21

t 2
3 4 5
6
7 8 9

0.. CAVSE 0 F Ac:notJ
~JJf~.~.ls'e·fN,5.,tvC",u~•l.kdmpbt,t.o+:ee1.JA'Nem..cAltdf:>~Je:1..+=ItereJ:3lJI.-'f1EI.J>e-Je(/dl+-t:ttFJ,.4=eSAc,N.~-.ut'-c..V.Aip,r+tP'+.jlfoP~N:tooil,Foe~SeJMl+..ttH:~i:Oce.uJo".(J..'eNNT!JS-dj'Ibe-t~.)ts>RAP+f,.")J:dtP<ecPeo.ol.:I.lbjfrtifce'"ls.I-.t'fHIf's:"e'lh(,Nd.+eePoC.o).dfI'.<oM.I~/JN4'0ACes-1+cuJv<<is}-1C+:J---\u1tFok,U<-'lbFN5eer+4rs.dtl!.+i).o1~lot+l-+-Jeetfk.&-vl"l.~p~f:>st/th*,rqlwAAdbDttfet"/l;..
\ S ({Ace..

e.ll~e.s ® 10

Uf'orJ .:Z:IJF<>R.tnc,f,Lo,J a._.d &lteF Pi«tiJ.ff.fF

L>.ll

C.O>.~s 11 IIJAme..d,. Oe.kn!ciA-P-1:.s fill -l-l,rs <...oM j() if!.t';rt:. h4ve... Wo Ic.-ted

12 P/14,';t.f..IFF 's c. le.&tf.l. I '1 .e..s h, b I tS>I,e.d..

+t.J.v·l-lo 111 A-L-

It:~ 13
1145
1/~es ~ N+o~m 16

¥<•";\h t Ltq_uPtL
C...t.tr>)ii-J.,../-1oil (

Z.P.I.{jIl/T(~£.c.,..Tf:z.:,oc/w1)1

"F
iS

@ PllliN-hf'-F A

Uf'o.J

7fhfel..~"'

w).l<t:...e..t'c.:
I •

I

D1's-

..+torJ lh.ld &Ne,t;

~i:: ~vld 17
18
~ous;~ /:,JJJkt~} ~Ac...e... 19

~-

4/1 N

'1,1'\1/€-. /<4.Jor.J
·j;ost Mf 1J~t~-~l~f(..\.f-t.

nme.d.. defe,Jcl14-N+s C. ANd.

''! t:> (<, k.vew .J.k...--t: -H,e..

f-Ill

Cclouble.-

€e..e..h e-f"'lk1vi)$
s~IE'.ejo.·{·i>J-:> 6-F
b ';j

r 20
21 22

@'b5whi<r{!<JI,~Ae~.lc,.J/.4A-,t'.F4JFto+u),sbAlIeJ-:.,rI1A'l6ofcut.+.t./JC<I;<.k.c..;~wX..JN-~r~(wJA{-Al-+1<-hWe.. t=APF,MFJjt;.DJ.#si,et/f..~,Ff!tq1h5./e~A.+Scts<:A.I~Jl.dJw,o.c,.l..,..b~ks-

23 ( Wlten/ b"' +1-t bv tJ1<.,., ttfie.. 6c.c.upre.J. ) s•IJC..e- C1.l{rt.lt.Jt"''j o. -t:

n1~~NZtwtt~ 24 f+ I'U2.-o,J- A !i '1-rt-le... '{JtZ ISoN t: orv\11? le..y..-Tvc..s.,w,

UoJc'l/;.

~ ~~,'e..-f !e.~e. 25
26

vfo t:\11

+ ::t: N-FD11_ ll'lA I 0 >.l 4tu,.cl
Nlf\me.d.. de..-le,Jd.q.tuCs C<e

,{!D

s s

-

#.fe'I.M- b.o,O+oi-lFl.tft-.~o.r

lc:d

s

~~<>.h'D.V o+~ 27

o-f P/ArN-1-tf-f 4-lcl

$:/Jt7Y<-k,s 4-b /lcJutt:

r ~C.i"'\ s 28 fll{t'SooJ s ..fl::,IZ. rt"\"> Ie..- j '5 i1\J +e.,.,+foN 1\ L

Dl$4{rM b .....'ooJ.

3-L

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 16 of 21

1

·D .. C..AVSt: dr A~TIO~

2

4.. .:C.JJ:lu ~~ C.. C.oi'\J+&.vvecl)

3 CA-t: "\~i'2!..t'.VA ~m-\e.. tO~r~otJ C-om()/.e.x.-Tve-so"" m14AIZ;Wt.J.A.

4 UNt't •

5 @ PIA-t.J+JFf f.?.e..Alte~e- ct.....,cJ xweo~pofl..~.fe-, b<j t?e.~e~

6

P~fJ,p•.'J ({ Pc f7 hs j_- '3 I ..

7 @ lh~ .~tO...L Q,'sc..rR..\tvtt,.Jctf-to,J t:i10d.. (JJfe.w.J-toiJAL

1 8 ~t<~4+toP o-F PIA-i At+l-f-Fl Gk{Jhe.,J louts ~ud~~tll ls 4
9 IIi'" 1,. H otJ o-f PlAi u.J-1-t-f f 'S £q UA L Pl'..t:>k.c.-1-to N ~~~Ids

10 U.v;,/~ 4-J,.€-- Foul< l-ee.J+t.. AIJ'le.#c.lme,~i: .fr> +M- UN•'-Ied

11 12

S~+e-s

C..o!JS+1-\-v4-~o,J 1

ht.j

All

IV~tMed d.e-F.e,delA,J+S-

13 f$j) I he f IIH.Jfi-F.f; '5 -1-e..ph~ !..cuI s f<u-J,t,t'fl, I,1\S JJo

14

YJ/4tN1 t:\~VO\fe- DR C..omp Je-te- f{e.rnec.{ lj &t i:.. l.ALJ

15

+o Aec\~-e..ss +h-e.- w~~N~~ de.-scp,_\becl, h-e.P.elf\1.

16 P/ A:tJJ+rf-F- ~A-s bee,J Ct.vot wtll Co,vf•'I\Jue... t-o be-

+he.. 17 f{{f\ep A({0\la I~ :r: ,.Jj tJI.-ecL b:1

C:DtJal vc.-t &F -He ~

18 UtJ 1-e.s S -l-!,t'S C..OuR.-t:: <jI<.AN-1-S +he. c/e.c..l,k.+oR'1 /hud 19 ;r. ,Vj Llfl}c. Htle.. ~e.lt'e.f wt,''<:.h. PI"' iiJ--1-,'-f+ See.k s ; aNA.
20 rnonre..+A~'j d~'J.e.~ +o be. de..c,'det;L b~ A '3"uR~.,
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3-fY\

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 17 of 21

COUNTll
1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: NO"! BPPLIC.AfALi:.

n. 2. Count Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

0 Basic necessities

0 Mail

0 Access to the court

0 Medical care

0 Disciplinary proceedings 0 Property

D Exercise of religion D Retaliation

0 Excessive force by an officer 0 1breat to safety 0 O t h e r : - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count IT. Describe exactly what

each Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without

citing legal authority or arguments.

~JOT APPLICABlE

·

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).
l"tQT APPt IC Bt3 LE

5. Administrative Remedies.

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available

at your institution?

D Yes 0 No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count II?

0 Yes 0 No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count II to the highest level?

0 Yes D No

d. Ifyou did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why

youdidnot.

NOT APfL:CCIII!JLfi

4

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 18 of 21

COUNT Ill
1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: NOT APPLrf>.ABJC.

2.

Count m. Identify the
0 Basic necessities

issue

involved. Check
0 Mail

only

one. State additional issues
0 Access to the court

in separate counts.
0 Medical care

0 Disciplinary proceedings 0 Property

0 Exercise of religion

0 Retaliation

0 Excessive force by an officer 0 Threat to safety 0 O t h e r : - - - - - - - - - - - - -

c3eia.tcinhgSDlueepgfpeanol dratauinnthtgodFriiadtcyotrso•dr. iSadrtganutoemtadesonbttsrhi.eaftlvyiaoslapteodssyiboluertrhigehFtsA. CSTtaStesuthpepofarctitnsgclCeoarulnytiInIIy.oDuresocwrinbeweoxrdasctwlyitwhohuatt

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).
NOT APPI ZCA8LP

5. Administrative Remedies.

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available

at your institution?

0 Yes 0 No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count III?

D Yes D No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count III to the highest level?

0 Yes 0 No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request fo.r administrative relief at any levelt briefly explain why

you did not.

NOT A,pPL:C.C A l3 LE

If you assert more than three Counts. answer the questions listed above for each additional Count on a separate page. 5

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 19 of 21

E. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

State the relief you are seeking:

WHEBE.FORE., fl&fN=I=i« ew+e.s. :ti~me.«Yt:

£e.sPec:t.£vll';;1

PBA~ +hAt:. +ht5

CapR=t.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on Sep+embe.A Il1 G2_o 13
DATE

Skfi.IM~ L , ~'4'; Q.Q GNATURE OF PLAINTIFF

NOT APfl ICAI!JLE.
(Name and title ofparalegal, legal assistant, or other person who helped prepare this complaint)

NOT APPLIC.AGL E
(Signature of attorney, ifany)

(Attorney's address & telephone number)
ADDITIONAL PAGES aaaAnptltpdlalcqnihcuuaemnbsotlbieoe.mnrIsoaflrmyleopuutashagtatebtnsae.cfahinfatsedwedenirteiaoddndcaioltnipocanigsaeelsl,ypbaiegnestush.reeptBorouipdt eetrnhsteipfayfocwermhoincmhthuseesctfotbiroemn.cooIfmtfhypeolceuotenmleypedlfaimlilneotdirseibnsepitanocgetc,hoyenoteuixnmtueaendyt

6

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 20 of 21
•

1

2

£. AEQUE"ST FoR RELIEF(c:.owrL'-lVGO)

3 +h~i~ Svc.c.e.ssot<.s 1 a~e..N+S 1 e.rnplo~.ees; dtNd... a-ll ~o#JS
4 ~+ff'l~ ft0 C.o~Ce.Rt Wa'"+h +he.M tD S+op 4-h~. \~ pA4<:.~'-CE..

5 ~F double...-hu.Nkt...t~ pR,"So,J~S 01\Jl~ Wt'"-+k ~-e..R.. f'R\::::,t\IUPJ("~

6 SAme.. RA-c.e; Cin>cJ_, S+op 4-hel~ p~+tc.e., o-F d.oulo\e-

7 C.e..t llt-J~ W>t::t /e pR.\soNe-R.~ Onlflj wt~ ~+he-~ pR.tsotJeRS

8 oF ..J-h.e, SAme.. ~~ tJ-tNCi/~ -E!...fh,.J(c. ~t<ovp; 4.-l:: A~t~-A
9 ~ Pfiiso,J CoMplex-Tve..so,.J l ~"'d. ,4~izo~A -s+o..~ 10 f>~i SoN"S $~1-e.LJide.,j S.Wp ~~\ ~~<!.jt>~.--h'ON lfl)
11 ~ t l 14f<,'~.Mr1 ff.<tSOAJGj ·fmpJ.e..m.e.,J-b ItA~ ~~v4--le elet,ssifi-

r 12 C.~f1'0tJ- SySfe/V\.. -f1a4-{;, k)ovl~ eiVt}- ~,~1 t£~ ~~~ftON iiJ
13 ~II A-1?,/~,Jif fvJ..iSDf'/5 {s~-~-ew/de) Close_ gupep..Vt#i:Jt'DJ t')f
14 a It .:t:Nh'\44a.-s &twci -Ftf{M drsciph'N' t:V{'-j J'V)~v~~s ~~A-It11~
15 ~u b1~ M~ J<dS who f<e>{Vse ri::.o .I:Nfej~~Afe.; i ttJC. ~'Se..
16 ~~+41'v~ l)f-t.. qlt ltf<r"~!VII fJt<lsoJJ;$ +o 14 le..t~e-1 ~~CJa....fe.
17 ..J.o flfofec-1::" -fh~ Set~ tt>F etli ~Nme.fe-s ~ ...J:., Mizu.sA
18 ~4e- f~t'sD# t!oMfl_~-~ve.S o,..J ~ ffi1'stJPS $~4e.-WtcJes,

nR. 19 3. fJA,'tJ+,·.f=F q~l<.

""Svtl,m-e.w-1:: i 1\f' FAVDf< o-F pbtci\J+fff

20

--fi>~ 1\JomT~t=tlJ Cornper.rs4.fOR~ 1 A-ll/cL pv,Jt+lve..

21 d14Mov;Je.st e>tS Ctllow~ 6t.j 114-Wt C\~'ot1NS"-t: eA~ ~

22 joe~+ I~ AN't'i Sevei~A.l l '1l t::e> k de..e.tdecl. A'1 A :rvR~.

23 If· Pli+tv+t~f'-F. otl$o ~e.e.k A :rv~~ 4-tq.,'"A 1 o/J i ssve.s

24

~t().IQ}e- b~j :lul(l1

or 25 5 I P{AlnJtiF+ odvo Se.e._l<. -Re.c..oue..t.R~

h\s Cord: tv 4/,t's

26

Svt~ ~vJ'J

27 ,, ~~e... C-ost o-F fh•'s Cte-/ro,v he- fflxee! ct~t/JsC .f-1;,-e,

28

de~A,J+S ~

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 1 Filed 09/13/13 Page 21 of 21

1 2 3

E. ~EQLJ£S"T FoR f{fLX£1=' ( C.o..H-ii\Jued)

'1.

SPel.lc\.t-o&>-&f-oitfJ.F~.S;leoeIka~DUde..c

I~R.+olt~
;l..~o~ ..

P.e.tteF

~uau-t.

i:o

;t~ u.s. c.

4
5
6 7 8

~ ~ust, ~o '6.

PlAi,J.f.i.&::F's eJAims .toR :r:..Jju~>~c.+ive.. Pbe';tcle'J.P..'iAf LU.sf<•uCle...-sSeo.e-f4-tC'o:Nt\H).l:<P?~Jc4.Medd,.v:ZR2e..9'<.. f

ReJ;eFMe.
t!u->d P.u k ~

O.IJ#.or<iteJ._
5 t1f +~-,e.

t.. C'1H. vcll'l.oJ..Lej..qAUdtd'~iltoIoleA.I.A. Re.li .u,ts Co0t>.t: clee-w, s

J'ER,

9

DATESefk.Mbe& 111 '6013

10

11

1 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

VotP.eehsR.ENo-X-ic'c~fd"eo",!t:cl,t':IJrjY+r-I-I'M\.t.f~>he.-F1i\ct:e1eL..v.Pl+~esl-Oue~ts-RCJluVejf~m+l!.te'l.e=.e1phJ~.f.fe-\.e+.eHIc.4kl.Fvm.-.~rLt-It.osu~e.C...-.v+cfbf1\<h~.0STele1/r:il&I..1Ne"fO~.e?2Jf5UI-D0"I:e\EO1].I!R.oe:~~.<i3-l..N-J+,+l-3hGt;t:ot1eC:v>rN.~..:lo.:lirte~!ms.7i;:iT5.pN-.'vs?RJ-dfF~u.M"tvsbl\o.yo".veJ:.r'xlreeW,-sti.-~ez-<,.Lt'tgf4.~,<.AhL.1.a,<.t0./vRndA..eJc.iC~O(e~lL~!1IAA~aA-{.sete-tt-.o.

2210

fVU.ZD/Illt

.
STAr£

PR:t-sotJ

Pl>"n•oJl;Ff ~thtJL..c:;2(-TtJ~So~

22

t'}'1AIJ,ZAtJJ:.1"A Ulll:::tT

23

Pos-r OFf.:rcE f>oX .:2.'+4-o l
Tuc.sor-l1 A ~~.ZOI\11\ ~S'l "?>Cf--4-~

24

25

26

27

28

 
 Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 1 of 18

1 KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP Bert H. Deixler (SBN 70614)
2 bdeixler@kbkfirm.com Laura W. Brill (SBN 195889)
3 lbrill@kbkfirm.com Cassie D. Palmer (SBN 268383)
4 cpalmer@kbkfirm.com 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
5 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: 310.556.2700
6 Facsimile: 310.556.2705

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff STEPHEN LOUIS RUDISILL
8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

11

12 STEPHEN LOUIS RUDISILL,

Case No. 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ-PSOT

13

Plaintiff,

[Cindy K. Jorgenson, Judge Presiding]

14

v.

15 JANICE BREWER, Governor of Arizona; CHARLES RYAN, Director,
16 Arizona Department of Corrections; ROBERT PATTON, Division Director
17 of Offender Operations, Arizona Department of Corrections; THERESE
18 SCHROEDER, Warden, Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson; DANIAL
19 LUNDBERG, Deputy Warden, Arizona State Prison Complex-Tuscon, in their
20 official and individual capacities, AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE,
21 Defendants.
22

FIRST AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION FOR EQUAL PROTECTION; 42 U,S.C. § 1983
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Action filed: September 13, 2013

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 2 of 18

1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2

1. This action challenges the long-standing, intentional, systemic and

3 shameful racial discrimination at Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson (“Prison

4 Complex”).

5

2. Plaintiff Stephen Louis Rudisill (“Rudisill”), an African-American

6 male housed at the Prison Complex, has been and remains assigned to and retained

7 in segregation on the basis of his race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of

8 the Fourteen Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants’

9 deprivation of Rudisill’s right to equal protection under the law has subjected him to

10 needless and serious harm.

