IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL LEE and

)

KENDRICK PEARSON, on behalf of

)

themselves and all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v.

)

)

S. A. GODINEZ, Director of the Illinois

)

Department of Corrections, and RANDY

)

DAVIS, Warden of Vienna Correctional

)

Center, in their official capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. _______________ Judge _____________________

COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, Michael Boyd, Paul Lee and Kendrick Pearson, by and through their attorneys,

Latham & Watkins LLP and Uptown People’s Law Center, allege for their Complaint against

Defendants S. A. Godinez, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, and Randy Davis,

Warden of Vienna Correctional Center (collectively, “Defendants”), in their official capacities as

follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Vienna Correctional Center (“Vienna”) is a minimum-security facility located in

southern Illinois that houses male offenders convicted of low-level and largely non-violent

crimes. When it opened in 1965, Vienna was intended to hold approximately 925 prisoners and

to focus on education and community development as part of its rehabilitative mission.

2. Nearly 50 years later, Vienna is unconscionably overcrowded (housing nearly

1,900 prisoners), is dilapidated from years of neglect and has long since abandoned any

meaningful educational or community development programs. Today, the prisoners at Vienna

are forced to live in squalid conditions, where they are exposed to overflowing sewage, pervasive

mold and mildew and infestations of insects and rodents. They lack access to basic necessities, like properly functioning heat and ventilation, properly functioning toilets, sinks and showers and fresh, uncontaminated food. In short, the conditions at Vienna are inhumane and deprive the prisoners housed there of their basic human needs.
3. Despite having actual knowledge of these conditions and the serious risks they pose, Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the inhumane conditions to which the prisoners at Vienna are exposed and have failed to make reasonable efforts to remedy those conditions, leaving the prisoners to suffer an inhumane, degrading, uncivilized and unhealthy existence.
4. As a result, this suit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202 for violations of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, on behalf of all prisoners at Vienna.
THE PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 5. Plaintiff Michael Boyd (“Mr. Boyd”) is 26 years old. Mr. Boyd has been incarcerated in Vienna since approximately January 2011 and is currently housed in Building 19. Mr. Boyd has also been housed in two of Vienna’s other housing units and has spent time in Vienna’s segregation unit. He is serving time for a non-violent crime. While detained at Vienna, Mr. Boyd has been exposed to the conditions described in this Complaint. 6. Plaintiff Paul Lee (“Mr. Lee”) is 57 years old. Mr. Lee has been incarcerated in Vienna since approximately August 2010. Upon arriving at Vienna, Mr. Lee was initially housed in Building 19 and has since lived in three of Vienna’s additional housing units. He is
2

serving time for a non-violent crime. While detained at Vienna, Mr. Lee has been exposed to the conditions described in this Complaint.
7. Plaintiff Kendrick Pearson (“Mr. Pearson”) is 43 years old. Upon arriving at Vienna, Mr. Pearson was initially housed in Building 19 and subsequently was transferred to one of Vienna’s additional housing units. He is serving time for a non-violent crime. While detained at Vienna, Mr. Pearson has been exposed to the conditions described in this Complaint.
B. Defendants 8. Defendant S. A. Godinez (“Director Godinez”) has been the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections since May 5, 2011. In all of his actions, Director Godinez was acting under color of state law and in the course of his employment. The claims being made against Director Godinez are brought against him in his official capacity. 9. Defendant Randy Davis (“Warden Davis”) is the Warden of Vienna Correctional Center. In all of his actions, Warden Davis was acting under color of state law and in the course of his employment. The claims being made against Warden Davis are brought against him in his official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to secure equitable relief from Defendants’ actions, which themselves were initiated under color of state law and which violate the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 11. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
3

12. This Court is authorized to render declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202.
13. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because all of the relevant events occurred at Vienna, located in Johnson County, which is within the Southern District of Illinois.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS A. Severe Overcrowding At Vienna
14. Located in Johnson County and adjacent to the Shawnee National Forest, Vienna is a minimum-security, adult, male-only correctional facility that primarily houses low-level, non-violent offenders incarcerated for relatively short lengths of time. See Sept. 27, 2011 Monitoring Visit to Vienna Correctional Center by the John Howard Association of Illinois (“John Howard Report”), Ex. A, at 2.
15. In its early years, Vienna was hailed as one of the most successful prisons in Illinois. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 2. At that time, the facility was intended to function as a small town in which the prisoners could be rehabilitated and learn to re-enter society as responsible citizens. See id. In order to further its rehabilitative mission, Vienna focused on education and vocational training and its programs were so well-regarded that members of the surrounding community often took classes at the prison alongside the men who were incarcerated there. See id. In addition, since the majority of the prisoners at Vienna were nonviolent offenders, they also were permitted to volunteer in the community. See id. In fact, Vienna operated an emergency technician program, which allowed qualified prisoners to staff a 24-hour ambulance service for the surrounding community. See id.
16. Despite its auspicious beginnings, the conditions at Vienna have degraded significantly over time. A surge in the prison population throughout Illinois has caused severe
4

and pervasive overcrowding at Vienna. According to the Illinois Department of Corrections, Vienna was originally designed to house 925 prisoners, but as of January 1, 2012, 1,899 prisoners were packed into the facility. See Limited Scope Compliance Examination For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2008, Vienna Correctional Center, State of Illinois Department of Corrections (“2008 Compliance Examination”), Ex. B, at 61; Jan. 1, 2012 Illinois Department of Corrections Quarterly Report (“Quarterly Report”), Ex. C, at Table 4. At 205% capacity, Vienna is one of the most over-crowded prisons in Illinois. See id.
17. The roughly 1,900 prisoners detained at Vienna are housed in six single-story housing units and one three-story housing unit. The three-story unit is referred to as “Building 19.” In order to accommodate the nearly 1,000 additional prisoners in excess of its designed capacity, Vienna has converted storage units and other spaces that were never meant to house prisoners into living quarters.
18. For example, Building 19 was, upon information and belief, an administrative building that was converted into housing. The first floor of Building 19 contains the segregation unit, and the second and third floors of Building 19 house prisoners in open-style dormitories containing double bunk beds. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 9. These bunk beds are placed so close to one another that the men can reach across the narrow aisles and touch the person sleeping in the bed next to them. Approximately 200 prisoners live on the second floor in one open dormitory, and approximately 400 prisoners live on the third floor in four separate quadrants. See id. As discussed in more detail below, since these converted areas were not designed to function as housing, they lack basic facilities, such as sufficient toilets and showers. See disc. infra ¶¶ 46-58.
5

19. Moreover, although Illinois’ Unified Code of Corrections requires that “[a]ll new, remodeled and newly designed institutions or facilities shall provide at least 50 square feet of cell, room or dormitory floor space” per prisoner (see 730 ILCS 5/3-7-3 (emphasis supplied)), the Illinois Department of Corrections admits that the prisoners at Vienna are on average confined to 33 square feet, two-thirds the minimum space the Illinois General Assembly has determined necessary for safe and sanitary living conditions. See Quarterly Report, Ex. C, at Table 6. In reality, many prisoners are restricted to even less space.
20. The overcrowding at Vienna “stretches vital . . . resources, from programming to healthcare.” John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 7. Indeed, Vienna’s once robust educational programming is now practically nonexistent. For a population of almost 1,900, Vienna has only four Adult Basic Education classes and two GED classes, which have extremely long waiting lists. See id. at 15. Vienna also has only limited vocational training opportunities and limited possibilities for prisoners to obtain jobs. See id.
21. Vienna’s general population receives at most three hours of recreation/exercise time per week. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 9. Many men report receiving only two hours per week or less. The living areas, especially in Building 19, have very limited common area space where the prisoners can play cards or watch television. As a result, many of the prisoners at Vienna have nothing to do all day but sit idle in their bunks.
22. The severe overcrowding and the fact that the prisoners do not have any productive way to spend their time and energy fosters an environment of tension, unrest and violence. Fights routinely break out over theft as well as petty issues, such as seats near the television, time on the phone or the placement of fans.
6

23. Inadequate staffing exacerbates this situation. Simply put, Vienna has insufficient staffing to monitor and control the growing population of prisoners.
24. For example, only two correctional officers monitor the 200 prisoners on Building 19’s second floor, and only two to three officers oversee the 400 prisoners on Building 19’s third floor. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 11. Because there are so many prisoners and so few officers, the officers are frequently unaware of the fights that occur in the dormitories and when the officers are aware, they often let the prisoners fight it out, intervening only after the fight is finished in order to issue disciplinary citations.
25. The severe overcrowding has also limited Vienna’s ability to provide the prisoners with adequate clothing, linens or blankets. The clothing and bedding materials provided to prisoners are often stained, soiled and tattered. The prisoners are not provided stateissued boots or stocking hats to protect them from the winter weather, and the shoes that are provided to prisoners often fall apart in a matter of weeks.
B. The Inhumane Living Conditions At Vienna 26. Compounding the problems caused by severe overcrowding is a lack of maintenance and upkeep. Critical maintenance projects have been ignored for nearly a decade, causing widespread disrepair. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 5. As a result, conditions at Vienna are deplorable and can only be considered inhumane.
1. Vienna Is Infested With Insects And Vermin 27. Cockroaches, spiders, ants, millipedes, mice, rats and other insects and vermin infest all the housing units as well as the kitchen and dining hall at Vienna. These insects and vermin expose the prisoners at Vienna to a multitude of diseases, including some diseases that can be fatal. In fact, many prisoners have reported experiencing spider bites that later became infected.
7