11

3. The impermissibility of the racial discrimination alleged herein has

12 been clearly established since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Johnson v. California,

13 543 U.S. 499 (2005) (holding that prison racial-segregation policies are subject to

14 strict scrutiny even when those policies affect all races equally). See also Turner v.

15 Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987) (“Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison

16 inmates from the protections of the Constitution . . . [P]risoners . . . are protected

17 against invidious racial discrimination by the Equal Protection Clause of the

18 Fourteenth Amendment . . . .” (citations omitted)); Washington v. Lee, 263 F. Supp.

19 327, 331 (M.D. Ala. 1966) (three judge panel), aff’d, 390 U.S. 333 (1968) (per

20 curiam) (declaring Alabama’s prison segregation policy unconstitutional and

21 holding that “it is unmistakably clear that racial discrimination by governmental

22 authorities in the use of public facilities cannot be tolerated”).

23

4. Flouting the holding of the United States Supreme Court, which has

24 been the undisputed law of the land for decades, the State of Arizona, through its

25 Governor and prison officials, persists in continuous, overt, intentional, shameful,

26 and systematic racial segregation in the areas of housing and personal care of the

27 prisoners.

28

1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 3 of 18

1

5. The Defendants, including Governor Brewer, have been informed of

2 these violations. Not only have the Defendants refused to correct the violations,

3 they have reaffirmed their intention to continue to violate the law.

4

6. This lawsuit is brought to end this shameful and lawless conduct by the

5 Defendants, who are responsible for enforcing the law, yet refuse to do so. The days

6 of governmental discrimination based on race are over, and Arizona, its Governor,

7 and its prison officials must obey the law of the land.

8

PARTIES

9

7. Rudisill is a citizen of Arizona. He presently is incarcerated at the

10 Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson, Arizona.

11

8. Defendant Janice Brewer is the Governor of the State of Arizona (the

12 “Governor” or “Governor Brewer”) and heads the Executive Branch of Arizona’s

13 government. In that capacity, Governor Brewer selects and appoints the Director of

14 the Arizona Department of Department of Corrections. Governor Brewer is vested

15 with ultimate authority and responsibility over the corrections system. Governor

16 Brewer is sued for declaratory and injunctive relief in her official capacity and for

17 damages in her individual capacity.

18

9. The remaining Defendants are agents, officials, or employees of the

19 State of Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADC”).

20

10. Defendant Charles Ryan (“Ryan”) is a citizen of Arizona and is

21 employed as Director (“Director”) of the ADC and exercises administrative control

22 of, and responsibility for, the ADC. As Director of the ADC, Mr. Ryan is

23 responsible for establishing, administering, and applying statewide operations,

24 policies, institutions, and programs of the ADC, which directly affect how inmates

25 are housed and employed at the Prison Complex, including Plaintiff Rudisill. See

26 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-201, 41-1604. As Director, Mr. Ryan also is responsible for

27 decisions concerning staff deployment and training, which directly affect how

28 inmates are housed and employed at the Prison Complex, including Plaintiff

2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 4 of 18

1 Rudisill. Director Ryan is sued for declaratory and injunctive relief in his official

2 capacity and for damages in his individual capacity.

3

11. Defendant Robert Patton (“Patton”) is a citizen of Arizona and is

4 employed as the Division Director of Offender Operations for the ADC (“Division

5 Director”). In the capacity of Division Director, he oversees the Offender Services

6 Bureau, which is responsible, inter alia, for offender classification and movement

7 and population management. According to ADC Department Orders, the Division

8 Director must monitor racial parity and/or imbalance within the prisons, including

9 the Prison Complex. ADC Department Orders also require that the Division

10 Director receive bed information data sheets from the appropriate Regional

11 Operators Director for signature and placement into the Offender Operations Master

12 Bed Record. According to ADC Department Orders, Offender Services maintains a

13 record of Director-approved changes to beds and/or bed counts, as well as the Bed

14 Information Data Sheets. Division Director Patton is sued for declaratory and

15 injunctive relief in his official capacity and for damages in his individual capacity.

16

12. Defendant Therese Schroeder (“Schroeder”) is a citizen of Arizona and

17 is employed as the Warden of the Prison Complex (“Warden”). In her capacity as

18 Warden, Ms. Schroeder is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the entire

19 Prison Complex, including the Manzanita and Santa Rita Units. Pursuant to the

20 ADC Department Orders, she is required to report to the Division Director for

21 Offender Operations any significant problems arising from, inter alia, racial parity

22 and/or imbalance. Warden Schroeder is sued for declaratory and injunctive relief in

23 her official capacity and for damages in her individual capacity.

24

13. Defendant Danial Lundberg is a citizen of Arizona and is employed as

25 the Deputy Warden (“Deputy Warden”) of the Prison Complex. In his capacity as

26 Deputy Warden, he is responsible for the accounting of all beds within the Prison

27 Complex, including the Manzanita Unit. Pursuant to the ADC Department Orders,

28 he is required to report to the Division Director for Offender Operations any

3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 5 of 18

1 significant problems arising from, inter alia, racial parity and/or imbalance. ADC

2 Department Orders also require the Deputy Warden to review housing

3 recommendations and approve or deny housing assignments. ADC Department

4 Orders give the Deputy Warden “the final approval authority for all housing

5 assignments.” Deputy Warden Lundberg is sued for declaratory and injunctive

6 relief in his official capacity and for damages in his individual capacity.

7

14. At all relevant times, Defendants have acted under the color of state

8 law.

9

15. Defendants DOE 1 through DOE 100, inclusive, are sued under

10 fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff. When

11 their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this complaint

12 by inserting their true names and capacities. Plaintiff is informed and believes and

13 therefore alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in

14 some manner for the occurrences alleged, and that Plaintiff’s harms as alleged were

15 proximately caused by those Defendants.

16

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17

16. This civil action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and is brought

18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that Plaintiff has been and continues to be deprived

19 of his rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Fourteen

20 Amendment.

21

17. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343(a).

22

18. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

23 all Defendants reside in the State of Arizona and a substantial part of the events or

24 omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this District.

25

26

27

28

4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 6 of 18

1

2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

3 A. Housing Assignments According to Race

4

19. Plaintiff is an African-American adult male and currently is

5 incarcerated at the Prison Complex. Plaintiff grew up in North Carolina, when the

6 vestiges of segregation remained strong.

7

20. The Prison Complex is one of thirteen prison facilities operated by the

8 Arizona Department of Corrections. As of November 2013, the Prison Complex

9 housed approximately 5,050 inmates. Within the Prison Complex, inmates are

10 housed in eight units: Catalina, Complex Detention Unit (“CDU”), Cimarron,

11 Manzanita, Rincon, Santa Rita, Whetstone, and Winchester.

12

21. Plaintiff arrived at the Prison Complex on May 31, 2011 and was

13 assigned to the Manzanita Unit.

14

22. On or around November 4, 2013, Plaintiff was transferred to the Santa

15 Rita Unit.

16

23. Since being housed at the Prison Complex, Plaintiff has shared a cell or

17 other housing accommodations with African-American inmates only, despite

18 requesting numerous times to be housed with an inmate of a different race.

19

24. In the Manzanita and Santa Rita Units all inmates are housed according

20 to racial classifications—Caucasian inmates are double-bunked with Caucasian

21 inmates only; African-American inmates are double-bunked with African-American

22 inmates only; Latino inmates are double-bunked with Latino inmates only; Native

23 American inmates are double-bunked with Native American inmates only.

24

25. On information and belief, all inmates at the Prison Complex are

25 segregated in their housing units according to race.

26 B. Other Racial Segregation

27

26. Correction Officers three (3) and four (4) determine which inmates will

28 be employed at which job.

5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 7 of 18

1

27. In the Manzantia Unit, inmate workers who assist inmates with

2 physical disabilities assist inmates of the same race only—Caucasian inmates assist

3 Caucasian inmates only; African-American inmates assist African-American

4 inmates only; Latino inmates assist Latino inmates only; Native American inmates

5 assist Native American inmates only.

6

28. On information and belief, all job assignments within the Prison

7 Complex are assigned according to racial quotas established by the prison officials,

8 including the Defendants sued herein.

9

29. Inmates who are employed as barbers must use separate barber tools,

10 which are in separate boxes, numbered 1 through 6. Caucasian barbers must use

11 boxes numbered 2 and 4; Latino barbers must use boxes number 1 and 3; African-

12 American barbers must use the box numbered 5; and Native American Barber must

13 use the Box numbered 6.

14

30. Prison Complex officials post an “Inmate Barber/Braider Work

15 Schedule” (“Work Schedule”) on the Inmate Bulletin Boards, the Correctional

16 Officers’ Control booth, and Correctional Officer Office #3. This Work Schedule

17 states the name of the barber and includes the barber’s race and the box number

18 assignment.

19

31. In the Manzanita Unit and Santa Rita Units, inmate barbers cut the hair

20 of inmates who are of the same race only—Caucasian inmate barbers cut Caucasian

21 inmates’ hair only; African-American inmate barbers cut African-American

22 inmates’ hair only; Latino inmate barbers cut Latino inmates’ hair only; Native

23 American inmate barbers cut Native American inmates’ hair only.

24

32. On information and belief, all inmate barbers within the Prison

25 Complex are assigned according to race.

26 C. Effects of Racial Segregation on Plaintiff and Other Inmates

27

33. The institutional segregation promulgated by prison officials, including

28 Defendants, fosters an environment of distrust and racial animus among inmates.

6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 8 of 18

1 This environment leads to self-segregation and results in threats, intimidation, and

2 violence, which is encouraged and/or tolerated by prison officials, including

3 Defendants.

4

34. The violation of Mr. Rudisill’s constitutional right to equal protection

5 under the law is itself a harm that entitles Mr. Rudisill to the relief he seeks herein.

6 See Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that the

7 deprivation of certain constitutional rights “entitles a plaintiff to judicial relief

8 wholly aside from any physical injury he can show, or any mental or emotional

9 injury he may have incurred,” and, “regardless of the form of relief sought”)

10 (emphases added).

11

35. In addition, as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory, shameful, and

12 unconstitutional actions, Mr. Rudisill has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and

13 emotional and physical distress.

14 D. Plaintiff’s Notification to Prison Officials of the Unlawful Policies

15

and Practices

16

36. In a letter to Director Ryan, dated May 18, 2013, Plaintiff described the

17 racial discrimination and the systemic segregation in his Unit at the Prison Complex

18 in the areas of housing, dining, and employment. The letter is attached hereto as

19 Exhibit 1. Despite receiving this letter, Director Ryan refused to amend the

20 unconstitutional policy and indeed confirmed his intention to persist in applying it.

21

37. In a letter dated May 18, 2013, Plaintiff also wrote to Warden

22 Schroeder about the racial segregation of inmates with the Prison Complex. The

23 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Despite receiving this letter, Warden

24 Schroeder refused to amend the unconstitutional policy and indeed confirmed her

25 intention to persist in it.

26

38. On May 23, 2013, Deputy Warden Lundberg interviewed Plaintiff

27 regarding his letters to Warden Schroeder and Director Ryan.

28

7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 9 of 18

1

39. On May 28, 2013, Plaintiff received an “Inmate Letter Response” from

2 Deputy Warden Lundberg regarding the May 23, 2013 interview. The letter is

3 attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The letter states that the issues in Plaintiff’s May 18,

4 2013 letter to Warden Schroeder “were not brought to Deputy Warden Lundberg’s

5 attention until now.” The letter confirms that Deputy Warden Lundberg met with

6 Plaintiff on May 23, 2013 to discuss Plaintiff’s concerns. As to segregation in

7 inmate housing, Deputy Warden Lundberg states, “In regard to your issue of

8 segregation in the housing unit, you felt that the inmates should [sic] be housed

9 according to race. You believe that all should be integrated (ie: mexican living with

10 white or black, not black with black, mexican with mexican etc.) . . . [T]he unit

11 balance is in compliance with policy D.O. 903. INMATE WORK PROGRAMS 1.7

12 A racial balance and integrated work crews shall be maintained.” As to the

13 assignment of inmate jobs by race, Deputy Warden Lundberg states that “Manzanita

14 jobs are assigned according to submitted application” and that assignments are

15 based, first on an inmate’s eligibility for the job, and then—after eligibility has been

16 established—on the application date and Phase level. If an inmate is not eligible for

17 a certain job, he is so notified. “All jobs are racially balanced as much as possible.”

18 And, “[h]ousing is racial parity per housing unit and sides.” As to dining,

19 “[m]ealtime is open yard where the inmates are free to enter the Dining Hall and

20 they choose where they wish to sit.” Deputy Warden Lundberg states that inmates

21 generally select their own ADA assistants. Deputy Warden Lundberg states, “All

22 future concerns need to be addressed to Deputy Warden Lundberg . . . .”

23

40. Plaintiff received a nearly identical “Inmate Response Letter,” dated

24 June 4, 2013, from Director Patton. The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. The

25 letter states that Deputy Warden Lundberg met with Plaintiff on May 23, 2013 to

26 discuss Plaintiff’s concerns. The letter states, “In regard to your issue of segregation

27 in the housing unit, you feel that the inmates should [sic] be housed according to

28 race. You believe that all should be integrated (i.e: Hispanics living with

8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 10 of 18

1 Caucasians or African Americans. The Unit is racially balanced and is in

2 compliance with D.O. 903. Inmate Work Programs – 1.7 A racial balance and

3 integrated work crews shall be maintained.” As to Plaintiff’s contention that inmate

4 jobs are assigned according to race, the letter states, “Manzanita jobs are assigned

5 according to submitted applications. Each application is reviewed to ensure the

6 inmate is eligible for the job he is applying for. If he is not eligible for a particular

7 job, then he will be given a reason. Once inmate applications have cleared the

8 eligibility process, they are then sorted by the application date and Phase Level.” As

9 to inmate barbers being segregated by race, Director Patton states that “[a]n inmate

10 barber can cut any other inmate[’s] hair if that inmate chooses. This is demonstrated

11 by ADC staff using the same barber equipment for all staff.” The letter notes:

12 “Deputy Warden Lundberg and his leadership team are in charge of the Manzanita,

13 not the inmates.” Finally, the letter states, “All future concerns should be addressed

14 through the Manzanita chain of command.”

15

41. On June 10, 2013, Deputy Warden Lundberg delivered an Inmate

16 Response Letter from Warden Schroeder to Plaintiff’s May 18, 2013 letter. The

17 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. When Deputy Warden Lundberg delivered the

18 letter, he stated that Rudisill’s letter to Warden Schroeder “was uncalled for; nothing

19 going to happen; all letters get filtered back to me, I run the prison.” Plaintiff asked

20 Deputy Warden Lundberg to provide that statement in writing, but Defendant

21 Lundberg declined.

22

42. Warden Schroeder’s “Inmate Response Letter,” dated June 7, 2013,

23 was almost identical to the letters from Deputy Warden Lundberg and Director

24 Patton. The letter states, “You believe that all [housing units] should be integrated

25 (i.e: Hispanics living with Caucasians or African Americans. The Unit is racially

26 balanced and is in compliance with D.O. 903. Inmate Work Programs – 1.7 A racial

27 balance and integrated work crews shall be maintained.” As to Plaintiff’s

28 contentions regarding job assignments according to race, Warden Schroeder states

9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 11 of 18

1 that “Manzanita jobs are assigned according to submitted applications. Each

2 application is reviewed to ensure the inmate is eligible for the job he is applying for.

3 If he is not eligible for a particular job, then he will be given a reason. Once inmate

4 applications have cleared the eligibility process, they are then sorted by the

5 application date and Phase Level.” As to inmate barbers being assigned by race,

6 Warden Schroeder states that “[a]n inmate barber can cut any other inmate[’s] hair if

7 that inmate chooses. This is demonstrated by ADC staff using the same barber

8 equipment for all staff.” At the end of the letter, she states, “Deputy Warden

9 Lundberg and his leadership team are in charge of the Manzanita, not the inmates . .

10 . . All future concerns should be addressed through the Manzanita chain of

11 command.”

12

43. On June 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed an “Informal Inmate Complaint

13 Resolution” (“Informal Complaint”) attached hereto as Exhibit 6. In the Informal

14 Complaint, Plaintiff states that the Prison Complex maintains segregation in the

15 areas of housing, dining, barbers, and job assignments, and that prison officials

16 provide ADA assistants who are of the same race as the disabled prisoners they are

17 assisting.

18

44. Plaintiff sent a letter, dated June 17, 2013, to Governor Brewer. The

19 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. In the letter, Plaintiff states that inmates in his

20 Unit of the Prison Complex are “systematically housed . . . by prison officials” with

21 inmates of the same race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiff also

22 states that inmates in his Unit of the Prison Complex are assigned jobs based on “a

23 racial quota system” and not a system that provides jobs to “the best qualified

24 inmates,” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiff states that barbers

25 also are assigned by race. Plaintiff asserts that the segregation policies “foster[ ] an

26 atmosphere of threats, intimidation and violence in the prison system; that prison

27 officials accept and tolerate.” Despite receiving this letter, Governor Brewer never

28 responded or affected a change to the unconstitutional policy.