28. Cockroaches, in particular, are a common problem at Vienna. They infest the walls and take residence in the prisoners’ clothing, shoes, bunks, property boxes, sinks and bathrooms. Prisoners find cockroaches in their coffee cups, drinking glasses and toothbrushes and feel cockroaches crawl across them while they lie in their bunks. The men often have to physically sweep cockroaches off of their mattresses and remove cockroach feces from their pillows and clothing.
29. Mice and rats are also a constant problem at Vienna. They crawl into the prisoners’ property boxes and eat the food that the men have purchased from the commissary. Both officers and prisoners have reported finding mice nesting in closets and mouse feces on the floors of the housing units. Mice also “frequently [run] across the floors” in the dining hall during meals. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 10.
30. The infestations in the kitchen and dining hall are particularly disturbing. Mice, cockroaches and other insects run rampant across the floors of the dietary unit, where Vienna prepares meals for its prisoners. Cockroaches dart across “clean” pans, utensils, countertops and serving stations and climb into the food trays as they are being passed down the serving line. Much of the food, including bread, rice, grains, cereals and oatmeal, contains rodent feces and mold. Mice nest in the cabbage, rice, potatoes, bread and other food.
31. Nonetheless, prison staff instruct the prisoners working in the kitchen to cook with and serve this food, which is often otherwise outdated, expired or spoiled. Unsurprisingly, therefore, prisoners find dead bugs, rodent droppings, insect antennae, hair, rocks, rubber bands, cardboard and other objects in their food. Some men have stated that the problem has become so bad that they simply do not eat in the dining hall at all. Instead, if they can afford it, they live only off of whatever they can buy in the commissary.
8

32. The dining hall, like the food that is served there, is filthy. Rodents, cockroaches, flies, spiders and other bugs run across the floor during meals. Cockroaches crawl across the serving boards and sneeze guards where food is prepared and served. Spider webs cover the walls, and birds nest in available crevices.
2. Vienna Lacks Adequate Ventilation, Exposing The Prisoners To Extreme Temperatures And Other Weather
33. Ventilation in the housing units throughout Vienna is severely inadequate and causes extreme fluctuations in temperature.
34. The windows in the majority of the housing units are broken and lack screens, which causes the dormitories to become frigid in the winter.
35. In addition, in at least some of the housing units, “air constantly blew through the air vents, making the cells very cold” in the winter. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 9. The prisoners in these units “stuff[] toilet paper into the vents to block the airflow” in order to try to warm up but are threatened with “being issued a disciplinary ticket” if they are caught. See id. It is often so cold that the men must sleep in all of their clothing, yet they still feel as if they are sleeping outside.
36. Some air vents in Building 19 are caked with dust, which is then constantly circulated throughout the building. The lack of proper ventilation keeps dust, mold and mildew in the air, causing prisoners breathing problems. Some prisoners have complained of waking up with nose bleeds as a result of the poor ventilation.
37. In Building 19, Vienna’s “solution” to the problem of broken windows has been to board over the windows entirely, totally blocking out sunlight and fresh air. When the windows in Building 19 are boarded up, it is so dark that the prisoners feel as if they are living in an abandoned building.
9

38. Moreover, the housing units can become unbearably hot in the summer, particularly in Building 19, which houses hundreds of prisoners in spaces that were never intended to be living quarters.
39. Broken windows not only let in cold air and extreme heat but also water and other elements. During storms, rain leaks into the dormitories through broken windows and visible cracks in the ceiling, damaging light fixtures, staining the ceiling, dripping directly onto prisoners’ beds and property, fostering the growth of mold and creating a smell of mildew that pervades the living spaces. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 10; disc. infra at ¶¶ 40-45. Staff members place buckets and trash cans throughout the facility as makeshift measures to attempt to collect the rain water. Because no other measures are taken, however, the floors nevertheless become dirty, wet and dangerous.
3. Vienna Is Also Infested With Mold 40. The improper ventilation at Vienna contributes to its severe mold problem. 41. Mold is everywhere in Vienna: in the housing units, the bathrooms and even the dining hall. It grows along the walls and ceilings, in the light fixtures, around the sinks and drinking fountains, in the showers and behind the toilets. 42. The mold on the ceiling and in the showers sometimes grows so thick that it breaks off and falls on the prisoners while they are sleeping in their bunks or showering. 43. The Centers for Disease Control has noted that exposure to mold indoors can lead to “upper respiratory tract symptoms, cough, and wheeze in otherwise healthy people; with asthma symptoms in people with asthma; and with hypersensitivity pneumonitis in individuals susceptible to that immune-mediated condition.” See http://www.cdc.gov/mold/stachy.htm#Q6 (last visited June 11, 2012).
10

44. Despite the fact that mold presents a health hazard, Vienna has made no meaningful attempt to stem the growth of mold. Maintenance workers periodically paint over the mold, which does nothing to actually stop its growth. Inevitably, because the underlying mold is not addressed, this paint eventually chips and flakes, only further contributing to the appalling living conditions.
45. Moreover, prison officials often reject or fail to respond to grievances about mold and mildew, claiming that the prisoners have access to cleaning supplies and should clean the mold themselves. Vienna’s general population, however, does not have access to even the watered-down cleaning supplies normally used, let alone access to the more powerful bleaches and disinfectants that would be needed to begin to actually clean the mold.
4. Building 19 46. While the living conditions at Vienna are generally deplorable, Building 19 is widely recognized as the worst of the worst. As noted by John Howard during their visit, Building 19 is “unfit for the 600 [] men who lived there.” See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 10 (emphasis supplied). Indeed, prison officials use Building 19 as a punishment, threatening prisoners with transfer to Building 19 as a way to get them to behave, knowing that Building 19 represents the very worst of the poor living conditions at Vienna. 47. Upon arrival at Vienna, all prisoners are initially housed in Building 19 before they are transferred to one of the other housing units. In addition, prisoners may be transferred back to Building 19 at any time and for a variety of reasons. 48. Upon information and belief, Building 19 was never intended to be used as housing and is unsuitable for habitation. There is exposed insulation, pipes with chipping and flaking paint and exposed electrical wiring throughout. As discussed above, the prisoners in Building 19 are exposed to pervasive mold and mildew (see disc. supra at ¶¶40-45), infestations
11

of mice, cockroaches and other insects (see id. at ¶¶27-32) and extreme temperature fluctuations due to broken windows and inadequate clothing and bedding (see id. at ¶¶33-39).
49. Moreover, Building 19 lacks basic necessities. The prisoners are crammed together in bunks placed less than 18 inches apart from each other. See disc. supra ¶¶18-19. These bunks are rusting and are not properly bolted to the floor. Often, the top bunk lacks support so that the mattress sags, endangering the prisoner on the top bed and encroaching upon the prisoners sleeping below.
50. In addition, Building 19’s third floor, which houses approximately 400 prisoners, has only one functioning phone. So many prisoners competing for one phone has led to “repeated fights.” See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 11.
51. But it is Building 19’s bathroom facilities that epitomize the deprivation of basic human needs occurring at Vienna.
52. The second floor bathroom, which serves 200 prisoners, contains only three toilets and three sinks. The third floor bathroom, which serves 400 prisoners, has only four toilets, four sinks and two urinals.
53. To make matters worse, some of these toilets and sinks often do not function or drain properly due to leaking or clogged pipes. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 10-11. Rustcolored water comes out of these few sinks, which the prisoners use to brush their teeth, wash their faces and “clean” their dishes. Broken toilets are left filled with feces, sometimes for weeks. These toilets often overflow, flooding the bathroom with raw human waste and leaving stagnant water pooling on the floor. A “strong smell of fecal matter and sewage” constantly saturates the air. See id. at 10.
12

54. Dirty water falls from exposed, rusting pipes in the ceiling, creating a dangerously slippery floor and spawning additional mold and mildew. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 10-11. This water falls on the prisoners while they are exposed and attempting to use whatever working toilets are available. To keep dry while using the facilities, the prisoners bring towels to cover their heads when using the toilets.
55. The second floor bathroom has no working showers. The only working showers in Building 19 are on the third floor, which has seven showers that must accommodate all 600 prisoners. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 11. The men housed on the second floor of Building 19 are shuttled to the third floor showers on a rotating basis, as the third floor bathroom obviously cannot accommodate all 600 prisoners each day. See id.
56. When the prisoners are able to access the showers, the water is sometimes so ice cold, boiling hot or lacking in water pressure that the showers cannot actually be used. In addition, raw sewage and dirty water back up through the shower drain, causing flooding in the showers. The prisoners in Building 19 tie bags over their feet and ankles to try to avoid developing infections or fungus while showering.
57. Moreover, the shower area lacks adequate ventilation, creating a “stuffy, humid, and fetid” environment totally unsuitable for human use. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 11.
58. Notably, although the bathrooms in Building 19 are considered the worst, the bathrooms in the other housing units are also disgusting and in serious disrepair. The walls are covered with mold, rust, dirt and grime. In one of the units, for example, a “rusty-colored liquid dripped from the ceilings, which prisoners had to artfully dodge as they brushed their teeth or used the restroom.” See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 9.
13

5. Vienna’s Administration Ignores These Deplorable Living Conditions 59. The Illinois Department of Corrections and Vienna’s prison administration, correctional officers and other staff are aware of the living conditions described above. In fact, on January 5, 2012, the Warden for Vienna issued a memorandum acknowledging the high number of grievances relating to Building 19. In his memorandum, the Warden admitted that these inhumane living conditions “are not new and have been present since reopening this area for housing” but argued that, while Building 19 may need some “improvements,” it is “livable.” See Ex. D hereto. Since issuing that memorandum, the Warden has not been amenable to hearing the inmates’ concerns about the living conditions and instead has simply referred them to the memorandum. 60. Additionally, Vienna’s administration has affirmatively taken steps to cover up these inhuman conditions. Before John Howard arrived to inspect Vienna in September of 2011, prison officials instructed prisoners to paint over rust and mold without actually cleaning or improving prison conditions. 61. Despite the fact that Defendants knew or should have known of the deplorable conditions at Vienna, Defendants have chosen to disregard these conditions and the risks they pose to the prisoners.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 62. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all prisoners residing at Vienna, seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. 63. Class action status is proper for this litigation, because the class of persons described in Paragraph 62 above is so numerous that the individual joinder of all absent class members is impracticable. While Vienna’s population fluctuates, Plaintiffs believe that the
14

proposed class consists of approximately 1,900 persons. See Quarterly Report, Ex. C, at Tables 1-2, 4-5. The exact number of absent class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time but will be ascertainable upon appropriate discovery from Defendants.
64. The claims set forth in this Complaint are common to each member of the class. Common questions of law or fact exist as to each of the proposed class members, including but not limited to:
a. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by forcing them to live in a vastly overcrowded and dilapidated facility;
b. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by exposing them to rats, mice, cockroaches, birds, spiders, other insects and vermin and rodent feces, which infest the housing units, kitchen and dining hall;
c. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by exposing them to inadequate ventilation and extremes in temperatures;
d. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by depriving them of basic sanitation, including adequate bathroom facilities, showers and toilets;
e. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by exposing them to mold, which covers the walls, ceilings and/or floors of the housing units; and
15

f. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by exposing them to an unnecessary threat of violence, due to the overcrowding, unsanitary living conditions and insufficient staff. 65. Plaintiffs are proper representatives of the proposed class, because they are members of the class described in Paragraph 62 above. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Each Plaintiff has suffered the living conditions at Vienna in violation of the federal Constitution, federal law and all other applicable laws. 66. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the members of the proposed class and have no interests in conflict with those of the proposed class. Plaintiffs have retained competent attorneys who are experienced in class action and complex litigation. 67. The proposed class may properly be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), because Defendants have acted in a manner generally applicable to the class as a whole, making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Unconstitutional Conditions Of Confinement Under The Eighth Amendment In Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 68. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the foregoing Paragraphs 1 to 67 of their Complaint as if stated fully herein. 69. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment. 70. The protections of the Eighth Amendment apply equally to the states and all divisions and entities thereof, including departments of corrections, prison facilities and officers acting in their official capacities.
16

71. Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class have a right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
72. By the facts and actions described above regarding the conditions of confinement at Vienna, Defendants are subjecting Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class to a serious deprivation of basic human needs, including through exposure to, infliction of and failure to address the following conditions:
a. vastly overcrowded living conditions; b. rats, mice, cockroaches, spiders, rodent feces and other insects and vermin; c. inadequate ventilation; d. excessive heat; e. excessive cold; f. inadequate sanitation, including malfunctioning toilets, sinks and showers; g. defective plumbing; h. raw sewage, rust, mold, mildew, rain water and flooding and pooling water; i. inadequate, soiled and tattered clothing and bedding materials; j. insufficient recreational, educational and vocational training opportunities; k. unclean drinking water; l. unsanitary dining facilities filled with rats, cockroaches spiders and other vermin; and
17

m. the threat of violence among prisoners due to the deplorable living conditions and insufficient correctional staff. 73. These deprivations and the risks they pose violate contemporary standards of decency and deny prisoners minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities. 74. These deprivations of basic human needs are serious and excessive, given that they pose serious harm or serious risk of harm to the prisoners’ health and safety. 75. Despite having actual knowledge of the serious risks posed to the prisoners’ health and safety, Defendants have disregarded those risks, taking little if any action to try to address the deprivations of the prisoners’ basic human needs brought about by the conditions of confinement. 76. As such, Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference toward serious deprivations of the prisoners’ basic human needs. 77. At all relevant times, Defendants acted in their official capacity under color of state law. 78. Defendants’ actions have deprived the prisoners of their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and demonstrate a reckless and callous disregard of their rights. 79. By the acts described above, Defendants have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 80. Defendants’ actions have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs great, immediate and irreparable harm if such actions are permitted to continue. 81. Given Defendants’ past actions, combined with their repeated refusal to acknowledge or address the deplorable conditions at Vienna, it is not only probable but likely
18

that Defendants will continue to act in a similar manner toward Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class in the future.
82. Plaintiffs and the members of the class have no adequate remedy at law for Defendants’ failure to provide conditions of confinement that comply with the United States Constitution, federal law and other applicable laws as a result of the conduct complained of herein. As such, Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class are entitled to an order compelling Defendants to comply with the Constitution, federal law and all other applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: a. For an order that this action be maintained as a class action
pursuant to the Court’s powers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and defining the class as described above in Paragraph 62;
b. For an order of permanent injunctive relief, compelling Defendants to comply with the Constitution, federal law and other applicable laws;
c. For costs, including attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
d. For such other and further legal, equitable and other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II – DECLARATORY RELIEF Unconstitutional Conditions Of Confinement Under The
Eighth Amendment In Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 83. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the foregoing Paragraphs 1 to 82 of their Complaint as if stated fully herein.
19

84. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment.
85. The protections of the Eighth Amendment apply equally to the states and all divisions and entities thereof, including departments of corrections, prison facilities and officers acting in their official capacities.
86. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class have a right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
87. By the facts and actions described above regarding the conditions of confinement at Vienna, Defendants are subjecting Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class to a serious deprivation of basic human needs, including through exposure to, infliction of and failure to address the following conditions:
a. vastly overcrowded living conditions; b. rats, mice, cockroaches, spiders, rodent feces and other insects and vermin; c. inadequate ventilation; d. excessive heat; e. excessive cold; f. inadequate sanitation, including malfunctioning toilets, sinks and showers; g. defective plumbing; h. raw sewage, rust, mold, mildew, rain water and flooding and pooling water; i. inadequate, soiled and tattered clothing and bedding materials;
20

j. insufficient recreational, educational and vocational training opportunities;
k. unclean drinking water; l. unsanitary dining facilities filled with rats, cockroaches, spiders and other vermin; and/or m. the threat of violence among prisoners due to the deplorable living conditions and insufficient correctional staff. 88. These deprivations and the risks they pose violate contemporary standards of decency and deny prisoners minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities. 89. These deprivations of basic human needs are serious and excessive, given that they pose serious harm or serious risk of harm to the prisoners’ health and safety. 90. Despite having actual knowledge of the serious risks posed to the prisoners’ health and safety, Defendants have disregarded those risks, taking little if any action to try to address the deprivations of the prisoners’ basic human needs brought about by the conditions of confinement. 91. As such, Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference toward serious deprivations of the prisoners’ basic human needs. 92. At all relevant times, Defendants acted in their official capacity under color of state law. 93. Defendants’ actions have deprived the prisoners of their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and demonstrate a reckless and callous disregard of their rights.
21

94. By the acts described above, a ripe and justiciable controversy exists between the

parties regarding the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class under the Eighth

Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

95. Given Defendants’ past actions combined with their repeated refusal to

acknowledge or address the deplorable conditions at Vienna, it is not only probable but likely

that Defendants will continue to act in a similar manner toward Plaintiffs and the members of the

proposed class in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

a. For an order that this action be maintained as a class action

pursuant to the Court’s powers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and

defining the class as described above in Paragraph 62;

b. For an order declaring that Defendants, individually and

collectively, have subjected Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class to

conditions of confinement, both individual and in aggregate, that deprive

Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class of their rights under the Eighth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, federal law and other applicable

law;

c. For costs, including attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

and

d. For such other and further legal, equitable and other relief as this

Court deems just and proper.