10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 12 of 18

1

45. Prison Complex officials responded to Plaintiff’s Informal Complaint

2 in an “Informal Inmate Complaint Response,” dated June 18, 2013. A copy of the

3 Response is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. The Response states, “Your primary issue

4 is segregation. You feel that inmates should not be housed according to race. You

5 believe that all should be integrated (i.e.: Mexican/Americans living with

6 Caucasians or Blacks). the Unit is racially balanced and is in compliance with D.O.

7 903.1.7, Inmate Work Programs, ‘A racial balance and integrated work crews shall

8 be maintained.’” The Response states that Manzanita jobs are assigned according to

9 “submitted applications” and that such applications are review to ensure that the

10 “inmate is eligible for the job he is applying for.” If the inmate is not eligible, he is

11 given a reason. If eligibility is confirmed, applications are sorted by application

12 date and Phase level.” The Response contends that “[m]ealtime is based on an open

13 yard concept, where the inmates are free to enter the Dining Hall and they choose

14 where they wish to sit.” As to ADA assistants, “inmates usually request the inmate

15 assistant/aide they want.” Finally, the Response states that “[a]n inmate barber can

16 cut any other inmate’s hair. This is demonstrated by ADC staff using the same

17 barber equipment for all staff.” The Response states that if Plaintiff is dissatisfied

18 with the resolution, he may file a formal grievance.

19

46. Plaintiff filed Grievance No. C14-044-013 (“Grievance”), dated June

20 19, 2013. The Grievance is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. In the Grievance, Plaintiff

21 states that prison officials “are openly practicing and/or tolerating systematic;

22 systemic segregation (racial discrimination, de facto segregation based upon race

23 and/or ethnic group at the Arizona State Prison Complex Tucson and the Arizona

24 Department of Corrections. I contend that prison officials knowingly and

25 deliberately segregate White, Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans in the area of

26 housing (bunks and/or cells). Prison officials have separate barbers for each race,

27 and separate barber tools (numbered 1-6) for each race; the prison officials have

28

11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 13 of 18

1 racial quota[s] for jobs. ADA inmates who need assistance are given a member of

2 their own race to assist them. Prison officials have violate[d] my rights.”

3

47. On June 20, 2013, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Defendant Warden

4 Schroeder about the systemic segregation at the Prison Complex. Plaintiff included

5 a copy of the letter he sent to Defendant Brewer. The letter is attached hereto as

6 Exhibit 10.

7

48. In an Inmate Grievance Appeal (“Initial Appeal”) relating to Grievance

8 No. C14-044-013, dated July 15, 2013 and stamped received on July 24, 2013,

9 Plaintiff states that he did not receive a response to his Grievance within 15 work

10 days. The Initial Appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit 11. In the Initial Appeal,

11 Plaintiff incorporates by reference his Grievance and states that the Prison Complex

12 officials “are openly practicing and/or tolerating systematic, systemic segregation

13 (racial discrimination, de facto segregation based upon race and/or ethnic group. I

14 contend that prison officials knowingly and deliberately segregate White, Black,

15 Hispanic, and Native Americans in the area of housing (bunks and/or cells), racial

16 quotas for jobs, separate barbers and tools.”

17

49. The response to Plaintiff’s Grievance (“Grievance Response”), dated

18 August 1, 2013 and attached hereto as Exhibit 12, states, “According to the WIPP

19 Board this Monday, racial balance is in compliance with Policy D.O. 903 INMATE

20 WORK ACTIVITIES: 1.7 A racial balance and integrated work crews shall be

21 maintained. Manzanita jobs are assigned according to submitted applications. Each

22 application is reviewed in ensure the inmate is eligible for the job that they are

23 applying for. If they are not, then they are told why not. Once they clear eligibility,

24 they are then sorted by the application date and phase level . . . . All jobs are racially

25 balanced as much as possible. Department Order (DO) 903 ‘Inmate Work

26 Activities’- is followed at the Manzanita Unit. Racial parity is maintained in each

27 house unit and side. Any inmate barber can cut any other inmates [sic] hair if that

28 inmate chooses. This is demonstrated by ADC staff using the same barber

12
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 14 of 18

1 equipment for all staff. The Manzanita unit is to be equal for all races to participate

2 equally in housing, meals, programs, recreation, medical and mental health.”

3

50. On August 4, 2013, Plaintiff wrote Defendant Ryan regarding Inmate

4 Grievance No. C14-044013 and other matters, and copied Warden Schroeder on the

5 letter. The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 13.

6

51. On August 7, 2013, Plaintiff submitted an “Inmate Grievance Appeal”

7 (“Grievance Appeal”), attached hereto as Exhibit 14. In the Grievance Appeal,

8 Plaintiff states that the resolution he requested in Grievance “was not achieved,” in

9 that inmates still were being housed and assigned to jobs according to race. He

10 incorporated the Grievance by reference.

11

52. Plaintiff’s appeal was denied in an “Inmate Grievance Appeal

12 Response” (“Grievance Appeal Response”), dated August 22, 2013 and signed by

13 an appeals officer and Director Ryan. The Grievance Appeal Response is attached

14 hereto as Exhibit 15. The Grievance Appeal Response states, “[Y]ou claim the

15 department permits racial segregation. You assert White, Black, Hispanic and

16 Native American Indians are segregated in the living areas, jobs, dining hall and

17 separate barbers. You assert this is deliberate indifference. Your grievance appeal

18 has been reviewed at the Central Office and the Warden’s response is affirmed.

19 Inmate housing placement and job assignments, are based on institutional needs.

20 Barber assignments service the entire inmate population. Having multiple barbers

21 allows you to have your barber of choice. Lastly, inmates are permitted to sit where

22 there is an available seat. There is no assigned seating in the dining hall. Your

23 assertion of deliberate indifference are [sic] unfounded. No further action is

24 warranted in this matter.”

25

53. On October 10, 2013, Plaintiff sent an “Inmate Letter” to Deputy

26 Warden Lundberg. The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 16. In the letter, Plaintiff

27 states that he previously spoke with Defendant Lundberg and sent letters to Warden

28 Schroeder and Director Ryan regarding the same issues. Plaintiff explains he is

13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 15 of 18

1 “deeply concerned about the segregation of inmates by race in the Manzanita Unit.”

2 He states that ADC Department Orders require parity and racial balance in housing.

3 Plaintiff “respectfully request[s] that [he] be housed with an inmate of another race

4 when the next available bottom bunkbed ([he has] a lower bunk chrono) become[s]

5 open . . . .”

6

54. On October 11, 2013, Plaintiff sent an “Inmate Letter” to

7 Accountability Officer CO II R. Gamez. The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 17.

8 In the letter Plaintiff states that the Prison Complex must maintain racial parity in

9 housing, and requests an assignment to the next available bunk with someone of a

10 different race. Plaintiff says, “I don’t care if the person is White or Hispanic. I

11 don’t agree with the segregation of inmate[s] by race.”

12

55. On October 23, 2013, Plaintiff was standing in the Manzanita “chow”

13 line. Accountability Officer CO II R. Gamez approached Plaintiff and stated, “I got

14 your letter requesting to be moved with another race. The next victim that comes in,

15 I’m going to put with you.”

16

56. Later the same day, Plaintiff received copies of the letters he wrote on

17 October 10 and 11, 2013, requesting that he be housed with an inmate of another

18 race. He did not receive responses to his letter, but instead received an “Inmate Cell

19 Change Request.” Plaintiff resubmitted his letters with the Inmate Cell Change

20 Request to Accountability Officer CO II R. Gamez.

21

57. Plaintiff received an Inmate Letter Response from Deputy Warden

22 Lundberg, dated October 22, 2013. The Response is attached hereto as Exhibit 18.

23 The Response states, “I am in receipt of your letter concerning racial parity and

24 segregation. I would like to first inform you that this is an open dorm, open yard

25 setting and all inmates house inter-racially. I would like to also reassure you that the

26 Department is well aware of racial parity and have systems in place to abide by this

27 policy. The Manzanita population is broken down into housing units (Excluding

28 ADA and SNU-HU6) fairly and according to policy.”

14
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 16 of 18

1

58. On or around November 4, 2013, Plaintiff was transferred to the Santa

2 Rita Unit, but continues to share a bunk with an inmate of the same race.

3

CLAIM

4

(Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment;

5

42 U.S.C. § 1983)

6

59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in

7 paragraphs 1 through 58.

8

60. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

9 United States Constitution protects all persons, including prisoners, from invidious

10 discrimination based on race.

11

61. A prison classification based on race is immediately suspect and is

12 subject to the same strict scrutiny as a racial classification outside prison. See

13 Johnson, 543 U.S. at 509. Thus, any state policy of racial segregation must be

14 narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Id.

15

62. Defendants’ acts and omissions were not narrowly tailored to address a

16 compelling state interest and accordingly violate of the Equal Protection Clause of

17 the Fourteenth Amendment.

18

63. As a proximate result of Defendants’ egregious conduct, Mr. Rudisill’s

19 constitutional rights were violated, and he has suffered shame, humiliation, mental

20 anguish, and emotional and physical distress, entitling him to injunctive relief and

21 damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

22

64. In light of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional violations of

23 law in the face of clear precedent declaring such conduct unconstitutional, and their

24 reckless and callous indifference to Mr. Rudisill’s rights, Mr. Rudisill seeks an

25 award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

26

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

27

65. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs suffered

28 as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer

15
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 17 of 18

1 irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and practices

2 of the defendants as alleged herein, unless Plaintiff is granted the requested relief.

3 The need for relief is critical because the rights at issue are paramount under the

4 Constitution of the United States.

5

66. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant the following

6 relief:

7 a) Declaratory and injunctive relief as follows:

8

i) Adjudge and declare that the acts, omissions, policies, and conditions

9

described above violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants

10

constitutional protection to Plaintiff;

11

ii) Order Defendants, their agents, officials, employees, and all persons

12

acting in concert with them under color of State law or otherwise, to

13

cease implementing the unconstitutional and unlawful acts, omissions,

14

policies, and conditions described above;

15

iii) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents,

16

officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them under

17

color of State law or otherwise, from subjecting Plaintiff the

18

unconstitutional and unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and conditions

19

described above;

20

iv) Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied

21

with the orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that

22

Defendants will continue to comply in the future absent continuing

23

jurisdiction;

24 b) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages equal to the injury suffered by

25

Plaintiff due to Defendants’ unconstitutional and discriminatory practices, in

26

an amount to be determined at trial;

27 c) Award punitive damages against Defendants in an amount sufficient to punish

28

them and deter future reprehensible conduct;

16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19 Filed 02/04/14 Page 18 of 18

1 d) Award Plaintiff the expenses of maintaining this action, including reasonable

2

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable law; and

3 e) Award any other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

4

5

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.

7

8

9

Respectfully submitted,

10 Dated: February 4, 2014

KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP

11

12

13

By: Bert H. Deixler

14

Attorneys for Plaintiff

15

Stephen Louis Rudisill

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19-1 Filed 02/04/14 Page 1 of 2

1 KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP Bert H. Deixler (SBN 70614)
2 bdeixler@kbkfirm.com Laura W. Brill (SBN 195889)
3 lbrill@kbkfirm.com Cassie D. Palmer (SBN 268383)
4 cpalmer@kbkfirm.com 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
5 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: 310.556.2700
6 Facsimile: 310.556.2705

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff STEPHEN LOUIS RUDISILL
8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

11

12 STEPHEN LOUIS RUDISILL,

Case No. 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ-PSOT

13

Plaintiff,

[Cindy K. Jorgenson, Judge Presiding]

14

v.

15 JANICE BREWER, Governor of Arizona; CHARLES RYAN, Director,
16 Arizona Department of Corrections; ROBERT PATTON, Division Director
17 of Offender Operations, Arizona Department of Corrections; THERESE
18 SCHROEDER, Warden, Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson; DANIAL
19 LUNDBERG, Deputy Warden, Arizona State Prison Complex-Tuscon, in their
20 official and individual capacities, AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE,
21 Defendants.
22

INDEX TO EXHIBIT NOS. 1-9 FIRST AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION FOR EQUAL PROTECTION; 42 U,S.C. § 1983 Action filed: September 13, 2013

23

24

25

26

27

28

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ INDEX TO EXHIBIT NOS. 1-9 TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 19-1 Filed 02/04/14 Page 2 of 2

1 Exhibit

2

No.

Date

3 Exhibit 1 05/18/13

4 Exhibit 2 05/18/13

5 Exhibit 3 05/28/13

6 Exhibit 4
7 8 Exhibit 5 9 Exhibit 6 10 Exhibit 7 11 Exhibit 8
12 Exhibit 9

06/04/14 06/07/14 06/12/13 06/17/13 06/18/13 06/19/13

13

14 15 Dated: February 4, 2014

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Description

Pages

Letter of Director Ryan Letter to Warden Schroeder Inmate Response Letter from Deputy Warden Lundberg Letter from Director Patton Letter from Warden Schroeder Informal Complaint Letter to Governor Brewer Response to Informal Inmate Complaint Inmate Grievance

18-23 24-34
35
36-37 38-39
40 41-52
53 54

Respectfully submitted, KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP

By: s/ Bert H. Deixler Bert H. Deixler Attorneys for Plaintiff Stephen Louis Rudisill

1

CIV13-1149 TUC CKJ

INDEX TO EXHIBIT NOS. 1-9 TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 
 Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 48 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Stephen Rudisill,

No. CV-13-01149-TUC-CKJ

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Charles Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

Plaintiff Stephen Louis Rudisill, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

15 Complex, Santa Rita Unit, in Tucson, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Subsequently, counsel appeared in the case on

17 Plaintiff’s behalf. (Docs. 8, 9, 12- 14). On January 23, 2014, after screening Plaintiff’s

18 Complaint, the Court ordered Defendants Ryan, Patton, Schroeder, and Lundberg to

19 answer Count I of the Complaint. (Doc. 15).

20

Prior to service of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a First Amended

21 Complaint in which Janice Brewer was added as a Defendant. (Doc. 19). On March 13,

22 2014, Defendants filed a Request for Screening, requesting that the Court screen

23 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 31). However, on March 13, 2014, before

24 the Court had an opportunity to address Defendants’ request, Defendants Ryan and

25 Brewer filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Docs. 32, 33).

26 Then, on March 17, 2014, Defendants Lundberg and Schroeder filed a Motion to Dismiss

27 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 37).

28

On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants Ryan, Lundberg and

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 48 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 3

1 Schroeder’s Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 41). In addition, Plaintiff filed a motion to

2 substitute Todd Hood in place of Robert Patton and filed Notice of Dismissals for Robert

3 Patton and Janice Brewer. (Docs. 42, 43, and 44). On April 14, 2014, Defendants

4 Lundberg, Ryan and Schroeder filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to their Motions to

5 Dismiss. (Doc. 45). Defendant Ryan filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute

6 Party on April 21, 2014, (Doc. 46), and Plaintiff filed his Reply on April 29, 2014. (Doc.

7 47).

8

The Court will address Defendant Ryan, Schroeder and Lundberg’s Motions to

9 Dismiss in a subsequent Order.

10

11 Motion for Substitution of Public Offer (sic) (Doc. 42)

12

Plaintiff requests that the Court substitute Mr. Patton’s successor Carson

13 McWilliams as a Defendant in this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d).1

14

Defendant Ryan argues that naming another defendant in his or her official

15 capacity is superfluous in this case because Plaintiff has already named several

16 individuals in their official capacities.

17

Pursuant to Rule 25(d):

18

(d) Public Officers; Death or Separation from Office. An

action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in

19

an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold

office while the action is pending. The officer's successor is

20

automatically substituted as a party. Later proceedings should

be in the substituted party's name, but any misnomer not

21

affecting the parties' substantial rights must be disregarded.

The court may order substitution at any time, but the absence

22

of such an order does not affect the substitution.

23 Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d). Generally, suits brought against individuals in their official
24 capacities are redundant where the plaintiff also brings suit against the individuals’
25 employer. Contreras, ex rel. Contreras v. County of Glenn, 725 F.Supp.2d 1157, 1159-
26

27

1 Plaintiff initially alleged that Todd Hood was the current Division Director of

28

Offender Operations for the Arizona Department of Corrections, the position previously held by Robert Patton. However, Defendant Ryan explained that Carson McWilliams is

the individual that replaced Robert Patton and not Mr. Hood. (Doc. 46).

- 2 -

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 48 Filed 05/08/14 Page 3 of 3

1 1160 (E.D. Cal. 2010). However, Plaintiff has not named Defendants’ employer as a

2 Defendant in this case. Accordingly, since Mr. Patton has resigned from his position, his

3 successor, Carson McWilliams is automatically substituted into this action, in his official

4 capacity only, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d).

5

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

6

1. Defendant Robert Patton is dismissed from this action in his individual

7 capacity without prejudice.

8

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Substitution of Public Offer (sic) is GRANTED.

9 (Doc. 42). Carson McWilliams is automatically substituted as a party in this action for

10 Robert Patton in his official capacity only.

11

3. Defendant Janice Brewer is dismissed from this action in her official and

12 individual capacities without prejudice.

13

4. Defendant Brewer’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. 33).

14

Dated this 8th day of May, 2014.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

 
 Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 17

1

JDN

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Stephen Louis Rudisill,

No. CV 13-1149-TUC-CKJ

10

Plaintiff,

11 vs.

ORDER

12 Charles Ryan, et al.

13

Defendants.