Dated: June __, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

22

Mark S. Mester mark.mester@lw.com
Kathleen P. Lally kathleen.lally@lw.com
Andrew T. Gehl andrew.gehl@lw.com
Robert C. Collins III robert.collins@lw.com
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5800 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: (312) 876-7000 Facsimile: (312) 993-9767
Alan Mills alanmills@comcast.net
Nicole Schult nicirs@gmail.com
UPTOWN PEOPLE’S LAW CENTER 4413 North Sheridan Chicago, Illinois 60640 Telephone: (773) 769-1411 Facsimile: (773) 769-2224

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Boyd, Paul Lee and Kendrick Pearson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

23

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL LEE and

)

KENDRICK PEARSON, on behalf of

)

themselves and all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

S. A. GODINEZ, Director of the Illinois

)

Department of Corrections and RANDY

)

DAVIS, Warden of Vienna Correctional

)

Center, in their official capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-704-JPG-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Class Certification for Purposes of Settlement (Doc. 33). I. Background The plaintiffs in this case seek declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the living conditions at Vienna Correctional Center (“Vienna”), an institution within the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Vienna is severely overcrowded; the facility is poorly maintained – raw sewage overflows in the toilets and backs up in the showers; the entire facility, including the kitchen and dining hall, is infested with insects and vermin; the facility lacks adequate ventilation, exposing prisoners to extreme temperatures; and the buildings are infested with mold. They further allege that defendants IDOC Director S.A. Godinez and Vienna Warden Randy Davis have been and continue to be deliberately indifferent to the health and safety risks those conditions pose by failing to make reasonable efforts to correct them, all in violation of the Eighth Amendment rights of inmates

housed at Vienna.1 The plaintiffs seek to represent the following class of inmates for settlement purposes
only: All inmates housed at Vienna Correctional Center since June 13, 2012, and all inmates to be housed at Vienna Correctional Center.
The defendants do not object to the certification of this class so long as it is only for the purposes of settlement of this case. The plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives and to appoint their current counsel as counsel for the class. II. Class Certification Requirements
A principal purpose of class certification is to save the resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting an issue potentially affecting every class member to be litigated in an economical manner. See General Tel. Co. of S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 155 (1982). The Court may certify a class if it satisfies all four provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), at least one provision of Rule 23(b) and the implied prerequisites that a class be ascertainable and that the class representatives be within the class. It is the moving party’s burden to establish that each of the prerequisites of Rule 23 is satisfied. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 161. A plaintiff’s failure to satisfy any of the Rule 23 requirements precludes class certification. Retired Chi. Police Ass’n v. City of Chi., 7 F.3d 584, 596 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing Harriston v. Chicago Tribune Co., 992 F.2d 697, 703 (7th Cir. 1993)). Generally, when ruling on a motion for class certification, the Court does not consider the merits of the case; rather, the Court focuses on whether the certification requirements are satisfied. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974).
The Court must rigorously assess whether the prerequisites have been met, see Falcon,
1 These Eighth Amendment rights are applicable to state prisoners through the Fourteenth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 101-02 (1976).
2

457 U.S. at 161, and, if the party seeking class certification meets each of them, the Court must certify the proposed class, see Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398-99 (2010) (noting “a categorical rule entitling a plaintiff whose suit meets the specified criteria [of Rule 23] to pursue his claim as a class action”). The Court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed class satisfies the requirements, Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 592 (7th Cir. 1998), and should err in favor of maintaining class actions, King v. Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 519 F.2d 20, 26 (7th Cir. 1975).
A. Implied Prerequisites Before the Court can address the issues raised by Rule 23, the moving party must satisfy two implied prerequisites of Rule 23. The first is that the class is sufficiently defined so as to be identifiable as a class. Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir. 2006). The second is that the named representative fall within the class. Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 565 F.2d 975, 977 (7th Cir. 1977). The plaintiffs’ proposed class is sufficiently identifiable as a class and is not overbroad. It will be a relatively simple matter to ascertain from prison records who has been or is housed at Vienna during the relevant time period. Furthermore, it is clear that the named plaintiffs fall within the class definition in that they were housed in Vienna after June 13, 2012. Thus, the plaintiffs have satisfied the implied prerequisites to class certification. B. Rule 23(a) Rule 23(a) allows a plaintiff to sue on behalf of a class only if all four of the following elements are satisfied: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class; and 3

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); see Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613 (1997). 1. Numerosity of Parties
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the proposed class be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). When the class is large, numbers alone may be dispositive of numerosity. See Riordan v. Smith Barney, 113 F.R.D. 60, 62 (N.D. Ill. 1986). In light of the fact that Vienna houses more than 1,000 inmates at any given time and that inmates are transferred in and out or are released on a regular basis, it is clear that joinder of all class members would be impracticable. The plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement.
2. Commonality of Issues A named class representative may sue on behalf of the class only if there are questions of law or fact common to the class. This commonality requirement serves the dual purposes of (1) fair and adequate representation of the interests of absent class members and (2) practical and efficient case management. 5 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.23 (3d ed. 1999). “A common nucleus of operative fact is usually enough to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).” Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 594 (7th Cir. 1998) (quoting Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 1992)). Common nuclei of fact are typically manifest where the defendants have engaged in standardized conduct towards members of the proposed class. Id.. Some factual variation in the details of individual claims does not defeat a finding of commonality. Rosario, 963 F.2d at 1017. Courts give Rule 23(a)(2) a “highly permissive reading,” requiring plaintiffs to show only that there is more than one issue of law or fact in common. See Markham v. White, 171 F.R.D. 217, 222 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Though the commonality requirement is permissive, an issue of law or fact is not “common” unless its
4

resolution “will advance the litigation.” See Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 397 (6th Cir. 1998). Standardized conduct with respect to the conditions of confinement in a penal institution can satisfy the commonality requirement. See, e.g., Flynn v. Doyle, No. 06-C537, 2007 WL 805788, at *3 (E.D. Wis. 2007); Williams v. Lane, 96 F.R.D. 383, 385-86 (N.D. Ill. 1982); Green v. Cady, 90 F.R.D. 622, 623 (E.D. Wisc. 1981).
There is clearly a common nucleus of operative facts and law at issue with respect to the putative class. All putative class members have been exposed to nearly identical living conditions when they were housed in Building 19 upon entry into Vienna and substantially similar living conditions in other housing assignments thereafter. Furthermore, the defendants have engaged in a standardized course of conduct toward all members of the proposed class in their responses to the living conditions at Vienna. Whether the conditions at Vienna objectively posed a serious risk to inmate health and safety and whether the defendants knew about and disregarded that risk are issues common to all putative class members. Deciding these common issues of law and fact would be a fair, practical and efficient way to advance this litigation. For this reason, the Court finds that the highly permissive commonality requirement is met.
3. Typicality of Claims and Defenses Whether the named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class members they seek to represent is closely related to the commonality inquiry, but problems with commonality often take on greater significance in the typicality context. See Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 1992) (“The question of typicality in Rule 23(a)(3) is closely related to the . . . question of commonality.”). Subsection (a)(3) directs the Court to focus on whether the named representatives’ claims have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large. De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225, 232 (7th Cir. 1983). A “plaintiff’s claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the
5

claims of other class members and his or her claims are based on the same legal theory.” Id. Despite the apparent similarity, the commonality and typicality requirements serve
different functions. The commonality requirement questions the relationship of the claims among the class itself, while the typicality requirement focuses on the relation between the representatives and the class as a whole. The Court should concentrate on the defendants’ alleged conduct and the plaintiffs’ legal theory to satisfy Rule 23(a)(3). Rosario, 963 F.2d at 1018. The typicality requirement may be satisfied even if there are factual distinctions between the claims of the named plaintiffs and those of other class members. De La Fuente, 713 F.2d at 232. Thus, similar legal theories may control even in the face of different facts. Id. “Properly applied, these guidelines should uphold the rationale behind the typicality requirement, namely that ‘a plaintiff with typical claims will pursue his or her own self-interest in the litigation and in so doing will advance the interests of the class members, which are aligned with . . . those of the representative.’” Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc., 186 F.R.D. 535, 544 (W.D. Wis. 1998) (quoting 1 H. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, § 3.13 (3d ed. 1992)).
The named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the rest of the putative class. They all rely on the same legal theories – the defendants’ observance of inmates’ right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment – and arise out of the same set of living conditions at Vienna. The Court is confident that in pursuing their own claims, the named plaintiffs will advance the interests of the putative class members. Thus, the plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the proposed class.
4. Adequacy of Representation The adequacy of representation requirement tends to merge with the commonality and typicality criteria of Rule 23(a). Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 626 n. 20 (1997). The proposed class representatives must at a minimum “possess the same interest and
6