14

15

16

Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 19), and Defendants have

17 filed three Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 32, 37, 51).

18

The Court will screen Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, deny Defendants’

19 motions, and direct Defendants to file an answer.

20 I. Background

21

In September 2013, Plaintiff Stephen Louis Rudisill, who is confined in the

22 Arizona State Prison Complex, Santa Rita Unit, in Tucson, Arizona, initiated this action

23 by filing a pro se civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docs. 1-2). Plaintiff

24 alleged that racially segregated housing in the Tucson Prison Complex violated his rights

25 under the Equal Protection Clause (id.). He sued four current or former Arizona

26 Department of Corrections (ADC) employees: Director Charles Ryan; Division Director

27 Robert Patton; Tucson Complex Warden Therese Schroeder; and Tucson Complex

28 Deputy Warden Daniel Lundberg (id.).

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 2 of 17

1

Shortly thereafter, counsel appeared in the case on Plaintiff’s behalf (Docs. 8-9,

2 10, 12).

3

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and,

4 in its January 23, 2014 Order, determined that Plaintiff sufficiently stated an equal

5 protection claim and ordered the four Defendants to respond (Doc. 15).

6

On February 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, in which he

7 named the same four Defendants and added Governor Janice Brewer as a Defendant

8 (Doc. 19). On February 11 and 12, 2014, Plaintiff executed service of the First Amended

9 Complaint on Brewer, Schroeder, Lundberg, and Ryan (Docs. 20-29).

10

On March 13, 2014, the four served Defendants filed a Request for Screening of

11 the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 31). That same day, Ryan and Brewer filed separate

12 Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 32-33), and, a few days later, Lundberg and Schroeder filed

13 their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37).

14

Plaintiff then filed a motion to substitute a Defendant in place of Patton and filed

15 Notices of Dismissals for Patton and Brewer (Docs. 42-44). The Court granted the

16 motion for substitution and substituted Carson McWilliams in his official capacity in

17 place of Patton (Doc. 48). The Court dismissed Patton and Brewer as Defendants and

18 denied Brewer’s Motion to Dismiss as moot (id.).

19

On June 9, 2014, McWilliams filed his Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 51).

20 II. Right to Amend Pleading and Screening Requirement

21

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), a party is permitted to amend its

22 pleading as a matter of right within “(A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is

23 one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive

24 pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is

25 earlier.”

26

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on February 4, 2014, was within the

27

- 2 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 3 of 17

1 time in which he could amend his pleading as a matter of right. Thus, Plaintiff’s

2 amended pleading is the operative complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

3 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (after amendment, the original pleading is treated as nonexistent);

4 Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990)

5 (amended complaint supersedes the original complaint).

6

But Plaintiff’s service of the First Amended Complaint was premature because it

7 has not yet been screened by the Court. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),

8 the Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

9 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

10 § 1915A(a). A defendant is not required to respond to a prisoner complaint prior to

11 screening of the complaint by the court. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Even though Plaintiff

12 is now represented by counsel, because he is incarcerated, his amended pleading is

13 subject to the PLRA’s screening requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c) (a “prisoner” is

14 “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility” who had been accused or convicted

15 and sentenced for violations of criminal law); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h) (same definition).

16 III. Screening

17

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

18 claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief

19 may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

20 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). A pleading must contain a “short and plain

21 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

22 8(a)(2). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more

23 than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

24 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

25 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Further, “a complaint

26 must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

27

- 3 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 4 of 17

1 plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570

2 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

3 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

4 alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible

5 claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw

6 on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s

7 specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must

8 assess whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id.

9 at 681.

10 IV. First Amended Complaint

11

In his amended pleading, Plaintiff sets forth one cause of action under the Equal

12 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Doc. 19 ¶¶ 59-64). The named

13 Defendants are Ryan, Schroeder, Lundberg, and McWilliams (id. ¶¶ 10-13; Doc. 48).

14 Plaintiff also sues 100 Doe Defendants, identified as DOE 1 through DOE 100 (Doc. 19

15 ¶ 15).

16

Plaintiff alleges the following facts:

17

Plaintiff is an African-American male (id. ¶ 19). He arrived at the Tucson Prison

18 Complex on May 31, 2011, and was assigned to the Manzanita Unit (id. ¶ 21). Since his

19 arrival at the complex in May 2011, Plaintiff has been housed with African-American

20 inmates only, despite numerous requests to house with inmates of a different race (id.

21 ¶ 23). In the two units he has housed in, all inmates are housed according to racial

22 classifications (id. ¶ 24). On information and belief, all inmates at the Tucson Prison

23 Complex are segregated in housing units according to race (id. ¶ 25).

24

In the Manzanita Unit and, upon information and belief, in all units at the prison

25 complex, job assignments are assigned according to racial quotas established by

26 Defendants and prison officials (id. ¶¶ 27-28). Inmates employed as assistants for

27

- 4 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 5 of 17

1 inmates with physical disabilities assist inmates of the same race only (id. ¶ 27). Inmates

2 employed as barbers must use separate tools for Caucasian inmates, African-American

3 inmates, Latino inmates, and Native American inmates (id. ¶ 29). In the Manzanita and

4 Santa Rita Units, inmate barbers cut the hair of inmates who are of the same race, and the

5 posted barber work schedule lists the name of the barber and each barber’s race (id.

6 ¶¶ 30-31).

7

Plaintiff alleges that the institutional segregation promulgated by Defendants and

8 prison officials fosters an environment of racial animus among inmates and leads to self-

9 segregation resulting in threats, intimidation, and violence, which is encouraged or

10 tolerated by officials, including Defendants (id. ¶ 33).

11

Plaintiff states that he sent letters to Ryan and Schroeder describing the racial

12 discrimination and systemic segregation in his unit; however, Ryan and Schroeder

13 refused to amend the policy and confirmed that it would continue to be applied (id. ¶¶ 36-

14 38). Plaintiff received Inmate Response Letters from Lundberg stating that the

15 Department is well aware of racial parity, that the housing unit balance complies with

16 policy, and that all jobs are racially balanced as much as possible (id. ¶¶ 39, 57).

17

Plaintiff alleged that he then initiated the ADC grievance process to complain

18 about segregation in the areas of housing, dining, barbers, and job assignments (id. ¶ 43;

19 see id. ¶¶ 44-52). He avers that in October 2013, after his Inmate Grievance Appeal was

20 denied by an appeals officer and Ryan, Plaintiff sent Inmate Letters requesting to be

21 housed with someone of a different race (id. ¶¶ 52-54).

22

Plaintiff was transferred to the Santa Rita Unit on November 4, 2013, and shares a

23 bunk with an inmate of the same race (id. ¶ 58).

24

Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ policy of racial segregation violates the Equal

25 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (id. ¶¶ 61-63). He sues Defendants in

26

27

- 5 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 6 of 17

1 both their official and individual capacities, and he seeks declaratory and injunctive relief

2 and damages (id. ¶¶ 10-13, 66).

3 V. Discussion

4

A. Equal Protection Clause

5

The Equal Protection Clause requires that all persons who are similarly situated

6 should be treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439

7 (1985); Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001). Prisoners are protected

from racial discrimination by the Equal Protection Clause, Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 8

969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), and express racial classifications are immediately suspect, 9

Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S. 499, 509 (2005). A plaintiff alleging denial of equal protection 10
under § 1983 based on race “must plead intentional unlawful discrimination or allege 11
facts that are at least susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent.” Monteiro v. 12
Tempe Union High School Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). To state a claim 13
for relief, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant state actor acted at least in part
14 because of the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class. Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d

15 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003).

16 B. Liability

17

There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, so a defendant’s position as

18 the supervisor of someone who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights does

19 not make him liable. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v.

20 List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). To state a constitutional claim, a plaintiff must

21 allege some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the alleged

22 violation. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). A plaintiff “must

23 allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show an individual was personally involved in

24 the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.

25 1998).

26

For an individual to be liable in his official capacity, a plaintiff must allege that the

27

- 6 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 7 of 17

1 official acted as a result of a policy, practice, or custom or that the official promulgated a

2 policy, practice or custom resulting in the violation. See Cortez v. Cnty. of L.A., 294 F.3d

3 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001).

4

A supervisor in his individual capacity “is only liable for constitutional violations

5 of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of

the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. But where a 6

plaintiff seeks to hold a supervisory official individually liable based on a policy, the 7

Ninth Circuit has explained that 8

[w[hen a supervisory official advances or manages a policy that instructs its

9

adherents to violate constitutional rights, then the official specifically

10

intends for such violations to occur. Claims against such supervisory

officials, therefore, do not fail on the state of mind requirement, be it intent,

11

knowledge, or deliberate indifference. Iqbal itself supports this holding.

12

. . . Advancing a policy that requires subordinates to commit constitutional

violations is always enough for § 1983 liability, no matter what the required

13

mental state, so long as the policy proximately causes the harm—that is, so

14

long as the plaintiff’s constitutional injury in fact occurs pursuant to the

policy.

15

16 OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1076 (9th Cir. 2012). To state a claim

17 under this principle, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) the defendant

18 “promulgate[d], implement[ed], or in some other way possesse[d] responsibility for the

continued operation of” the policy and (2) the constitutional violation “occurred pursuant 19

to that policy.” Id. (citing Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1199 (10th Cir. 2010)). 20
C. Plaintiff’s Allegations 21
Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to show that he is a member of a protected class 22
and that, during his confinement at two Tucson Prison Complex units, he has been 23
housed only with inmates of the same race and that at these two units, all inmates are 24
segregated by race (Doc. 19 ¶¶ 2, 19, 21-24). Plaintiff also alleges sufficient facts to 25
show that certain prison service jobs in the Manzanita Unit—inmate physical-disability
26

27

- 7 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 8 of 17

1 assistants and barbers—are assigned according to race (id. ¶¶ 27, 29-31). These

2 allegations support an inference of discriminatory intent and sufficiently allege equal

3 protection violations. In addition, Plaintiff’s factual allegations support a plausible

4 inference that the alleged constitutional violations occur pursuant to a policy.

5

As stated, Plaintiff is still required to allege a sufficient connection between the

purported policy and each Defendant. 6

1. Ryan 7

Plaintiff alleges that under state law, Ryan is responsible for establishing and 8

administering ADC operations and policies that directly affect how inmates are housed 9

and employed at the prison complex (Doc. 19 ¶ 10, citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1604). 10
Plaintiff further alleges that the alleged unconstitutional policies have been in operation 11
since at least May 2011, when he entered the prison complex, and they continue (Doc. 19

12 ¶¶ 21, 23, 31, 58). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he notified Ryan of the complained-of

13 policies when he sent a letter to Ryan describing the racial discrimination and systemic

14 segregation in his unit; however, Ryan refused to amend the policy (id. ¶ 36).

15

The Court finds that these allegations create a plausible inference that Ryan

16 established, administered, or otherwise has some responsibility for policies that assign

17 inmate housing and jobs according to race. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th

18 Cir. 2011) (finding that the defendant sheriff was “required by statute to take charge of

19 and keep the county jail and prisoners in it, and [was] answerable for the prisoner’s

20 safekeeping,” and therefore was liable under § 1983 for supervisory omissions that would

21 likely enable subordinates to commit a constitutional injury”). And, as mentioned above,

22 Plaintiff sufficiently alleges an equal-protection violation pursuant to these policies.

23 Plaintiff is not required to allege that Ryan intended to discriminate against him in

24 particular. See OSU Student Alliance, 699 F.3d at 1076 (noting that in Iqbal, “the Court

25 rejected the invidious discrimination claims against Ashcroft and Mueller because the

26 complaint failed to show that those defendants advanced a policy of purposeful

27

- 8 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 9 of 17

1 discrimination . . ., not because it found that the complaint had to allege that the
2 supervisors intended to discriminate against Iqbal in particular”) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
3 682-83). Thus, under OSU Student Alliance, Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim against 4 Ryan. See 699 F.3d at 1076. Plaintiff further supports a § 1983 claim against Ryan with 5 allegations that he is aware of the systemic segregation and harm resulting from these
policies and he has failed to take any action to correct harm. See Taylor, 880 F.2d at 6
1045; Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (under Ninth Circuit law, the 7
failure to act can form the basis of a § 1983 claim; the inquiry focuses on “each 8
individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional 9
deprivation”) (emphasis added); contra Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 10
1999) (under Sixth Circuit law, § 1983 liability is “based on active unconstitutional 11
behavior and cannot be based upon a mere failure to act”) (quotation omitted). 12
Accordingly, Ryan will be directed to respond to the First Amended Complaint. 13
2. Schroeder 14
With respect to Schroeder, Plaintiff alleges that as the Warden, she is responsible 15 for day-to-day operations of the prison complex, including the Manzanita and Santa Rita 16 Units, and he avers that under ADC Department Orders, Schroeder is required to report 17 any significant problems arising from, inter alia, racial parity and/or imbalance (Doc. 19
18 ¶ 12). Plaintiff alleges that he wrote a letter to Schroeder about the racial segregation of
19 inmates within the prison complex; however, she refused to amend the policy (id. ¶¶ 37,
20 42). Plaintiff avers that in her Inmate Response Letter, Schroeder stated that Plaintiff’s
21 unit was “racially balanced” and that “a racial balance and integrated work crews shall be
22 maintained” (id. ¶ 42). Her response also stated that jobs are assigned according to

23 eligibility, inmates choose their barbers, and ADC staff uses the same barber equipment

24 for all staff (id.).

25

Schroeder’s statements may demonstrate a material dispute with Plaintiff’s

26 allegations as to whether there is racial segregation within the unit, and they may support

27

- 9 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 10 of 17

1 a plausible, alternative explanation for job assignments breaking down on racial grounds.

2 But, on screening, the Court must take Plaintiff’s allegations as true. See Cervantes v.

3 United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, where there are two

4 alternative, plausible explanations presented by the parties, a complaint sufficiently states

5 a claim for relief. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 1964-65 (a complaint’s factual allegations

“must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level”); Starr, 652 F.3d at 6

1216 (“[i]f there are two alternative explanations, one advanced by defendant and the 7

other advanced by plaintiff, both of which are plausible, plaintiff’s complaint 8

survives . . . .”). 9

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts creating a plausible 10
inference that Schroeder has some responsibility for implementing policies that result in 11
segregation of inmates and that she is aware of the resulting segregation and harm but has

12 failed to take any action to correct the harm. See OSU Student Alliance, 699 F.3d at

13 1976; Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. Plaintiff therefore states a § 1983 claim against Schroeder,

14 and she will be directed to respond to the First Amended Complaint.

15 3. Lundberg

16

Plaintiff alleges that Lundberg, as Deputy Warden, is responsible for the

17 accounting of all beds within the prison complex units, and he required to report any

18 significant problems arising from, inter alia, racial parity and/or imbalance (Doc. 19

19 ¶ 13). Plaintiff also alleges that, under ADC Department Orders, Lundberg has the final

20 approval authority for all housing assignments (id.). In Schroeder’s Inmate Response

21 Letter to Plaintiff, she stated that “Deputy Warden Lundberg and his leadership team are

22 in charge of the Manzanita [Unit],” and Plaintiff alleges that when Lundberg delivered

23 this response letter to Plaintiff, he told Plaintiff, “nothing going to happen; all letters get

24 filtered back to me, I run the prison” (id. ¶ 41).

25

Plaintiff’s allegations against Lundberg are sufficient to create a plausible

26 inference that he has some responsibility for implementing policies at the prison complex

27

- 10 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 11 of 17

1 units and, as stated, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges an equal protection violation pursuant to

2 these policies. See OSU Student Alliance, 699 F.3d at 1076. Also, Plaintiff adequately

3 alleges that Lundberg is aware of the systemic segregation resulting from these polices

4 but has failed to take any action to remedy the harm. Leer, 844 F.3d 633. The Court will

5 direct Lundberg to respond to the First Amended Complaint.

4. McWilliams 6

When it granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Substitution of Public Officer, to substitute 7

current Division Director of Offender Operations McWilliams for Patton, the former 8

Division Director, the Court noted that McWilliams is substituted as a Defendant in his 9

official capacity only (Doc. 48 at 3). The Court refused to dismiss the Division Director 10
on the ground that an official-capacity suit against him is redundant because other 11
Defendants are sued in their official capacity (id. at 2-3). As noted in the prior Order,

12 Plaintiff has not named Defendants’ employer as a Defendant in this case (id.). See

13 Contreras, ex rel. Contreras v. Cnty. of Glenn, 725 S. Supp. 2d 1157, 1159-60 (E.D. Cal.

14 2010) (generally, suits brought against individuals in their official capacity are redundant

15 where the plaintiff also brings suit against the individuals’ employer).

16

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Division Director

17 oversees the Offender Services Bureau, which is responsible, inter alia, for offender

18 classification and movement and population management (Doc. 19 ¶ 11). Plaintiff

19 further alleges that under ADC Department Order, the Division Director must monitor

20 racial parity and/or imbalance within the prison complexes (id.). These allegations are

21 sufficient to create an inference that the Division Director acts as a result of a policy or

22 promulgates a policy that results in the alleged equal protection violation. See Cortez,

23 294 F.3d at 1188. Accordingly, Plaintiff sufficiently states a § 1983 claim against

24 McWilliams in his official capacity, and McWilliams will be directed to respond to the

25 First Amended Complaint.

26

5. Doe Defendants

27

- 11 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 12 of 17

1

Plaintiff names 100 Doe Defendants (Doc. 19 ¶ 15). He alleges that each of the

2 Doe Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in his

3 amended pleading and that his injuries were proximately caused by these Defendants

4 (id.).

5

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires the plaintiff to include the names

of the parties in the action. The Ninth Circuit has held that where identity is unknown 6

prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through 7

discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not 8

uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. 9

Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 10
629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Where the names of individual defendants are 11
unknown at the time a complaint is filed, a plaintiff may refer to the individual unknown

12 defendants as Doe Defendant 1, Doe Defendant 2, and so on, and allege facts to support

13 how each particular Doe defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. A

14 plaintiff may thereafter use the discovery process to obtain the names of fictitiously

15 named defendants whom he believes violated his constitutional rights and seek leave to

16 amend to name those defendants.

17

In this case, however, Plaintiff does not allege any specific facts to support how

18 any of the 100 Doe Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Therefore, the 100 Doe

19 Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice.

20 VI. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

21

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

22

Ryan, Schroeder, and Lundberg all move to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended

23 Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docs. 32, 37). The

24 standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is identical to the standard applied on

25 screening under § 1915A(b) (“fail[ure] to state a claim upon which relief may be

26 granted”). Because the Court has screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint under

27

- 12 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 13 of 17

1 this standard, Defendants’ arguments under Rule 12(b)(6) are unnecessary. To the extent

2 they seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), their motions are denied as moot.

3

B. Damages

4

The same three Defendants also argue that there are no valid damage claims

5 against them because damages for mental and emotional injuries are statutorily barred

absent physical injury and there are no facts to support Plaintiff’s claim for punitive 6
damages (Doc. 32 at 9; Doc. 37 at 9). 7
Under § 1997e(e) of the PLRA, no action may be brought “for mental or 8
emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” 9
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the PLRA’s physical-injury requirement applies 10
only to claims for mental or emotional injuries and does not bar claims for money 11
damages premised on alleged constitutional violations. Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 12
629-30 (9th Cir. 2002) (even absent physical injury, “[t]o the extent that appellant has 13
actionable claims for compensatory, nominal or punitive damages—premised on
14 violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, and not on any alleged mental emotional

15 injuries—we conclude the claims are not barred by § 1997e(e)”).

16

Here, Plaintiff’s sole count alleges a violation of his rights under the Equal

17 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and he specifically seeks compensatory

18 and punitive damages (Doc. 19 ¶ 66(b) and (c)). A request for punitive damages is

19 consistent with a claim for nominal damages even when the latter are not specifically

20 requested. See Oliver, 289 F.3d at 630. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff has an

21 actionable claim for compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages based on an alleged

22 Fourteenth Amendment violation, Plaintiff’s claim is not barred by § 1997e(e).

23 Moreover, Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief (Doc. 19 66(a)).

24 Defendants’ request for dismissal of the First Amended Complaint on this basis is

25 therefore denied.

26

27

- 13 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 14 of 17

1

Punitive damages are awarded in the jury’s discretion. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S.

2 30, 54 (1983). The jury determines whether a defendant acted with an evil motive or

3 demonstrated reckless indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id. at 56. The

4 Court cannot conclude, on this record, that Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages

5 under this standard. Defendants’ request to dismiss the punitive damages claims against

6 them is denied.

7

C. Qualified Immunity

8

Ryan, Schroeder, and Lundberg assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity

9 from damages (Doc. 32 at 10; Doc. 37 at 10).

10

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their

11 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

12 reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

13 In the qualified-immunity analysis, the court must determine: (1) whether the facts

14 alleged show the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that

15 right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194,

16 200-01 (2001). Courts may address either prong first depending on the circumstances in

17 the particular case, and, regardless of whether or not a constitutional violation occurred,

18 qualified immunity is available if the right allegedly violated was not clearly established.

19 See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 230-32, 235-36 (2009).

20

“The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly

21 established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was

22 unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199 (2004)

23 (quotation omitted). To make this determination, a court “need not look to a case with

24 identical or even ‘materially similar’ facts.” Serrano, 345 F.3d at 1077. The standard is

25 whether the right at issue has been defined with “sufficient specificity” such that the

26 defendant official had fair warning that her conduct deprived the plaintiff of his rights.

27

- 14 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 15 of 17

1 Id. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the right at issue was clearly

2 established. Alston v. Read, 663 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011).

3

Defendants argue that it is not clearly established that simply mailing a letter to

4 supervisors who have no involvement in the day-to-day operations of different prison

5 complexes makes them liable under § 1983 (Doc. 32 at 11; Doc. 37 at 11).

6

In his response to Defendants’ argument, Plaintiff cites two cases he maintains are

7 sufficiently analogous to show that the right at issue was clearly established (Doc. 41 at

8 17). In Johnson v. California, the Supreme Court held in 2005 that racial classifications

9 in prisons are “immediately suspect” and subject to strict scrutiny, even where policies

10 affect all races equally. 543 U.S. at 508-09. In Richardson v. Runnels, a 2010 decision,

11 the Ninth Circuit held that the Johnson decision was the “relevant precedent” for

12 evaluating the merits of a prisoner’s equal protection claim that arose from a racially-

13 discriminatory lockdown. 594 F.3d 666, 671, 72 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff notes that “the

14 Richardson court further held that the defendants’ race-based lockdown did not pass

15 muster even under the ‘weaker standard, which may govern the qualified immunity

16 question,’ and which governed racial classifications in prisons pre-Johnson, because the

17 defendants articulated nothing other than a ‘belief’ or perception to support locking down

18 all African-American inmates when only some of them perpetrated violent acts” (Doc. 41

19 at 17, citing Richardson, 594 F.3d at 671). Plaintiff also cites to numerous district court

20 cases in this Circuit that he asserts support that qualified immunity based on the “clearly-

21 established” prong should be denied (id., citing cases).

22

The Court finds that Defendants frame the issue too narrowly. See Jackson v.

23 McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 331-32 (9th Cir. 1996) (defendant doctors state the issue too

24 narrowly where they contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because there

25 was no clearly established law requiring them to provide a kidney transplant to a prisoner

26 on dialysis”). Their argument completely ignores the fact that Plaintiff’s claims against

27

- 15 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 16 of 17

1 them are based in large part on their alleged implementation or management of a policy

2 that resulted in a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause. By

3 2011, when Plaintiff entered the Tucson Prison Complex, it was well established that

4 prisoners were protected under the Equal Protection Clause. Walker, 370 F.3d at 973.

5 And the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that, under Johnson, it would

6 have been clear to a reasonable prison official in 2011 that it is unlawful to segregate

7 inmates in housing and job assignments based solely on race. Defendants’ request for

8 qualified immunity will be denied.

9

D. McWilliams’ Motion to Dismiss

10

McWilliams moves to dismiss the official-capacity claim against him on the

11 ground that this claim is redundant because Plaintiff sues three other officials in their

12 official capacity (Doc. 51). As set forth above, the Court addressed and rejected this

13 argument when it substituted McWilliams as a Defendant for Patton (Doc. 48).

14 McWilliams presents no basis for reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order; therefore,

15 his Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

16 IT IS ORDERED:

17

(1) Doe Defendants, identified as DOE 1 through DOE 100, are dismissed

18 without prejudice.

19

(2) Defendants Ryan, Schroeder, Lundberg, and McWilliams must answer the

20 First Amended Complaint.

21

(3) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on

22 whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or

23 paper that does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

24

(4) Defendant Ryan’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) is denied.

25

(5) Defendants Schroeder and Lundberg’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37) is

26 denied.

27

- 16 -

28

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 56 Filed 07/23/14 Page 17 of 17

1

(6) Defendant McWilliams’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 51) is denied.

2

Dated this 22nd day of July, 2014.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

- 17 -

28

 
 Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 19

KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP 1 Bert H. Deixler*
bdeixler@kbkfirm.com 2 Laura W. Brill*
lbrill@kbkfirm.com 3 Randall L. Jackson*
rjackson@kbkfirm.com 4 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
Los Angeles, California 90067 5 Telephone: 310.556.2700
Facsimile: 310.556.2705 6 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff

8 Mark Brnovich Attorney General
9 Paul E. Carter Assistant Attorney General
10 State Bar of Arizona No. 010623 1275 W. Washington Street
11 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 Telephone: (602) 542-1610
12 Fax: (602) 542-7670 E-mail: paul.carter@azag.gov
13
Attorneys for Defendants
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
16

17
STEPHEN LOUIS RUDISILL,
18
Plaintiff,
19
v.
20
CHARLES RYAN, Director, Arizona 21 Department of Corrections; ROBERT
PATTON, Division Director of 22 Offender Operations, Arizona
Department of Corrections; THERESE 23 SCHROEDER, Warden, Arizona State
Prison Complex-Tucson; DANIAL 24 LUNDBERG, Deputy Warden, Arizona
State Prison Complex-Tuscon, in their 25 official and individual capacities, AND
DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE,
26
Defendants.
27

Case No. CV 13-01149-TUC-CKJ [Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson] STIPULATION FOR ORDER

28
263522.1

1
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 19

1

Plaintiff Stephen Louis Rudisill (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Charles Ryan,

2 Carson McWilliams, Therese Schroeder, Danial Lundberg, Alfred Ramos, and 3 Panann Days1 (“Defendants”) enter into this Stipulation for Order (“Stipulation”) as

4 follows:

5 I. INTRODUCTION

6

1. Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Arizona Department of

7 Corrections (“ADC”), an agency of the State of Arizona, and is presently housed at

8 the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson.

9

2. Defendants are Charles Ryan, Director of the ADC, Carson

10 McWilliams, Division Director of the ADC, Therese Schroeder, former Warden of

11 the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson, Danial Lundberg, former Deputy

12 Warden of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson, Alfred Ramos, current

13 Warden of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson, and Panann Days, current

14 Deputy Warden of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson .

15

3. The purpose of this Stipulation is to settle the above captioned case and

16 to ensure compliance with the stipulated terms provided herein. This Stipulation

17 governs or applies to the 10 ADC complexes: Douglas, Eyman, Florence, Lewis,

18 Perryville, Phoenix, Safford, Tucson, Winslow, and Yuma.

19

4. Defendants deny all of the allegations in the Complaint filed in this

20 case. This Stipulation does not constitute and shall not be construed or interpreted

21 as an admission of any wrongdoing or liability by any party.

22

23

24

1 Alfred Ramos has succeeded Ms. Schroeder as the Warden of the Arizona

25 State Prison Complex-Tucson, and Panann Days has succeeded Mr. Lundberg as the

26

Deputy Warden of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson. Pursuant to Rule 25(d), Mr. Ramos and Ms. Days are now defendants in this action solely in their

27 official capacities.

28
263522.1

2
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 19

1 II. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

2

A. Housing

3

1. Policy

4

5. Defendants shall develop and institute policies, procedures, and

5 practices necessary to implement an “Integrated Housing Program” (“IHP”). The

6 purpose of the IHP is to foster racial equality among inmates by assigning inmates

7 to integrated housing placements, with the intention that doing so will enhance

8 rehabilitation and security interests.

9

6. Pursuant to the IHP, Defendants shall assign inmates to the first

10 available and appropriate bed vacancy.

11

7. Inmates shall be assigned to a bed without regard to their race,

12 ethnicity, or national origin (except as allowed in paragraph 8). Additionally,

13 individual housing assignments shall be made based on the principles and criteria

14 outlined in Department Order 704, other available documentation and individual

15 case factors, and each inmate’s “Integrated Housing Code” (defined below). In light

16 of the foregoing, housing assignments shall be determined in a manner that shall

17 ensure that the safety, security, treatment, and rehabilitative needs of the inmate are

18 adequately considered, as well as the safety and security of the public, prison staff,

19 and the prison complexes.

20

8. Any consideration of race in housing assignments shall be permitted

21 only when narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest, and even then

22 may be evaluated only as one factor in connection with a comprehensive and

23 objective assessment of any inmate’s individual circumstances. As a result, an

24 inmate’s race shall not be used as a primary determining factor for housing

25 assignments.

26

27

28
263522.1

3
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 4 of 19

1

2. Integrated Housing Code

2

9. In implementing the IHP, each inmate will be assigned an “Integrated

3 Housing Code” (“IHC”). The IHC will be used to identify, track, and monitor an

4 inmate’s eligibility to integrate when being housed.

5

10. The IHCs that may be assigned to an inmate are as follows:

6

(a) RE (“Racially Eligible”). An inmate that can live with members of

7

any race.

8

(b) RP (“Restricted Partially”). An inmate who may be considered

9

ineligible to live with inmates of a particular race.

10

(c) RO (“Restricted to Own”). An inmate who can live only with a

11

member of the same race.

12

(d) RT (“Restricted Temporarily by Custody”). An inmate with

13

some information to indicate that RP or RO may be the appropriate

14

code, but insufficient information or documentation exists for the

15

designated custody supervisor to make a final objective determination

16

regarding the inmate’s ability to integrate, and which will be made

17

pending further review.

18

11. All inmates shall be coded RE, unless objective and documented case

19 factors dictate otherwise. Ineligibility to live with someone of another race (RP or

20 RO) could be based on a racially motivated incident, where racial beliefs or

21 attitudes were the cause of the incident. Such ineligibility may also be based on

22 documented racial hostility or animosity, which may lead to the conclusion that an

23 integrated assignment would create a risk of violence. However, for the avoidance

24 of doubt, the existence of a prior racially motivated incident or documented racial

25 hostility or animosity shall not automatically disqualify an inmate from being coded

26 RE. The code RT may be used when conflicting information arrives with the

27 inmate or when questionable statements or behavior are observed that are not

28
263522.1

4
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 5 of 19

1 consistent with an inmate’s claim of eligibility. The code RT is temporary and shall

2 be changed within 21 days based on additional information and documentation.

3

12. An inmate’s IHC will be assigned only based on individual objective

4 and documented case factors, as well as a personal interview of the inmate.

5

13. For any inmate who is RP or RO, the inmate’s IHC must be reassessed

6 at least once per year.

7

14. A contemporaneous and permanent electronic record must be created

8 articulating in detail the reasons for every IHC assignment and/or reassessment that

9 results in an inmate being coded as RP, RO, or RT.

10

3. Implementation

11

15. The IHP will be implemented at the 10 ADC complexes in five phases

12 on the following schedule:

13 Phase Dates

Units

14 I

1/1/16-1/1/17 ASPC-Tucson, Santa Rita Unit

15

ASPC-Florence, North Unit Yard II

16 II

1/1/17-3/1/18 All minimum/medium custody female units

17

All minimum/medium protective custody units

18

All dormitory sex offender units

19 III

3/1/18-6/1/19 All minimum/medium custody general population units

20 IV

6/1/19-6/1/20 All maximum custody units

21 V
22

6/1/20-6/1/21 All close custody units

23

16. Inmates arriving at the ADC’s Reception Center who meet the custody

24 classification and specific unit criteria shall be moved directly to an integrated unit,

25 as set forth in paragraph 15, if an appropriate bed is available.

26

17. The ADC shall develop and implement inmate programming,

27 incentives for compliance with the IHP, and consequences for non-compliance.

28

263522.1

5
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 6 of 19

1

(a) Before being moved into an integrated unit, inmates previously

2

housed in a non-integrated unit will be required to complete

3

programming such as Cultural Diversity, Socialization Skills, and

4

Decision-Making Skills.

5

(b) ADC will institute incentives for inmate compliance in units at the

6

time of implementation set forth in paragraph 15. Those incentives

7

may include, but will not be limited to: additional property that may

8

include MP3 players or electronic games; access to a kiosk that would

9

allow for the download of music, games, etc.; additional visitation

10

privileges to include food visits; restoration of previously denied

11

privileges, restoration of release credits; additional recreation to include

12

special events, such as barbecues, movie nights, sporting events, etc.;

13

assignment to premium jobs, such as IGAs, ACI, fire crews, etc.; and

14

the opportunity to take additional educational/rehabilitation courses,

15

such as computer science, bricklaying, small engine repair, wood-

16

working/carpentry, and plumbing/pipe-fitting.

17

(c) ADC will institute policies for consequences for inmate non-

18

compliance, which will be modeled upon the process outlined in D.O.

19

704.09 (“Refusal To House Procedures”) or a substantially similar

20

process or discipline matrix specific to the IHP. Notwithstanding the

21

foregoing, ADC will not be required to place non-compliant inmates in

22

detention unless deemed necessary by ADC in its sole discretion.

23

18. The ADC will communicate with inmates at all levels so that they

24 understand the IHP, as well as the expectations of compliance and consequences for

25 non-compliance.

26

19. The ADC shall develop and implement correctional officer training and

27 education for the purpose of effectively implementing the IHP. The ADC shall also

28
263522.1

6
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 7 of 19

1 develop internal controls and oversight with respect to each integrated unit in order

2 to monitor IHP compliance.

3

4. Maintenance Of Records

4

20. The ADC shall retain all records created as part of the IHP’s

5 implementation (“IHP Records”) at least until such time as the Stipulation is

6 terminated.

7

21. The IHP Records shall include, at a minimum, the following:

8

(a) Documents identifying each inmate, including the inmate’s race.

9

(b) Documents identifying the housing assignment for every inmate,

10

including the identity and race of any other inmate assigned to the same

11

cell or double-bunked bed.