suffer the same injury as the class members.” East Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977) (internal quotations omitted). They must also not have any interests in conflict with those of other members of the class and must have a sufficient interest in the litigation to ensure vigorous advocacy. Chandler v. Southwest Jeep-Eagle, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 302, 308 (N.D. Ill. 1995)) (internal quotation omitted); see Spano v. The Boeing Co., 644 F.3d 574, 586-87 (7th Cir. 2011). When an inmate is released from a correctional facility with no reasonable likelihood that he will return and face the same problems faced by the putative class, he is not a good candidate for class representative in a suit seeking injunctive relief. See, e.g., Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 799 (7th Cir. 2008) (released plaintiff did not meet adequacy requirement where it was possible for a more suitable representative to emerge).
The Court is given pause at this point. While there is no indication the named plaintiffs have any interests that conflict with putative class members, they no longer have a personal interest in the outcome of the case. Each named plaintiff was released from Vienna in 2013, consequently, will not be affected by any injunctive or declaratory relief (or lack thereof) that might result from this lawsuit. Although they have actively participated in the litigation to this point and have stated that they are committed to continuing to participate, their continuing interest in this litigation appears – at least as documented in the file at the present time – insufficient to allow them to represent the interests of the putative class. The plaintiffs have failed to satisfy this requirement.
Nevertheless, because, as explained in the rest of this order, this is the only deficiency in the request for class certification, rather than denying the motion for class certification outright, the Court will reserve ruling and allow the plaintiffs to remedy this deficiency. It will allow them an opportunity to recruit a substitute plaintiff who could serve as an adequate class representative during the later phases of this case, including settlement negotiations. Plaintiffs’
7

counsel has indicated this may be difficult because Vienna inmates are unlikely to be housed at Vienna long enough to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), especially where prison officials have the ability to drag out administrative proceedings beyond what is necessary to address inmates’ complaints. For this reason, as an alternative, the Court will also allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to present a compelling argument why the Court should allow them to be named as class representatives despite their lack of personal stake in the outcome of this case. The Court further reminds the parties that, as part of a potential settlement agreement, the defendants may agree to waive the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust.
The Court now turns to the requirements of Rule 23(b). C. Rule 23(b) If all of the elements of Rule 23(a) are established, the moving party must also show one of the elements outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997). The plaintiffs request certification first under Rule 23(b)(2), which states that a class action may be maintained if: (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied where a defendant’s conduct or refusal to act was generally applicable to the class and where final injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to the entire class would be the appropriate remedy. Retired Chi. Police Ass’n v. City of Chi., 7 F.3d 584, 596 (7th Cir. 1993). “As a general matter, Rule 23(b)(2) is invoked in cases where injunctive or declaratory relief is the primary or exclusive relief sought.” Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322, 335 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Here, the defendants have acted or refused to act in a manner generally applicable to the class with respect to their response to the conditions of confinement at Vienna, and the plaintiffs
8

seek only declaratory and injunctive relief. Accordingly, class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2).
D. Appointment of Class Counsel Under Rule 23(g)(1), if the Court certifies a class, it must appoint class counsel to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4). In naming class counsel, the Court must consider: (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). It may also consider “any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B). Mark Mester and Kathleen Lally, of Latham & Watkins LLP, and Alan Mills, of Uptown People’s Law Center, seek appointment as class counsel in this case. The materials submitted in support of their appointment show they are well-qualified to represent the plaintiff class in this case. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESERVES RULING on the motion for class certification for settlement purposes (Doc. 33). The Court further ORDERS that the plaintiffs shall have up to and including October 25, 2013, to either (1) recruit an adequate substitute plaintiff to intervene in this case or (2) file a supplemental brief in support of their motion for class certification addressing why the Court should allow the plaintiffs to be named as class representatives despite their lack of personal stake in the outcome of this case. Should this time
9

period be insufficient, the Court would entertain a motion for a reasonable extension of time. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 16, 2013.
s/J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL LEE and

)

KENDRICK PEARSON, on behalf of

)

themselves and all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

S. A. GODINEZ, Director of the Illinois

)

Department of Corrections and RANDY

)

DAVIS, Warden of Vienna Correctional

)

Center, in their official capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

No. 3:12-cv-704-JPG-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 48) and Unopposed Motion for Class Certification for Purposes of Settlement (Doc. 33). The plaintiffs filed this putative class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the conditions of confinement at Vienna Correctional Center (“Vienna”). In a September 16, 2013, order, the Court found that all of the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) for class certification for settlement purposes had been satisfied except for Rule 23(a)(4), the adequacy of the named plaintiffs to represent the class. The Court noted that the named plaintiffs did not have a personal stake in the outcome of this litigation because they were no longer housed at Vienna and allowed them additional time to recruit a substitute plaintiff or to argue why they should be allowed to represent the class anyway. The plaintiffs have done both. The plaintiffs ask the Court for leave to file an amended complaint adding a new plaintiff, J.B. Washup, a current inmate at Vienna, and updating certain statistics and information regarding the plaintiffs. As a current inmate at Vienna, Washup has suffered the same alleged

wrongs as the current plaintiffs and has a personal stake in this lawsuit to change those conditions.
Because the time for amendment as a matter of right has passed, whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a)(2) provides that a plaintiff may amend his pleading only with the opposing parties’ written consent, which the plaintiffs have not obtained, or leave of court, which the Court should freely give when justice requires. Generally, the decision whether to grant a party leave to amend the pleadings is a matter left to the discretion of the district court. Orix Credit Alliance v. Taylor Mach. Works, 125 F.3d 468, 480 (7th Cir. 1997); Sanders v. Venture Stores, 56 F.3d 771, 773 (7th Cir. 1995). A court should allow amendment of a pleading except where there is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or futility of the amendment. Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 562 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007)).
It appears that Washup’s claim arises out of the same conditions of confinement and presents the same issues of law and fact as the other plaintiffs. Therefore, joinder of his claim in this case is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1). Furthermore, it appears that Washup would add significant value as a named plaintiff to this putative class action because, having a personal stake in its outcome, he would be a good candidate to serve as a class representative. Finally, the Court finds that none of the factors counseling against amendment are present. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to amend (Doc. 48) and ORDERS that the plaintiffs shall have up to and including November 15, 2013, to electronically
2

file their amended complaint. The Court RESERVES RULING on the motion for class certification for settlement purposes (Doc. 33) until the plaintiffs file the amended complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 29, 2013.
s/J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 1 of 70 Page ID #668

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BENTON DIVISION

MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL LEE, KENDRICK )

PEARSON and J.B. WASHUP, on behalf of )

themselves and all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v.

)

)

S. A. GODINEZ, Director of the Illinois

)

Department of Corrections, and RANDY

)

DAVIS, Warden of Vienna Correctional

)

Center, in their official capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00704-JPG CJRA TRACK: D
PRESUMPTIVE TRIAL MONTH: July 14, 2014
Judge J. Phil Gilbert Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson and J.B. Washup by and through

their attorneys, Latham & Watkins LLP and Uptown People’s Law Center, allege for their First

Amended Complaint against Defendants S. A. Godinez, Director of the Illinois Department of

Corrections, and Randy Davis, Warden of Vienna Correctional Center (collectively,

“Defendants”), in their official capacities as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Vienna Correctional Center (“Vienna”) is a minimum-security facility located

in southern Illinois that houses male offenders convicted of low-level and largely non-violent

crimes. When it opened in 1965, Vienna was intended to hold approximately 925 prisoners

and to focus on education and community development as part of its rehabilitative mission.