12

(c) Documents relating to each inmate’s IHC, including in connection

13

with any assessment and/or reassessment of the inmate’s IHC (as well

14

as the date of any such assessment and/or reassessment).

15

(d) All IHP-related training, education, and program materials, as well

16

as documents identifying the inmates and correctional officers

17

attending all such sessions.

18

(e) Records evidencing the implementation of incentives and

19

consequences for inmates to encourage participation in an integrated

20

housing unit, including evidence of disciplinary proceedings related to

21

the IHP.

22

(f) Incident reports or other records evidencing incidents of violence or

23

threats of violence in a unit before and after implementation of the IHP

24

at that unit.

25

(g) Records related to specific initiatives, training, or education to

26

reduce violence at units where the IHP has been implemented.

27

28
263522.1

7
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 8 of 19

1

(h) Any inmate grievance contesting any housing decision made by the

2

ADC arising out of race or ethnicity.

3

B. Employment

4

1. Policy

5

22. Defendants shall develop and institute policies, procedures, and

6 practices necessary to implement a “Nondiscriminatory Employment Program”

7 (“NEP”). The purpose of the NEP is to foster racial equality among inmates by

8 employing inmates, and by having inmates provide employment services to others,

9 in a nondiscriminatory manner and without regard to race (except as allowed in

10 paragraph 26), with the intention that doing so will enhance rehabilitation and

11 security interests.

12

23. Pursuant to the NEP, inmates shall be assigned to jobs and/or other

13 work assignments with consideration of the inmate’s preference, job requirements,

14 qualifications, experience, background, classification, institutional adjustment, and

15 prison record. ADC may consider an inmate’s race or ethnicity only where

16 consistent with the considerations of paragraph 26.

17

24. Job openings in a unit shall be noticed in a manner to reach all inmates

18 in the unit, unless specific security considerations, approved in writing by the unit

19 deputy warden, dictate otherwise. The notice shall provide a reasonable time and

20 opportunity for inmates to apply for the position. ADC will take reasonable efforts

21 to provide education and training that would allow inmates to become qualified for

22 additional work opportunities in the prison or in the community upon release.

23 Nothing in this Stipulation, however, shall require ADC to train unskilled inmates in

24 any particular skill, occupation, or profession.

25

25. Certain jobs may require the provision of employment services by one

26 inmate to other inmates (such as barbers, pushers or porters). The present practice,

27 not ADC policy, is that these services are provided in a segregated manner. As units

28
263522.1

8
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 9 of 19

1 are phased into the NEP according to the schedule adopted in paragraph 28, ADC

2 shall adopt policies and implement training and education designed to end this

3 practice. Additionally, incentives and consequences for the inmates, which can

4 include reassignment from the NEP unit, will be established and imposed as the unit

5 is phased into NEP.

6

26. Any consideration of race in connection with employment assignments

7 or the provision of inmate employment services shall be permitted only when

8 narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest, and even then may be

9 utilized only as one factor in connection with a comprehensive and objective

10 assessment of any individual inmate employment assignment or service. As a result,

11 an inmate’s race shall not be used as a primary determining factor for employment

12 assignments or services. If ADC does choose to use race in making any

13 employment assignment, that decision shall be documented in a form to be mutually

14 agreed and sent to Plaintiff’s expert(s).

15

27. The applicable provisions of this Stipulation shall supplement

16 Department Order 903.01-1.7. To the extent Department Order 903.01-1.7 is

17 inconsistent with this Stipulation, the provisions of this Stipulation shall control.

18

2. Implementation

19

28. The NEP will be implemented at the 10 ADC complexes in five phases

20 on the following schedule:

21 Phase Dates

Units

22 I

1/1/16 -1/1/17 ASPC-Tucson, Santa Rita Unit

23

ASPC-Florence, North Unit Yard II

24 II

1/1/17-3/1/18 All minimum/medium custody female units

25

All minimum/medium protective custody units

26

All dormitory sex offender units

27 III

3/1/18-6/1/19 All minimum/medium custody general population units

28
263522.1

9
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 10 of 19

1 IV

6/1/19-6/1/20 All maximum custody units

2V

6/1/20-6/1/21 All close custody units

3

4

29. The ADC shall develop and implement inmate programming,

5 incentives for compliance with the NEP, and consequences for non-compliance.

6

30. The ADC will also communicate with inmates at all custody levels so

7 that they understand the NEP, as well as the expectations of compliance and

8 consequences for non-compliance.

9

31. The ADC shall develop and implement correctional officer training and

10 education for the purpose of effectively implementing the NEP. The ADC shall also

11 develop internal controls and oversight with respect to each integrated unit in order

12 to monitor NEP compliance.

13

3. Maintenance Of Records

14

32. The ADC shall retain all records created as part of the NEP’s

15 implementation (“NEP Records”) at least until such time as the Stipulation is

16 terminated.

17

33. The NEP Records shall include, at a minimum, the following:

18

(a) A record identifying the racial breakdown of each job classification

19

by unit, the race of each inmate who applies for each employment

20

position, and a detailed contemporaneous explanation as to why the

21

inmate was or was not selected for the position.

22

(b) Documents related to the implementation of paragraph 24, such as

23

job notices, job notice disbursement records, job applications,

24

documents related to job assignment decisions, job training and

25

education materials, implementation notices to inmates, notices of job

26

training and education opportunities, racial breakdowns of selection for

27

28
263522.1

10
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 11 of 19

1

job training and education programs, racial breakdowns for successful

2

completion of job training and education programs.

3

(c) All NEP-related training, education, and program materials, as well

4

as documents identifying the inmates and correctional officers

5

attending all such sessions.

6

(d) Records evidencing the implementation of incentives and

7

consequences for inmates to encourage participation in the NEP,

8

including evidence of disciplinary proceedings related to the NEP.

9

(e) Incident reports or other records evidencing incidents of violence or

10

threats of violence in a unit before and after implementation of the NEP

11

at that unit.

12

(f) Records related to specific initiatives, training, or education to

13

reduce violence at units where the NEP has been implemented.

14

(g) Any inmate grievance contesting any employment decision made by

15

the ADC arising out of race or ethnicity.

16 III. MONITORING

17

34. Plaintiff’s expert(s) shall have reasonable access to the institutions,

18 staff, any relevant contractors, prisoners, and documents necessary to properly

19 evaluate whether Defendants are complying with this Stipulation as set forth herein.

20 Plaintiff’s counsel shall have access to any documents shared with Plaintiff’s

21 expert(s). The parties shall cooperate so that Plaintiff and his expert(s) and counsel

22 have reasonable access to information reasonably necessary to perform their

23 responsibilities without unduly burdening Defendants. The general goal of such

24 monitoring and oversight shall be to promote and assist Defendants in achieving

25 compliance through collaboration, and to serve as a partner in achieving success.

26

35. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Stipulation,

27 Defendants shall identify and disclose to Plaintiff’s counsel and expert(s) a “point

28
263522.1

11
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 12 of 19

1 person” within the ADC who shall be authorized and responsible for managing all

2 requests made by Plaintiff’s experts and counsel. In the same time frame, Plaintiff

3 shall identify and disclose to Defendants an expert or experts who shall be

4 authorized and responsible for managing all requests made by Defendants or the

5 ADC concerning the implementation of this Stipulation. These designations can be

6 changed at any time at the discretion of each party.

7

36. Defendants shall consult in good faith with Plaintiff’s expert(s) in their

8 drafting and development of all policies, procedures, and practices in connection

9 with the IHP and the NEP, and shall provide Plaintiff’s expert(s) with a copy of all

10 proposed policies, procedures, and practices in connection with the IHP and the

11 NEP. Plaintiff’s expert(s) shall then have thirty (30) days to comment on each final

12 proposal, unless a shorter time is set based on individually identified considerations

13 justifying the shorter time frame. Defendants shall consider any comments made by

14 Plaintiff to such policies, procedures, and practices in good faith. Plaintiff’s

15 expert(s) and counsel shall be provided with a copy of the final decision on each

16 proposal within fourteen days of that decision.

17

37. Defendants shall consult in good faith with Plaintiff’s expert(s) with

18 respect to the drafting and development of, and shall provide Plaintiff’s expert(s)

19 with a copy of, all proposed materials to be used in connection with inmate

20 programming and correctional officer training as part of the IHP and/or NEP, as

21 well as a synopsis detailing the manner in which such programming and training

22 will be provided (e.g., the length of the session, the maximum number of persons

23 permitted to attend each session, opportunities for live interaction between the

24 presenter(s) and audience during each session, etc.). Defendants shall also consult

25 in good faith with Plaintiff’s expert(s) with respect to the drafting and development

26 of, and shall provide Plaintiff’s expert(s) with a copy of, the proposed questions to

27 be used as part of the IHC personal interviews. Defendants shall further consult in

28
263522.1

12
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 13 of 19

1 good faith with Plaintiff’s expert(s) with respect to the drafting and development of,

2 and shall provide Plaintiff’s expert(s) with a copy of, their proposals for the

3 implementation of inmate incentives for compliance and consequences for non-

4 compliance at each unit subject to the IHP and NEP, as well as their proposals for

5 ensuring adequate internal controls and oversight with respect to the ADC’s internal

6 monitoring of IHP and NEP compliance. Plaintiff’s expert shall then have thirty

7 (30) days to comment on each final proposal with respect to any of the foregoing.

8 Defendants shall consider any comments made by Plaintiff’s expert(s) in good faith.

9 Plaintiff’s expert(s) and counsel shall be provided with a copy of the final decision

10 on each proposal within fourteen days of such decision.

11

38. Defendants shall also provide Plaintiff’s expert(s) with other data,

12 reports, and information (including, but not limited to, the incentives that are being

13 provided to inmates for compliance) on a quarterly basis relating to the IHP, NEP,

14 and their implementation. Defendants and Plaintiff’s expert(s) shall collaborate

15 together regarding the precise nature and scope of these disclosures, which shall be

16 agreed upon no later than 120 days after the Stipulation’s effective date. For units

17 where the IHP and NEP are or have been implemented, the ADC will on a quarterly

18 basis provide to Plaintiff’s expert(s) and Carson McWilliams (or his successor)

19 copies of all grievances (except those related to religion, food or medical care), as

20 well as all incident reports, related to the IHP or NEP or to incidents of violence,

21 threats of violence, or intimidation against an inmate. Mr. McWilliams or his

22 successor will spot check the grievances and incident reports and consult with

23 Plaintiff’s expert(s) concerning what is evidenced in the grievances and incident

24 reports related to the implementation of the IHP and NEP.

25

39. Plaintiff’s expert(s) shall have the opportunity to conduct on-site

26 inspections (“tour days”) of ADC complexes. A tour day shall last for 8 hours and

27 shall be scheduled with at least fourteen (14) days’ advance notice given to

28
263522.1

13
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 14 of 19

1 Defendants’ designated point person. Plaintiff’s expert(s) may elect to split tour

2 days into two four-hour “half days,” which may be utilized at different institutions

3 or units on different days. A maximum of three representatives of Plaintiff may

4 attend each tour day. During the tour, these representatives must remain together as

5 a single group unless permitted to separate by ADC officials.

6

40. During tours, Plaintiff’s expert(s) shall have access to inmate living

7 areas, work sites, training areas, chow halls, barbering areas, and other areas

8 relevant to the implementation of the IHP and NEP.

9

41. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to make available for brief

10 interview ADC employees and any employees of any contractor that have direct or

11 indirect duties related to the requirements of this Stipulation who are scheduled for

12 work that day, as well as confidential out-of-cell interviews with inmates. The

13 interviews shall not materially interfere with the performance of the ADC’s duties.

14

42. Plaintiff’s expert shall also be permitted to observe programming,

15 training, and education classes administered to inmates and officers, observe

16 interviews of inmates that are conducted for purposes of assigning an IHC (upon

17 consent of the inmate), and to administer surveys or focus groups (as specified in

18 this paragraph). Plaintiff’s expert(s) may conduct two surveys of inmates and two

19 surveys of corrections officers and administrators each year at each unit for which

20 the IHP and NEP has been or is in the process of being implemented, with one of the

21 two surveys having identified respondents and one having anonymous respondents.

22 At the election of Plaintiff’s experts, a focus group can be substituted for one survey

23 of inmates at a unit each year and one survey of corrections officers at a unit each

24 year.

25

43. Plaintiff’s expert(s) shall be allowed to conduct tour days at units that

26 are scheduled to phase in the IHP and NEP on the following schedule: Calendar

27 Year 2016 – one tour day; Calendar Year 2017 – two tour days; Calendar Year 2018

28
263522.1

14
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 15 of 19

1 – two tour days; Calendar Year 2019 – four tour days; Calendar Year 2020 – four

2 tour days; Calendar Year 2021 – four tour days; Calendar Year 2022 – four tour

3 days; Calendar Year 2023 – three tour days. The number of tour days in the

4 foregoing schedule is the total number of tour days for all units. Additional tour

5 days can be scheduled upon the agreement of ADC and the Plaintiff’s expert(s). For

6 the avoidance of doubt, any dispute regarding any request by Plaintiff’s expert(s) for

7 additional tour days shall be subject to the dispute resolution procedures described

8 in Section IV, infra.

9

44. If implementation problems are identified, the ADC will consult with

10 the Plaintiff’s expert to determine a corrective action plan, which may include

11 changes to policies, procedures, and practices, training and education, individual or

12 small group discussion, or changed incentives for compliance and consequences for

13 non-compliance, as well as other initiatives.

14

45. Any dispute relating to the above-described monitoring activities to be

15 conducted by Plaintiff’s expert(s) will be subject to the dispute resolution

16 procedures described in Section IV, infra.

17 IV. ENFORCEMENT

18

46. In the event that Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to

19 substantially comply with this Stipulation, or there is any dispute with respect to the

20 monitoring provisions of this Stipulation, Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide

21 Defendants with a written statement describing the alleged non-compliance (“Notice

22 of Non-Compliance”). Defendants shall provide a written statement responding to

23 the Notice of Non-Compliance within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of the

24 Notice of Non-Compliance and, within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of

25 Defendants’ written response, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer in a good

26 faith effort to resolve their dispute informally.

27

28
263522.1

15
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 16 of 19

1

47. In the event that a Notice of Non-Compliance cannot be resolved

2 informally, counsel for the parties shall request that Magistrate Judge Charles Pyle

3 mediate the dispute. In the event that Magistrate Judge Pyle is no longer a U.S.

4 Magistrate or is no longer available, the parties shall jointly request the assignment

5 of another Magistrate Judge, or if the parties are unable to agree, the District Judge

6 shall appoint a Magistrate Judge.

7

48. If such dispute has not been resolved through mediation in conformity

8 within this Stipulation within sixty (60) calendar days, either party may file a motion

9 to enforce the Stipulation in the District Court.

10 V. RESERVATION OF JURISDICTION

11

49. The parties consent to the reservation and exercise of jurisdiction by the

12 District Court over all disputes between and among the parties arising out of this

13 Stipulation.

14

50. Based upon the entire record, the parties stipulate and jointly request

15 that the Court find that this Stipulation satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §

16 3626(a)(1)(A) in that it is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to

17 correct the violations of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary

18 to correct the violations of the Federal right of the Plaintiff. In the event the Court

19 finds that Defendants have not complied with the Stipulation, it shall in the first

20 instance require Defendants to submit a plan, upon which Plaintiff’s experts shall

21 have an opportunity to comment and which the Court shall decide whether to

22 approve, to remedy the deficiencies identified by the Court. In the event the Court

23 subsequently determines that the Defendants’ plan fails to remedy the deficiencies,

24 the Court shall retain the power to enforce this Stipulation through all remedies

25 provided by law, except that the Court shall not have the authority to order

26 Defendants to construct a new prison or to hire a specific number or type of staff

27 unless Defendants propose to do so as part of a plan to remedy a failure to comply

28
263522.1

16
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 17 of 19

1 with any provision of this Stipulation. In determining the subsequent remedies the

2 Court shall consider whether to require Defendants to submit a revised plan.

3 VI. TERMINATION OF THE STIPULATION

4

51. To allow time for the remedial measures set forth in this Stipulation to

5 be fully implemented, the parties shall not move to terminate this Stipulation until at

6 least November 1, 2023.

7 VII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

8

52. This Stipulation shall become effective as of the date it is approved by

9 the Court.

10

53. Information produced pursuant to this Stipulation shall be governed by

11 the Confidentiality Order (Doc. 71).

12

54. Each Party represents, warrants, and covenants that they have the full

13 legal authority necessary to enter into this Stipulation and to perform the duties and

14 obligations arising under this stipulation.

15

55. This is an integrated agreement and may not be altered or modified,

16 except by a writing signed by all representatives of all parties at the time of

17 modification.

18

56. This Stipulation shall be binding on all successors, assignees,

19 employees, agents, and all others working for or on behalf of Defendants and

20 Plaintiff.

21

57. In the event that Plaintiff moves to enforce any aspect of this

22 Stipulation and Plaintiff is the prevailing party with respect to the dispute,

23 Defendants agree that they will pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including

24 expert costs, to be determined by the Court.