2. Nearly 50 years later, Vienna is unconscionably overcrowded (housing nearly

1,900 prisoners), is dilapidated from years of neglect and has long since abandoned any

meaningful educational or community development programs. Today, the prisoners at Vienna

are forced to live in squalid conditions, where they are exposed to overflowing sewage,

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 2 of 70 Page ID #669
pervasive mold and mildew and infestations of insects and rodents. They lack access to basic necessities, like properly functioning heat and ventilation, properly functioning toilets, sinks and showers and fresh, uncontaminated food. In short, the conditions at Vienna are inhumane and deprive the prisoners housed there of their basic human needs.
3. Despite having actual knowledge of these conditions and the serious risks they pose, Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the inhumane conditions to which the prisoners at Vienna are exposed and have failed to make reasonable efforts to remedy those conditions, leaving the prisoners to suffer an inhumane, degrading, uncivilized and unhealthy existence.
4. As a result, this suit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202 for violations of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, on behalf of all prisoners at Vienna.
THE PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 5. Plaintiff Michael Boyd (“Mr. Boyd”) is 28 years old. Mr. Boyd was incarcerated in Vienna approximately from January 2011 until January 2013 and was serving time for a non-violent crime. During the time that he was incarcerated at Vienna, Mr. Boyd was housed in Building 19, two of Vienna’s other housing units and Vienna’s segregation unit and was exposed to the conditions described in this Complaint. 6. Plaintiff Paul Lee (“Mr. Lee”) is 58 years old. Mr. Lee was incarcerated in Vienna approximately from August 2010 to February 2013 and was serving time for a nonviolent crime. During the time that he was incarcerated at Vienna, Mr. Lee was housed in
2

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 3 of 70 Page ID #670
Building 19 as well as three of Vienna’s other housing units and was exposed to the conditions described in this Complaint.
7. Plaintiff Kendrick Pearson (“Mr. Pearson”) is 44 years old. Mr. Pearson was incarcerated in Vienna approximately from May 2011 until March 2013 and was serving time for a non-violent crime. During the time that he was incarcerated at Vienna, Mr. Pearson was housed in Building 19 as well as one of Vienna’s other housing units and was exposed to the conditions described in this Complaint.
8. Plaintiff J.B. Washup (“Mr. Washup”) is 56 years old. Mr. Washup has been incarcerated at Vienna since June of 2011. Upon arriving at Vienna, Mr. Washup was initially housed in Building 19 and has since lived in three of Vienna’s other housing units. He is serving time for a non-violent crime. While detained at Vienna, Mr. Washup has been exposed to the conditions described in this Complaint.
B. Defendants 9. Defendant S. A. Godinez (“Director Godinez”) has been the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections since May 5, 2011. In all of his actions, Director Godinez was acting under color of state law and in the course of his employment. The claims being made against Director Godinez are brought against him in his official capacity. 10. Defendant Randy Davis (“Warden Davis”) is the Warden of Vienna Correctional Center. In all of his actions, Warden Davis was acting under color of state law and in the course of his employment. The claims being made against Warden Davis are brought against him in his official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to secure equitable relief from Defendants’ actions,
3

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 4 of 70 Page ID #671
which themselves were initiated under color of state law and which violate the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
12. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
13. This Court is authorized to render declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202.
14. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because all of the relevant events occurred at Vienna, located in Johnson County, which is within the Southern District of Illinois.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS A. Severe Overcrowding At Vienna 15. Located in Johnson County and adjacent to the Shawnee National Forest, Vienna is a minimum-security, adult, male-only correctional facility that primarily houses low-level, non-violent offenders incarcerated for relatively short lengths of time. See Sept. 27, 2011 Monitoring Visit to Vienna Correctional Center by the John Howard Association of Illinois (“John Howard Report”), Ex. A, at 2. 16. In its early years, Vienna was hailed as one of the most successful prisons in Illinois. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 2. At that time, the facility was intended to function as a small town in which the prisoners could be rehabilitated and learn to re-enter society as responsible citizens. See id. In order to further its rehabilitative mission, Vienna focused on education and vocational training and its programs were so well-regarded that members of the surrounding community often took classes at the prison alongside the men who were incarcerated there. See id. In addition, since the majority of the prisoners at Vienna
4

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 5 of 70 Page ID #672
were non-violent offenders, they also were permitted to volunteer in the community. See id. In fact, Vienna operated an emergency technician program, which allowed qualified prisoners to staff a 24-hour ambulance service for the surrounding community. See id.
17. Despite its auspicious beginnings, the conditions at Vienna have degraded significantly over time. A surge in the prison population throughout Illinois has caused severe and pervasive overcrowding at Vienna. According to the Illinois Department of Corrections, Vienna was originally designed to house 925 prisoners, but as of July 1, 2013, 1,898 prisoners were packed into the facility. See Limited Scope Compliance Examination For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2008, Vienna Correctional Center, State of Illinois Department of Corrections (“2008 Compliance Examination”), Ex. B, at 61; July 1, 2013 Illinois Department of Corrections Quarterly Report (“Quarterly Report”), Ex. C, at Table 4. At 205% capacity, Vienna is one of the most over-crowded prisons in Illinois. See id.
18. The roughly 1,900 prisoners detained at Vienna are housed in six single-story housing units and one three-story housing unit. The three-story unit is referred to as “Building 19.” In order to accommodate the nearly 1,000 additional prisoners in excess of its designed capacity, Vienna has converted storage units and other spaces that were never meant to house prisoners into living quarters.
19. For example, Building 19 was, upon information and belief, an administrative building that was converted into housing. The first floor of Building 19 contains the segregation unit, and the second and third floors of Building 19 house prisoners in open-style dormitories containing double bunk beds. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 9. These bunk beds are placed so close to one another that the men can reach across the narrow aisles and touch the person sleeping in the bed next to them. Approximately 200 prisoners live on the
5

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 6 of 70 Page ID #673
second floor in one open dormitory, and approximately 400 prisoners live on the third floor in four separate quadrants. See id. As discussed in more detail below, since these converted areas were not designed to function as housing, they lack basic facilities, such as sufficient toilets and showers. See disc. infra at ¶¶ 47-59.
20. Moreover, although Illinois’ Unified Code of Corrections requires that “[a]ll new, remodeled and newly designed institutions or facilities shall provide at least 50 square feet of cell, room or dormitory floor space” per prisoner (see 730 ILCS 5/3-7-3 (emphasis supplied)), the Illinois Department of Corrections admits that the prisoners at Vienna are on average confined to 33 square feet, two-thirds the minimum space the Illinois General Assembly has determined necessary for safe and sanitary living conditions. See Quarterly Report, Ex. C, at Table 6. In reality, many prisoners are restricted to even less space.
21. The overcrowding at Vienna “stretches vital . . . resources, from programming to healthcare.” John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 7. Indeed, Vienna’s once robust educational programming is now practically nonexistent. For a population of almost 1,900, Vienna has only four Adult Basic Education classes and two GED classes, which have extremely long waiting lists. See id. at 15. Vienna also has only limited vocational training opportunities and limited possibilities for prisoners to obtain jobs. See id.
22. Vienna’s general population receives at most three hours of recreation/exercise time per week. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 9. Many men report receiving only two hours per week or less. The living areas, especially in Building 19, have very limited common area space where the prisoners can play cards or watch television. As a result, many of the prisoners at Vienna have nothing to do all day but sit idle in their bunks.
6

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 7 of 70 Page ID #674
23. The severe overcrowding and the fact that the prisoners do not have any productive way to spend their time and energy fosters an environment of tension, unrest and violence. Fights routinely break out over theft as well as petty issues, such as seats near the television, time on the phone or the placement of fans.
24. Inadequate staffing exacerbates this situation. Simply put, Vienna has insufficient staffing to monitor and control the growing population of prisoners.
25. For example, only two correctional officers monitor the 200 prisoners on Building 19’s second floor, and only two to three officers oversee the 400 prisoners on Building 19’s third floor. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 11. Because there are so many prisoners and so few officers, the officers are frequently unaware of the fights that occur in the dormitories and when the officers are aware, they often let the prisoners fight it out, intervening only after the fight is finished in order to issue disciplinary citations.
26. The severe overcrowding has also limited Vienna’s ability to provide the prisoners with adequate clothing, linens or blankets. The clothing and bedding materials provided to prisoners are often stained, soiled and tattered. The prisoners are not provided state-issued boots or stocking hats to protect them from the winter weather, and the shoes that are provided to prisoners often fall apart in a matter of weeks.
B. The Inhumane Living Conditions At Vienna 27. Compounding the problems caused by severe overcrowding is a lack of maintenance and upkeep. Critical maintenance projects have been ignored for nearly a decade, causing widespread disrepair. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 5. As a result, conditions at Vienna are deplorable and can only be considered inhumane.
7

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 8 of 70 Page ID #675
1. Vienna Is Infested With Insects And Vermin 28. Cockroaches, spiders, ants, millipedes, mice, rats and other insects and vermin infest all the housing units as well as the kitchen and dining hall at Vienna. These insects and vermin expose the prisoners at Vienna to a multitude of diseases, including some diseases that can be fatal. In fact, many prisoners have reported experiencing spider bites that later became infected. 29. Cockroaches, in particular, are a common problem at Vienna. They infest the walls and take residence in the prisoners’ clothing, shoes, bunks, property boxes, sinks and bathrooms. Prisoners find cockroaches in their coffee cups, drinking glasses and toothbrushes and feel cockroaches crawl across them while they lie in their bunks. The men often have to physically sweep cockroaches off of their mattresses and remove cockroach feces from their pillows and clothing. 30. Mice and rats are also a constant problem at Vienna. They crawl into the prisoners’ property boxes and eat the food that the men have purchased from the commissary. Both officers and prisoners have reported finding mice nesting in closets and mouse feces on the floors of the housing units. Mice also “frequently [run] across the floors” in the dining hall during meals. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 10. 31. The infestations in the kitchen and dining hall are particularly disturbing. Mice, cockroaches and other insects run rampant across the floors of the dietary unit, where Vienna prepares meals for its prisoners. Cockroaches dart across “clean” pans, utensils, countertops and serving stations and climb into the food trays as they are being passed down the serving line. Much of the food, including bread, rice, grains, cereals and oatmeal, contains rodent feces and mold. Mice nest in the cabbage, rice, potatoes, bread and other food.
8

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 9 of 70 Page ID #676
32. Nonetheless, prison staff instruct the prisoners working in the kitchen to cook with and serve this food, which is often otherwise outdated, expired or spoiled. Unsurprisingly, therefore, prisoners find dead bugs, rodent droppings, insect antennae, hair, rocks, rubber bands, cardboard and other objects in their food. Some men have stated that the problem has become so bad that they simply do not eat in the dining hall at all. Instead, if they can afford it, they live only off of whatever they can buy in the commissary.
33. The dining hall, like the food that is served there, is filthy. Rodents, cockroaches, flies, spiders and other bugs run across the floor during meals. Cockroaches crawl across the serving boards and sneeze guards where food is prepared and served. Spider webs cover the walls, and birds nest in available crevices.
2. Vienna Lacks Adequate Ventilation, Exposing The Prisoners To Extreme Temperatures And Other Weather
34. Ventilation in the housing units throughout Vienna is severely inadequate and causes extreme fluctuations in temperature.
35. The windows in the majority of the housing units are broken and lack screens, which causes the dormitories to become frigid in the winter.
36. In addition, in at least some of the housing units, “air constantly blew through the air vents, making the cells very cold” in the winter. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 9. The prisoners in these units “stuff[] toilet paper into the vents to block the airflow” in order to try to warm up but are threatened with “being issued a disciplinary ticket” if they are caught. See id. It is often so cold that the men must sleep in all of their clothing, yet they still feel as if they are sleeping outside.
37. Some air vents in Building 19 are caked with dust, which is then constantly circulated throughout the building. The lack of proper ventilation keeps dust, mold and
9

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 10 of 70 Page ID #677
mildew in the air, causing prisoners breathing problems. Some prisoners have complained of waking up with nose bleeds as a result of the poor ventilation.
38. In Building 19, Vienna’s “solution” to the problem of broken windows has been to board over the windows entirely, totally blocking out sunlight and fresh air. When the windows in Building 19 are boarded up, it is so dark that the prisoners feel as if they are living in an abandoned building.
39. Moreover, the housing units can become unbearably hot in the summer, particularly in Building 19, which houses hundreds of prisoners in spaces that were never intended to be living quarters.
40. Broken windows not only let in cold air and extreme heat but also water and other elements. During storms, rain leaks into the dormitories through broken windows and visible cracks in the ceiling, damaging light fixtures, staining the ceiling, dripping directly onto prisoners’ beds and property, fostering the growth of mold and creating a smell of mildew that pervades the living spaces. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 10; disc. infra at ¶¶ 41-46. Staff members place buckets and trash cans throughout the facility as makeshift measures to attempt to collect the rain water. Because no other measures are taken, however, the floors nevertheless become dirty, wet and dangerous.
3. Vienna Is Also Infested With Mold 41. The improper ventilation at Vienna contributes to its severe mold problem. 42. Mold is everywhere in Vienna: in the housing units, the bathrooms and even the dining hall. It grows along the walls and ceilings, in the light fixtures, around the sinks and drinking fountains, in the showers and behind the toilets. 43. The mold on the ceiling and in the showers sometimes grows so thick that it breaks off and falls on the prisoners while they are sleeping in their bunks or showering.
10

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 11 of 70 Page ID #678
44. The Centers for Disease Control has noted that exposure to mold indoors can lead to “upper respiratory tract symptoms, cough, and wheeze in otherwise healthy people; with asthma symptoms in people with asthma; and with hypersensitivity pneumonitis in individuals susceptible to that immune-mediated condition.” See http://www.cdc.gov/mold/stachy.htm#Q6 (last visited October 7, 2013).
45. Despite the fact that mold presents a health hazard, Vienna has made no meaningful attempt to stem the growth of mold. Maintenance workers periodically paint over the mold, which does nothing to actually stop its growth. Inevitably, because the underlying mold is not addressed, this paint eventually chips and flakes, only further contributing to the appalling living conditions.
46. Moreover, prison officials often reject or fail to respond to grievances about mold and mildew, claiming that the prisoners have access to cleaning supplies and should clean the mold themselves. Vienna’s general population, however, does not have access to even the watered-down cleaning supplies normally used, let alone access to the more powerful bleaches and disinfectants that would be needed to begin to actually clean the mold.
4. Building 19 47. While the living conditions at Vienna are generally deplorable, Building 19 is widely recognized as the worst of the worst. As noted by John Howard during their visit, Building 19 is “unfit for the 600 [] men who lived there.” See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 10 (emphasis supplied). Indeed, prison officials use Building 19 as a punishment, threatening prisoners with transfer to Building 19 as a way to get them to behave, knowing that Building 19 represents the very worst of the poor living conditions at Vienna.
11

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 12 of 70 Page ID #679
48. Upon arrival at Vienna, all prisoners are initially housed in Building 19 before they are transferred to one of the other housing units. In addition, prisoners may be transferred back to Building 19 at any time and for a variety of reasons.
49. Upon information and belief, Building 19 was never intended to be used as housing and is unsuitable for habitation. There is exposed insulation, pipes with chipping and flaking paint and exposed electrical wiring throughout. As discussed above, the prisoners in Building 19 are exposed to pervasive mold and mildew (see disc. supra at ¶¶41-46), infestations of mice, cockroaches and other insects (see id. at ¶¶28-33) and extreme temperature fluctuations due to broken windows and inadequate clothing and bedding (see id. at ¶¶34-40).
50. Moreover, Building 19 lacks basic necessities. The prisoners are crammed together in bunks placed less than 18 inches apart from each other. See disc. supra ¶¶19-20. These bunks are rusting and are not properly bolted to the floor. Often, the top bunk lacks support so that the mattress sags, endangering the prisoner on the top bed and encroaching upon the prisoners sleeping below.
51. In addition, Building 19’s third floor, which houses approximately 400 prisoners, has only one functioning phone. So many prisoners competing for one phone has led to “repeated fights.” See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 11.
52. But it is Building 19’s bathroom facilities that epitomize the deprivation of basic human needs occurring at Vienna.
53. The second floor bathroom, which serves 200 prisoners, contains only three toilets and three sinks. The third floor bathroom, which serves 400 prisoners, has only four toilets, four sinks and two urinals.
12

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 13 of 70 Page ID #680
54. To make matters worse, some of these toilets and sinks often do not function or drain properly due to leaking or clogged pipes. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 10-11. Rust-colored water comes out of these few sinks, which the prisoners use to brush their teeth, wash their faces and “clean” their dishes. Broken toilets are left filled with feces, sometimes for weeks. These toilets often overflow, flooding the bathroom with raw human waste and leaving stagnant water pooling on the floor. A “strong smell of fecal matter and sewage” constantly saturates the air. See id. at 10.
55. Dirty water falls from exposed, rusting pipes in the ceiling, creating a dangerously slippery floor and spawning additional mold and mildew. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 10-11. This water falls on the prisoners while they are exposed and attempting to use whatever working toilets are available. To keep dry while using the facilities, the prisoners bring towels to cover their heads when using the toilets.
56. The second floor bathroom has no working showers. The only working showers in Building 19 are on the third floor. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 11. The men housed on the second floor of Building 19 are shuttled to the third floor showers on a rotating basis, as the third floor bathrooms obviously cannot accommodate all 600 prisoners each day. See id.
57. When the prisoners are able to access the showers, the water is sometimes so ice cold, boiling hot or lacking in water pressure that the showers cannot actually be used. In addition, raw sewage and dirty water back up through the shower drain, causing flooding in the showers. The prisoners in Building 19 tie bags over their feet and ankles to try to avoid developing infections or fungus while showering.
13

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 14 of 70 Page ID #681
58. Moreover, the shower area lacks adequate ventilation, creating a “stuffy, humid, and fetid” environment totally unsuitable for human use. See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 11.
59. Notably, although the bathrooms in Building 19 are considered the worst, the bathrooms in the other housing units are also disgusting and in serious disrepair. The walls are covered with mold, rust, dirt and grime. In one of the units, for example, a “rusty-colored liquid dripped from the ceilings, which prisoners had to artfully dodge as they brushed their teeth or used the restroom.” See John Howard Report, Ex. A, at 9.
5. Vienna’s Administration Ignores These Deplorable Living Conditions 60. The Illinois Department of Corrections and Vienna’s prison administration,
correctional officers and other staff are aware of the living conditions described above. In fact, on January 5, 2012, the Warden for Vienna issued a memorandum acknowledging the high number of grievances relating to Building 19. In his memorandum, the Warden admitted that these inhumane living conditions “are not new and have been present since reopening this area for housing” but argued that, while Building 19 may need some “improvements,” it is “livable.” See Ex. D hereto. Since issuing that memorandum, the Warden has not been amenable to hearing the inmates’ concerns about the living conditions and instead has simply referred them to the memorandum.
61. Additionally, Vienna’s administration has affirmatively taken steps to cover up these inhuman conditions. Before John Howard arrived to inspect Vienna in September of 2011, prison officials instructed prisoners to paint over rust and mold without actually cleaning or improving prison conditions.
14