25

58. Plaintiff’s expert(s) shall submit bills to ADC on a monthly basis

26 which shall be paid within 45 days of submission. Expert fees are payable at the

27 rate of $275 per hour up to the scheduled annual maximum listed below. The

28
263522.1

17
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

, .! ,' • ' I •I, 4. ·.' "· 1,

Case 4:1,.3-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 18 of 19 •� • '·:·· •••'/·.'.l • •

•• • • ··�··· '·'·',-,,

•.•',• 0<,,,.... � ..... � 1-1 lj• •',·

l f I • • < ·•" •

'•,'',(,...,•'.".'I• '-' •.• ....'" ,-',•,1._,,: ,>, •' •!,''• ',Ir.'•,•.•'

• I•• .... ••,•'-{',• ', I•,••••,...,•,, r.:..:', (•';' ,,.....,. •,I H

- o, •, • ,�t:� • , ,,

, , ; , ,• ,,, •••• ,,, 1, ,,•,

maximum allowable expert fees per year is as follows: Calendar Year 2016 -

2 $75,000; Calendar Year 2017 - $75,000; Calendar Year 2018 - $75,000; Calendar

3 Year 20 19 - $75,000; Calendar Year 2020 - $75,000; Calendar Year 2021 - $75,000;

4 Calendar Year 2022 - $40,000; Calendar Year 2023 - $25,000. Travel expenses are

5 reimbursable according to federal judicial guidelines and separate from and in

6 addition to the fee caps listed in the previous sentence. The ADC shall not dispute

7 the amount sought unless there is an obvious reason to believe that the work was

8 unreasonable or the bill is incorrect.

9

59. Additional fees can be requested if compliance is not achieved within

Io the term of this Stipulation. This limitation on fees and costs shall not apply to any

11 work performed in mediating disputes before the Magistrate or to any work

12 performed before the District Court to enforce or defend this Stipulation.

13

60. Defendants agree to pay attorneys' fees and costs incurred by

14 Plaintiff's counsel in this action in the amount of $195,000, which the parties agree

15 shall represent full satisfaction of all claims for attorneys' fees and costs incurred

16 through the effective date. This payment shall be delivered within twenty-eight (28)

17 days of the Stipulation's effective date.

18 Dated: Decembei}.� 20 15

KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP

19

20 21 22
Jl, 23 Dated: December 20 15
24 25 26 27

��irrer��: : :-�----��--��-
Attorneys for Plaintiff STEPHEN LOUIS RUDISILL Mark Bmovich Attorney General By: Pau�'." Michael E. Gottfried Assistant Attorneys General Attorneys for Defendants

28
263522.1

18
STIPULATION FOR ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114 Filed 12/22/15 Page 19 of 19

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am

employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 10100 Santa

4 Monica Blvd., Suite 1725, Los Angeles, California 90067.

5

On December 22, 2015, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as

STIPULATION FOR ORDER on the interested parties in this action as follows: 6

7

Paul E. Carter, Esq. Assistant Attorney General

8

177 N. Church Avenue, Ste. 1105 Tucson, AZ 85701-1114

9

Michael E. Gottfried, Esq.

10

Assistant Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Street

11

Phoenix, AZ 85007-2936

12

BY CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: I certify that the foregoing

document(s) is being filed electronically by using the CM/ECF system. As such, the document(s)

13 will be served electronically on all interested parties whose attorneys are registered CM/ECF users and have consented to electronic service.

14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
15 foregoing is true and correct.

16

Executed on December 22, 2015, at Los Angeles, California.

17

18

/s/ Autumn McIntosh

Autumn McIntosh

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

264580.1

1
PROOF OF SERVICE

 
 Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114-1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 3

KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP 1 Bert H. Deixler*
bdeixler@kbkfirm.com 2 Laura W. Brill*
lbrill@kbkfirm.com 3 Randall L. Jackson*
rjackson@kbkfirm.com 4 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
Los Angeles, California 90067 5 Telephone: 310.556.2700
Facsimile: 310.556.2705 6 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff

8 Mark Brnovich Attorney General
9 Paul E. Carter Assistant Attorney General
10 State Bar of Arizona No. 010623 1275 W. Washington Street
11 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 Telephone: (602) 542-1610
12 Fax: (602) 542-7670 E-mail: paul.carter@azag.gov
13
Attorneys for Defendants
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
16

17
STEPHEN LOUIS RUDISILL,
18
Plaintiff,
19
v.
20
CHARLES RYAN, Director, Arizona 21 Department of Corrections; ROBERT
PATTON, Division Director of 22 Offender Operations, Arizona
Department of Corrections; THERESE 23 SCHROEDER, Warden, Arizona State
Prison Complex-Tucson; DANIAL 24 LUNDBERG, Deputy Warden, Arizona
State Prison Complex-Tuscon, in their 25 official and individual capacities, AND
DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE,
26
Defendants.
27

Case No. CV 13-01149-TUC-CKJ [Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson] STIPULATION FOR PAYMENT OF MONETARY DAMAGES

28
263521.1

1
STIPULATION FOR PAYMENT OF MONETARY DAMAGES

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114-1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 3 .·.:,.··- ,• "._".,','••1• ' ' '

/

< 1 ,·, '• ,- , ·,•J

•• ,•.'. - .!-' •. •', • ' t,..,,,' ' ": �- ', • ! ..•.!•,• J .• .' .;-. •,.•

• : !'.","'] 1• ......,_'. •, • .° # , • - .' ",•,,•, • t • -�·· < 11,·.

.o , ,• _.,,•, ,,,:-•�J•I

, 1 , . •,

'-'•"•'• •, ,,,

Plaintiff and Defendants, as defined in the Stipulation for Order, hereby enter

2 into this Stipulation for Payment of Monetary Damages (''Stipulation for Payment

3 of Monetary Damages") as follows:

4

* * *

5

1. At the request of Defendants, this Stipulation for Payment of Monetary

6 Damages is being entered into separately from the Stipulation for Order that is

7 concurrently being submitted to the Court.

8

2. Nonetheless, the parties agree that this Stipulation for Payment of

9 Monetary Damages shall be, to the extent applicable, subject to and governed by the
1 o Stipulation for Order.

11

3. As part of the settlement of the above captioned case, Defendants shall

12 pay $5,000 to PlaintiffStephen Louis Rudisill with respect to his claim for monetary

13 damages. This payment shall be delivered within twenty-eight (28) days of the date

14 that this Stipulation for Payment of Monetary Damages is approved by the Court.

15

16 Dated: Decemb�2015

KENDALL BRlLL & KELLY LLP

17

18

;:gj)�L

19

Bert H. Deixler

Attorneys for Plaintiff

20

STEPHEN LOUIS RUDISILL

21
22 Dated: December lL 2015
23

Mark Brnovich Attorney General

24

25

By:-P=-a--u-:l-:E=-. -C-=a--r-ter------'-------

26

Michael E. Gottfried Assistant Attorneys General

27

Attorneys for Defendants

28
263521.1

2
STIPULATION FORPAYMENTOF MONETARY DAMAGES

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 114-1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 3

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am

employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 10100 Santa

4 Monica Blvd., Suite 1725, Los Angeles, California 90067.

5

On December 22, 2015, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as

STIPULATION FOR PAYMENT OF MONETARY DAMAGES on the interested parties in 6 this action as follows:

7 Paul E. Carter, Esq.

8

Assistant Attorney General

177 N. Church Avenue, Ste. 1105

9

Tucson, AZ 85701-1114

10

Michael E. Gottfried, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

11

1275 W. Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85007-2936

12 BY CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: I certify that the foregoing
13 document(s) is being filed electronically by using the CM/ECF system. As such, the document(s) will be served electronically on all interested parties whose attorneys are registered CM/ECF users
14 and have consented to electronic service.

15

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

16 Executed on December 22, 2015, at Los Angeles, California.

17

18

/s/

19

Autumn McIntosh

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

264581.1

1
PROOF OF SERVICE

 
 Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 120 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Stephen Louis Rudisill,

No. CV-13-01149-TUC-CKJ

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Charles Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

On December 22, 2015, the parties filed their Stipulation for Payment of Monetary

16 Damages (Doc. 114-1), and on February 5, 2016, they filed their Amended Stipulation 17 for Order (Doc. 119)1; collectively the “Stipulations.” Based on the parties’ Stipulations

18 and the entire record in this case, including the hearing before the Court on February 1,

19 2016, the Court hereby finds that the relief set forth therein is narrowly drawn, extends no

20 further than necessary to correct the violations of the Federal right, and is the least

21 intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of the Federal right of the Plaintiff.

22 The Court therefore approves the Stipulations as of the date set forth below, and hereby

23 incorporates by reference their terms in all respects as part of this Order.

24

At the Court’s request, Plaintiff’s attorneys provided information regarding the

25 award of attorneys’ fees. The Court also finds the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to

26

27

28

1 The Court denies the Stipulation for Order filed December 22, 2015 (Doc. 114) in favor of the Amended Stipulation for Order filed February 5, 2016 (Doc. 119). This

Order resolves all pending stipulations

Case 4:13-cv-01149-CKJ Document 120 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 2

1 Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $195,000 as set forth in the Stipulation (Doc. 119) to

2 be reasonable and appropriate.

3

The Court shall retain the power to enforce the Stipulations through all remedies

4 provided by law, except that the Court shall not have the authority to order Defendants to

5 construct a new prison or to hire a specific number or type of staff unless Defendants

6 propose to do so as part of a plan to remedy a failure to comply with any provision of the

7 Stipulations.

8

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated this 5th day of February, 2016.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 
 Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 1 of 12
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Tucson Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:13−cv−01149−CKJ

CLOSED,DTE

Rudisill v. Ryan et al Assigned to: Judge Cindy K Jorgenson Related Case: 4:17−cv−00033−CKJ Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff Stephen Louis Rudisill

Date Filed: 09/13/2013 Date Terminated: 02/08/2016 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner: Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Bert H Deixler Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 1725 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−556−2700 Fax: 310−556−2705 Email: bdeixler@kbkfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cassie D Palmer Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 1725 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−272−7919 Fax: 310−556−2705 Email: cpalmer@kbkfirm.com TERMINATED: 09/26/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura W Brill Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 1725 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−55−2700 Fax: 310−55−2705 Email: lbrill@kbkfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Louis Jackson Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 1725 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−556−2700 Fax: 310−556−2705 Email: rjackson@kbkfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susannah M Rooney Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 1725 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−556−2700 Fax: 310−556−2705 Email: srooney@kbkfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 2 of 12

V. Defendant Charles Ryan
Defendant Carson McWilliams
Defendant Therese Schroeder
Defendant Daniel Lundberg
Defendant Janice Brewer TERMINATED: 04/03/2014

represented by Michael Evan Gottfried Office of the Attorney General 1275 W Washington St Phoenix, AZ 85007−2926 602−542−4951 Fax: 602−542−7670 Email: michael.gottfried@azag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Edward Carter Office of the Attorney General − Tucson − Congress St. 416 W Congress, 2nd Fl. Tucson, AZ 85701 520−638−2800 Fax: 520−628−6050 Email: Paul.Carter@azag.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Evan Gottfried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Edward Carter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Evan Gottfried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Edward Carter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Evan Gottfried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Edward Carter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Evan Gottfried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Edward Carter

Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 3 of 12
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Intervenor Timothy Paul Olmos TERMINATED: 03/07/2017

Date Filed 09/13/2013 09/13/2013 09/13/2013 09/13/2013 09/13/2013 09/13/2013 10/30/2013 10/30/2013
10/30/2013 10/30/2013
10/30/2013 10/30/2013
10/30/2013
11/08/2013
11/21/2013 11/21/2013 11/21/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (21 pages) (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(DLC) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
2 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (2 pages) (DLC) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
3 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (8 pages) (DLC) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
4 SUMMONS Submitted by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (2 pages) (DLC) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT: (DLC) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
6 MOTION to Appoint Counsel (25 Pages) by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (JKM) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
7 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Cassie D Palmer on behalf of Stephen Louis Rudisill. (BAS) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX139453 as to Cassie D Palmer. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
8 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Bert H Deixler on behalf of Stephen Louis Rudisill. (BAS) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX139455 as to Bert Howard Deixler. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
9 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Laura W Brill on behalf of Stephen Louis Rudisill. (BAS) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX139454 as to Laura W Brill. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
10 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 7 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 8 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 9 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
11 NOTICE OF PARTY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Stephen Louis Rudisill: #235368, 14A, ASPC− Santa Rita Unit, PO Box 24406, Tucson, Arizona 85734. (KAH) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
12 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: Bert H. Deixler appearing for Stephen Louis Rudisill. . (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
13 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: Laura W. Brill appearing for Stephen Louis Rudisill. . (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
14 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: Cassie D. Palmer appearing for Stephen Louis Rudisill. . (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 11/21/2013)

Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 4 of 12

01/23/2014
01/23/2014
01/28/2014 02/04/2014 02/04/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014 02/11/2014
02/27/2014 02/27/2014 02/27/2014

15 ORDER (SERVICE PACKET) granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; denying 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $10.93. Defendants Ryan, Patton, Schroeder, and Lundberg must answer Count I. ; The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the Complaint (Doc. 1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendants Ryan, Patton, Schroeder, Lundberg. Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order. If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).(See attached PDF for complete information).. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 1/22/2014.(JKM) Modified on 1/23/2014 (JKM). To reflect service packet . (Entered: 01/23/2014)
16 ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of Stephen Louis Rudisill #235368; Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. Plaintiff must first pay an initial partial filing fee of $10.93. Clerk of Court must serve by mail a copy of this Order on the Director of the AZ Department of Corrections, 1601 W Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85007. The Clerk of Court must forward a copy of this Order to Finance.(See attached PDF for complete information).. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 1/22/2014. (JKM) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
17 Remark ; Plaintiff Service Packet Due date Deadline is 2/18/2014. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JKM) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
18 NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading pursuant to LRCiv 15.1(b) by Stephen Louis Rudisill . (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
19 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
20 SUMMONS Submitted by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
21 SUMMONS Submitted by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
22 SUMMONS Submitted by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
23 SUMMONS Submitted by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
24 SUMMONS Submitted by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
25 Summons Issued as to Janice Brewer, Daniel Lundberg, Robert Patton, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons)(KEP). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 02/11/2014)
26 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill: Proof of Service re: First Amended Complaint upon Janice Brewer on 02/12/14. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
27 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill: Proof of Service re: First Amended Complaint upon Therese Schroeder on 02/12/14. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
28 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill: Proof of Service re: First Amended Complaint upon Danial Lundberg on 02/12/14. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/27/2014)

Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 5 of 12

02/27/2014 03/03/2014 03/13/2014 03/13/2014 03/13/2014 03/13/2014 03/14/2014 03/14/2014
03/17/2014 03/26/2014 03/28/2014
03/28/2014 04/03/2014 04/03/2014
04/03/2014 04/03/2014 04/14/2014 04/21/2014

29 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill: Proof of Service re: First Amended Complaint upon Charles Ryan on 0211/14. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: 19 Amended Complaint by Janice Brewer, Daniel Lundberg, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
31 REQUEST re: for Screening by Defendants Janice Brewer, Daniel Lundberg, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
32 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Charles Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
33 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Janice Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
34 NOTICE of Errata re: 31 Request by Defendants Janice Brewer, Daniel Lundberg, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
35 NOTICE of Errata re: 34 Notice of Errata, 31 Request for Screening by Defendants Janice Brewer, Daniel Lundberg, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
36 ORDER GRANTING 30 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Brewer, Ryan, Schroeder, and Lundbergs shall have through and including 3/17/14, to respond to the First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 3/13/14.(BAC) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
37 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Daniel Lundberg, Therese Schroeder. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
38 STIPULATION re: 33 MOTION to Dismiss Case , 32 MOTION to Dismiss Case re Response and Reply Deadlines by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
39 ORDER granting 38 Stipulation : re: 33 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Janice Brewer, 32 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Charles Ryan, 37 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Daniel Lundberg, Therese Schroeder. 1. Plaintiff may file all responsive memoranda to Defendants Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint through and including April 3, 2014. 2. Defendants may file all reply memoranda to Plaintiffs responsive memoranda through and including April 14, 2014.. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 3/27/2014. (JKM) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
40 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul Edward Carter on behalf of Janice Brewer, Daniel Lundberg, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
41 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 32 MOTION to Dismiss Case , 37 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
42 MOTION to Substitute Party: substituting TODD HOOD, Division Director of Operations, Arizona Dept. of Corrections in place of ROBERT PATTON, Div. Director of Offender Operations, Arizona Dept. of Corrections by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
43 NOTICE of Party Dismissal by Stephen Louis Rudisill. Party Robert Patton terminated. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
44 NOTICE of Party Dismissal by Stephen Louis Rudisill. Party Janice Brewer terminated. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
45 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 37 MOTION to Dismiss Case , 32 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Daniel Lundberg, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
46 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 42 MOTION to Substitute Party: substituting TODD HOOD, Division Director of Operations, Arizona Dept. of Corrections in place of ROBERT PATTON, Div. Director of Offender Operations, Arizona Dept. of Corrections filed by Charles Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2014)

Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 6 of 12

04/29/2014
05/08/2014
05/14/2014 05/15/2014 06/09/2014 06/23/2014 07/03/2014 07/08/2014 07/11/2014 07/23/2014
08/06/2014 08/27/2014 09/26/2014 09/29/2014 09/29/2014 09/29/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014

47 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 42 MOTION to Substitute Party: substituting TODD HOOD, Division Director of Operations, Arizona Dept. of Corrections in place of ROBERT PATTON, Div. Director of Offender Operations, Arizona Dept. of Corrections filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
48 ORDER denying as moot 33 Motion to Dismiss; granting 42 Motion to Substitute Party. Robert Patton is dismissed from this action without prejudice. Carson McWilliams is automatically substituted as a party in this action for Robert Patton. Defendant Janice Brewer is dismissed from this action without prejudice.. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 5/8/2014.(JKM) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
49 SUMMONS Submitted by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
50 Summons Issued as to Charles Ryan. (EGP). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 05/15/2014)
51 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Carson McWilliams. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
52 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 51 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Palmer, Cassie) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
53 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 51 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Carson McWilliams. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
54 ORDER granting 53 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re: 51 MOTION to Dismiss Case . Reply due 7/11/2014. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 7/8/14.(SMBE) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
55 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 51 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Carson McWilliams. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
56 ORDER denying Defendant Ryan's 32 Motion to Dismiss; denying Defendants Schroeder and Lundberg's 37 Motion to Dismiss; denying Defendant McWilliam's 51 Motion to Dismiss. Doe Defendants, identified as DOE 1 through DOE 100, are dismissed without prejudice. Defendants Ryan, Schroeder, Lundberg, and McWilliams must answer the First Amended Complaint. Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed or it may be striken. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 7/22/14.(SMBE) (Entered: 07/23/2014)
57 ANSWER to 19 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder.(Carter, Paul) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
58 ORDER ; Joint Report due by 9/29/2014. Case Management Conference set for 10/6/2014 at 10:30 AM before Judge Cindy K Jorgenson. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 8/27/14. (SMBE) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
59 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal of Cassie D. Palmer filed by Cassie D Palmer. (Palmer, Cassie) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
60 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
61 NOTICE re: Service of Initial Disclosures by Stephen Louis Rudisill . (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
62 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
63 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Randall L Jackson on behalf of Stephen Louis Rudisill. (BAS) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX150961 as to Randall L Jackson. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/03/2014)

Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 7 of 12

10/03/2014
10/03/2014 10/06/2014

64 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 63 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
65 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
66 MINUTE ENTRY for Scheduling Conference proceedings held before Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson on 10/6/2014. A formal order will follow.

10/16/2014 10/16/2014
10/16/2014 10/21/2014
10/24/2014 11/14/2014 11/19/2014 11/24/2014
11/26/2014 12/09/2014 12/15/2014

Present: Bert Deixler, counsel for the Plaintiff appears telephonically. Paul Carter, counsel for the defendants is present. (Court Reporter Mary Riley.) Hearing held 10:35 a.m. to 10:50 a.m. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JTA) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
67 MOTION (Stipulated) for Entry of a Confidentiality Order by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
68 *Proposed Confidentiality Order re: 67 MOTION (Stipulated) for Entry of a Confidentiality Order . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) *Modified to remove proposed, lodged status on 10/24/2014 (BAC). (Entered: 10/16/2014)
69 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
70 ORDER: Discovery due 4/6/2015; Dispositive motions due by 5/4/2015; Proposed Pretrial Order due 6/15/2015; Status Report due by 11/14/2014. (See attached PDF for complete information). Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 10/21/14.(BAC) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
71 ORDER GRANTING 67 Stipulated Motion for the Entry of a Confidentiality Order. (See attached PDF for complete information). Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 10/23/14.(BAC) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
72 STATUS REPORT Joint Settlement Status Report by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
73 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
74 ORDER: This Court appoints Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle for purposes of settlement negotiations. Magistrate Judge Pyles chambers will contact counsel to arrange for the settlement conference. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 11/21/14.(BAC) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
75 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
76 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. Proof of Service re: First set of Interrogatories upon Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder, Daniel Lundberg on 11/26/14. (BAC) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
77 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED SETTING the Settlement Conference for 1/30/15 AT 9:30 A.M. at ASPC−Tucson−Santa Rita Unit. Defense counsel shall make appropriate arrangements for the settlement conference to occur at the prison. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference re: upcoming Settlement Conference on 1/9, 2015 AT 10:00 A.M. Chambers will initiate the call. If counsel wish to be contacted at a number other than that listed on the docket, counsel should notify the undersigneds law clerk, Suzanne Kaplan McKee. Chambers will issue a letter forthwith regarding deadlines and procedure for the settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle on 12/12/14.(BAC) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 8 of 12

12/19/2014 01/05/2015 01/07/2015 01/09/2015

78 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles Ryan. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
79 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Stephen Louis Rudisill for proceedings held on 10/06/14, Judge Cindy K Jorgenson hearing judge(s). (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
80 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder for proceedings held on 10/6/14, Judge Cindy K Jorgenson, Judge Scheduling Conference hearing judge(s). (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
81 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/9/2015 regarding upcoming settlement conference. Matter will proceed to settlement conference on 1/30/15 as scheduled. This minute entry serves to notify the District Court of the status of the parties settlement discussions as directed by the District Court's Scheduling Order (Doc. 70).

01/12/2015 01/12/2015
01/16/2015 01/30/2015

APPEARANCES: Telephonic appearance by Bert Deixler & Randall Jackson for Plaintiff Stephen Louis Rudisill. Telephonic appearance by Paul Carter & Michael Gottfried for Defendants Charles Ryan, Carson McWilliams, Therese Schroeder & Daniel Lundberg. This hearing was not recorded nor was a court reporter present for the duration of the proceedings. Hearing held 9:58 am to 10:17 am. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CKS) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
82 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
83 TRANSCRIPT of OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE held on 10/06/2014, before Judge CINDY K. JORGENSON. Court Reporter Mary A. Riley. The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/2/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/12/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/13/2015. (CSL) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
84 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
85 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle: Settlement Conference held on 1/30/2015.

02/04/2015 02/04/2015 02/06/2015
02/12/2015

APPEARANCES: Bert Deixler & Randall Jackson for Plaintiff: Stephen Louis Rudisill. Michael Gottfried & Paul Carter for Defendants. This hearing was not recorded nor was a court reporter present for the duration of the proceedings. Hearing held 9:00 am to 2:00 pm. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CKS) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
86 STIPULATION re Extension of Pretrial Deadlines [First Request] by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
87 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 86 Stipulation [Proposed] Order by Plaintiff Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
88 ORDER pursuant to 86 Stipulation: IT IS ORDERED: Each of the deadlines set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order is hereby extended, respectively, as follows: Deadline for Plaintiff to disclose expert witnesses is extended to 5/11/15; deadline for disclosure of rebuttal experts is extended to 5/25/15; deadline for disclosure of fact witnesses is extended to 5/25/15; discovery deadline is extended to 7/6/15; deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to 8/3/15; deadline to submit the Joint Pretrial Order is extended to 9/13/15. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 2/5/15.(BAC) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
89 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 4/6/2015 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle. IT IS ORDERED this matter is to occur at the Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle on 2/11/15. (CKS) (Entered: 02/12/2015)

Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 9 of 12

04/06/2015 90 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle: Settlement Conference held on 4/6/2015. Expert, Fred Cohen appears.

05/07/2015 05/11/2015
05/29/2015 06/30/2015

APPEARANCES: Bert Deixler and Randall Jackson for Plaintiff: Stephen Louis Rudisill. Michael Gottfried and Paul Carter for Defendants. There is no recording of this hearing nor was there a court reporter present for the duration of these proceedings. Hearing held 9:30 am to 12:30 pm. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CKS) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
91 STIPULATION re Extension of Pretrial Deadline (Second Request) by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
92 ORDER pursuant to 91 Stipulation: Deadlines set forth in the Court's 2/5/15 Order is hereby extended. The deadline for Plaintiff to disclose expert witnesses due 7/10/15; deadline for disclosure of rebuttal experts due 7/24/15; deadline for disclosure of facts witnesses is due 7/24/15; discovery deadline due 9/4/15; deadline to submit dispositive motions due 10/2/15; deadline to submit the Joint Pretrial Order due 11/12/15. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 5/8/15.(BAC) (Entered: 05/11/2015)
93 ORDER Setting Settlement Conference for 6/30/2015 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle.Hearing to be held at the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona, in a courtroom to be determined. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle on 5/28/2015. (SSG) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
94 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle: Settlement Conference held on 6/30/2015.

07/08/2015 07/10/2015
07/15/2015 07/21/2015 08/24/2015

APPEARANCES: Bert Deixler & Randall Jackson for Plaintiff: Stephen Louis Rudisill. Michael Gottfried & Paul Carter for Defendants. This hearing was not recorded nor was a Court Reporter present for the duration of the proceedings. Hearing held 9:30 am to 5:00 pm. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CKS) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
95 STIPULATION re Extension of Pretrial Deadlines (Third Request) by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
96 ORDER pursuant to 95 Stipulation : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Each of the deadlines set forth in the Court's May 11, 2015 Order is hereby extended, respectively, as follows:The deadline for Plaintiff to disclose expert witnesses is extended to October 8, 2015; The deadline for disclosure of rebuttal experts is extended to October 22, 2015; The deadline for disclosure of facts witnesses is extended to October 22, 2015; The discovery deadline is extended to December 3, 2015; The deadline to submit dispositive motions is extended to December 31, 2015;and The deadline to submit the Joint Pretrial Order and file motions in limine is extended to February 10, 2016. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 7/9/2015. (DLC) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
97 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by Bert H Deixler. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
98 ORDER setting a Settlement Conference for 8/24/2015 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle to occur at the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Stree, Phoenix, Arizona. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle on 7/21/15. (CKS) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
99 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle: Settlement Conference held on 8/24/2015. Defendant, Carson McWilliams, appears for the settlement conference.

APPEARANCES: Bert Deixler and Randall Jackson for Plaintiff: Stephen Louis Rudisill. Paul Carter for Defendants. This hearing was not recorded nor was a Court Reporter present for the duration of the proceedings. Hearing held 9:15 am to 2:00 pm. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CKS) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 10 of 12

09/29/2015 09/29/2015 09/29/2015
10/07/2015 10/09/2015 10/22/2015 10/22/2015 10/26/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 11/02/2015
11/04/2015
11/05/2015
12/04/2015 12/22/2015 12/22/2015

100 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Susannah M Rooney on behalf of Stephen Louis Rudisill. (BAS) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX163371 as to Susannah M Rooney. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
101 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 100 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
102 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
103 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
104 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
105 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
106 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
107 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
108 Fourth MOTION to Continue Pretrial Deadlines by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Exhibit A), # 2 Text of Proposed Order (Order (granting Defs' Mtn to Continue))(Carter, Paul) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
109 IT IS ORDERED setting telephonic conference regarding discovery dispute and 108 Fourth MOTION to Continue Pretrial Deadlines filed by Daniel Lundberg, Therese Schroeder, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan set for 11/4/2015 at 10:30 AM before Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson. Ordered by Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson. (CKJ, sk)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
110 MINUTE ENTRY for Discovery dispute and Motion Hearing proceedings held before Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 11/4/2015. The Court grants Re: 108 Fourth MOTION to Continue Pretrial Deadlines filed by Daniel Lundberg, Therese Schroeder, Carson McWilliams, and Charles Ryan. (Court Reporter Cheryl Cummings.) Hearing held 11:09 a.m. to 11:25 a.m. (JTA) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
111 ORDER re: 108 Fourth MOTION to Continue Pretrial Deadlines filed by Daniel Lundberg, Therese Schroeder, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan. The discovery and pretrial deadlines are continued as follows: 2/4/2016 Completion of all discovery, 3/4/2016 Dispositive motions, 4/11/2016 Joint Proposed Pretrial Order, and April 11, 2016 Motions in Limine, or 30 days after ruling on any dispositive motions, whichever is later. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories, request for production, and request for admissions is January 4, 2016. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 11/5/2015. (DLC) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
112 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
113 NOTICE of Settlement by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
114 STIPULATION for Order by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation for Payment of Monetary Damages, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Deixler, Bert)

Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 11 of 12

01/14/2016 01/22/2016 01/28/2016
02/01/2016 02/05/2016 02/08/2016
02/11/2016 02/16/2016 03/02/2016
03/03/2016 03/18/2016 12/12/2016 12/21/2016

(Entered: 12/22/2015)
115 ORDER The Court schedules a status conference in this matter for 2/1/2016 at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of the status conference is to discuss the proposed Stipulation for Order (Doc. 114 ) and particularly whether the Stipulation satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 1/14/2016. (DLC) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
116 STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF PRETRIAL DEADLINES (FIFTH REQUEST) by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
117 ORDER Defendants' deadline for responding to written discovery previously served by Plaintiff, and as to which Defendants have yet to provide a response, is extended to 3/4/2016; The deadline for completing discovery is extended to 4/4/2016; The deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended to 5/3/2016; and The deadline to submit the Joint Pretrial Order and file motions in limine is extended to 6/10/2016. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 1/28/2016. (DLC) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
118 MINUTE ENTRY for Status Conference proceedings held before Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson on 2/1/2016. The Court takes under advisement. Formal order to follow. (ECRO) Hearing held 9:35 a.m. to 10:07 a.m. (JTA) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
119 STIPULATION for Order (Amended) by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
120 ORDER pursuant to 119 Stipulation : At the Court's request, Plaintiff's attorneys provided information regarding the award of attorneys' fees. The Court also finds the award of attorneys' fees and costs Plaintiffs counsel in the amount of $195,000 as set forth in the Stipulation (Doc. 119) to be reasonable and appropriate. The Court shall retain the power to enforce the Stipulations through all remedies provided by law, except that the Court shall not have the authority to order Defendants to construct a new prison or to hire a specific number or type of staff unless Defendants propose to do so as part of a plan to remedy a failure to comply with any provision of the Stipulations. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 2/5/2016. (DLC) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
121 MOTION to Advise as to the Amount of Money that has been paid and as to the Court's Decision on February 1, 2016 and by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (2 pages) (DLC) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
122 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Stephen Louis Rudisill for proceedings held on 02/01/16, Judge Cindy K Jorgenson hearing judge(s). (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
123 TRANSCRIPT of STATUS CONFERENCE held on 2/01/2016, before Judge CINDY K. JORGENSON. Transcriber Cindy J. Shearman. The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/23/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/4/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/31/2016. (CSL) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
124 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder for proceedings held on 2/1/16, Judge Cindy K Jorgenson, Judge Status Conference hearing judge(s). (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
125 ORDER granting 121 Motion to Advise as to the Amount of Money that has been paid and as to the Court's Decision on February 1, 2016 to the extent that this Order provides the requested information. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 3/17/2016. (DPS) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
126 MOTION to Intervene by Timothy Paul Olmos. (62 pages) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SIB) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
127 ORDER directs the parties to respond to the Motion to Intervene by January 17, 2017; Olmos may file a reply no later than February 1, 2017. Signed by Judge Cindy K

Case: 4:13-cv-1149 As of: 11/02/2017 09:00 PM MST 12 of 12

01/17/2017 01/17/2017 02/06/2017 02/14/2017 02/22/2017
03/06/2017 03/07/2017
03/08/2017
03/28/2017 06/09/2017 10/16/2017 10/18/2017

Jorgenson on 12/20/2016. (SIB) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
128 RESPONSE to Motion re: 126 MOTION to Intervene by Timothy Paul Olmos filed by Stephen Louis Rudisill. (Deixler, Bert) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
129 RESPONSE to Motion re: 126 MOTION to Intervene filed by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
130 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 126 MOTION to Intervene filed by Timothy Paul Olmos. (13 pages) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(DPS) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
131 STRICKEN by 133 − MOTION for Sanctions Against Defense Counsel by Timothy Paul Olmos. (14 pages) (SIB) Modified on 3/7/2017 (SIB). (Entered: 02/14/2017)
132 MOTION to Strike 131 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defense Counsel by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order (Order (granting Defs' Mtn to Strike)))(Carter, Paul) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
134 *MOTION to Strike Defense Counsel's Motion to Strike Non−Party Olmos's Ex Parte Motion for Sanctions by Timothy Paul Olmos. (8 pages) (SIB) *Modified to correct filer name on 3/8/2017 (SIB). (Entered: 03/07/2017)
133 ORDER denying 126 Timothy Olmos' Motion to Intervene. Defendant's Motion to Strike Non−Party Olmos's Ex Parte Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 132 ) is GRANTED and Olmos' Motion for Sanctions Against Defense Counsel Paul Carter (Doc. 131 ) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall strike the Ex Parte Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 131 ) from the Court docket. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 3/6/2017.(SIB) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
135 ORDER denying 134 Motion to Strike Defense Counsel's "Motion to Strike Non−Party Olmos's Ex Parte Motion for Sanctions." The Clerk of Court shall correct the docket to reflect the filing of Document 134 was received from prospective intervenor Timothy Paul Olmos. The Clerk of Court shall accept no further filings from Olmos in this case and shall mail a copy of this Order. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 3/8/2017. (SIB) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
136 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by Paul Edward Carter. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
137 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal of Randall L. Jackson filed by Randall Louis Jackson. (Jackson, Randall) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
138 Joint MOTION re: 119 Stipulation (Motion to Modify) by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order (Order (granting Joint Mtn to Modify)))(Carter, Paul) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
139 ORDER pursuant to 138 parties' Joint Motion to Modify Amended Stipulation for Order: Paragraph 43 of the Amended Stipulation for Order (Doc. 119 ) is amended as stated in the attached Order. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 10/17/2017. (See Order for details) (DPS) (Entered: 10/18/2017)