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 15 of 70 Page ID #682
62. Despite the fact that Defendants knew or should have known of the deplorable conditions at Vienna, Defendants have chosen to disregard these conditions and the risks they pose to the prisoners.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 63. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all prisoners residing at Vienna, seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. 64. Class action status is proper for this litigation, because the class of persons described in Paragraph 63 above is so numerous that the individual joinder of all absent class members is impracticable. While Vienna’s population fluctuates, Plaintiffs believe that the proposed class consists of approximately 1,900 persons. See Quarterly Report, Ex. C, at Tables 1-2, 4-5. The exact number of absent class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time but will be ascertainable upon appropriate discovery from Defendants. 65. The claims set forth in this Complaint are common to each member of the class. Common questions of law or fact exist as to each of the proposed class members, including but not limited to:
a. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by forcing them to live in a vastly overcrowded and dilapidated facility;
b. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by exposing them to rats, mice, cockroaches, birds, spiders, other insects and vermin and rodent feces, which infest the housing units, kitchen and dining hall;
15

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 16 of 70 Page ID #683
c. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by exposing them to inadequate ventilation and extremes in temperatures;
d. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by depriving them of basic sanitation, including adequate bathroom facilities, showers and toilets;
e. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by exposing them to mold, which covers the walls, ceilings and/or floors of the housing units; and
f. Whether Defendants are violating the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by exposing them to an unnecessary threat of violence, due to the overcrowding, unsanitary living conditions and insufficient staff.
66. Plaintiffs are proper representatives of the proposed class, because they are members of the class described in Paragraph 63 above. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Each Plaintiff has suffered the living conditions at Vienna in violation of the federal Constitution, federal law and all other applicable laws.
67. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the members of the proposed class and have no interests in conflict with those of the proposed class. Plaintiffs have retained competent attorneys who are experienced in class action and complex litigation.
68. The proposed class may properly be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), because Defendants have acted in a manner generally applicable to the class as a whole, making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.
16

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 17 of 70 Page ID #684
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Unconstitutional Conditions Of Confinement Under The Eighth Amendment In Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 69. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the foregoing Paragraphs 1 to 68 of their Complaint as if stated fully herein. 70. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment. 71. The protections of the Eighth Amendment apply equally to the states and all divisions and entities thereof, including departments of corrections, prison facilities and officers acting in their official capacities. 72. Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class have a right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. 73. By the facts and actions described above regarding the conditions of confinement at Vienna, Defendants are subjecting Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class to a serious deprivation of basic human needs, including through exposure to, infliction of and failure to address the following conditions: a. vastly overcrowded living conditions; b. rats, mice, cockroaches, spiders, rodent feces and other insects and vermin; c. inadequate ventilation; d. excessive heat; e. excessive cold;
17

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 18 of 70 Page ID #685
f. inadequate sanitation, including malfunctioning toilets, sinks and showers;
g. defective plumbing; h. raw sewage, rust, mold, mildew, rain water and flooding and pooling water; i. inadequate, soiled and tattered clothing and bedding materials; j. insufficient recreational, educational and vocational training opportunities; k. unclean drinking water; l. unsanitary dining facilities filled with rats, cockroaches spiders and other vermin; and m. the threat of violence among prisoners due to the deplorable living conditions and insufficient correctional staff. 74. These deprivations and the risks they pose violate contemporary standards of decency and deny prisoners minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities. 75. These deprivations of basic human needs are serious and excessive, given that they pose serious harm or serious risk of harm to the prisoners’ health and safety. 76. Despite having actual knowledge of the serious risks posed to the prisoners’ health and safety, Defendants have disregarded those risks, taking little if any action to try to address the deprivations of the prisoners’ basic human needs brought about by the conditions of confinement. 77. As such, Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference toward serious deprivations of the prisoners’ basic human needs.
18

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 19 of 70 Page ID #686
78. At all relevant times, Defendants acted in their official capacity under color of state law.
79. Defendants’ actions have deprived the prisoners of their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and demonstrate a reckless and callous disregard of their rights.
80. By the acts described above, Defendants have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
81. Defendants’ actions have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs great, immediate and irreparable harm if such actions are permitted to continue.
82. Given Defendants’ past actions, combined with their repeated refusal to acknowledge or address the deplorable conditions at Vienna, it is not only probable but likely that Defendants will continue to act in a similar manner toward Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class in the future.
83. Plaintiffs and the members of the class have no adequate remedy at law for Defendants’ failure to provide conditions of confinement that comply with the United States Constitution, federal law and other applicable laws as a result of the conduct complained of herein. As such, Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class are entitled to an order compelling Defendants to comply with the Constitution, federal law and all other applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: a. For an order that this action be maintained as a class action
pursuant to the Court’s powers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and defining the class as described above in Paragraph 63;
19

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 20 of 70 Page ID #687
b. For an order of permanent injunctive relief, compelling Defendants to comply with the Constitution, federal law and other applicable laws;
c. For costs, including attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
d. For such other and further legal, equitable and other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II – DECLARATORY RELIEF Unconstitutional Conditions Of Confinement Under The
Eighth Amendment In Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 84. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the foregoing Paragraphs 1 to 83 of their Complaint as if stated fully herein. 85. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment. 86. The protections of the Eighth Amendment apply equally to the states and all divisions and entities thereof, including departments of corrections, prison facilities and officers acting in their official capacities. 87. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class have a right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. 88. By the facts and actions described above regarding the conditions of confinement at Vienna, Defendants are subjecting and have subjected Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class to a serious deprivation of basic human needs, including through exposure to, infliction of and failure to address the following conditions:
a. vastly overcrowded living conditions;
20

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 21 of 70 Page ID #688
b. rats, mice, cockroaches, spiders, rodent feces and other insects and vermin;
c. inadequate ventilation; d. excessive heat; e. excessive cold; f. inadequate sanitation, including malfunctioning toilets, sinks and showers; g. defective plumbing; h. raw sewage, rust, mold, mildew, rain water and flooding and pooling water; i. inadequate, soiled and tattered clothing and bedding materials; j. insufficient recreational, educational and vocational training opportunities; k. unclean drinking water; l. unsanitary dining facilities filled with rats, cockroaches, spiders and other vermin; and/or m. the threat of violence among prisoners due to the deplorable living conditions and insufficient correctional staff. 89. These deprivations and the risks they pose violate contemporary standards of decency and deny prisoners minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities. 90. These deprivations of basic human needs are serious and excessive, given that they pose serious harm or serious risk of harm to the prisoners’ health and safety.
21

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 22 of 70 Page ID #689
91. Despite having actual knowledge of the serious risks posed to the prisoners’ health and safety, Defendants have disregarded those risks, taking little if any action to try to address the deprivations of the prisoners’ basic human needs brought about by the conditions of confinement.
92. As such, Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference toward serious deprivations of the prisoners’ basic human needs.
93. At all relevant times, Defendants acted in their official capacity under color of state law.
94. Defendants’ actions have deprived the prisoners of their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and demonstrate a reckless and callous disregard of their rights.
95. By the acts described above, a ripe and justiciable controversy exists between the parties regarding the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
96. Given Defendants’ past actions combined with their repeated refusal to acknowledge or address the deplorable conditions at Vienna, it is not only probable but likely that Defendants will continue to act in a similar manner toward Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: a. For an order that this action be maintained as a class action
pursuant to the Court’s powers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and defining the class as described above in Paragraph 63;
b. For an order declaring that Defendants, individually and collectively, have subjected Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class to
22

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 23 of 70 Page ID #690

conditions of confinement, both individual and in aggregate, that deprive Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class of their rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, federal law and other applicable law;
c. For costs, including attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
d. For such other and further legal, equitable and other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: October 29, 2013
Mark S. Mester mark.mester@lw.com
Kathleen P. Lally kathleen.lally@lw.com
Robert C. Collins III robert.collins@lw.com
Malorie Medellin Malorie.medellin@lw.com
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5800 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 Facsimile: (312) 993-9767
Alan Mills alanmills@comcast.net
UPTOWN PEOPLE’S LAW CENTER 4413 North Sheridan Chicago, Illinois 60640 Telephone: (773) 769-1411 Facsimile: (773) 769-2224

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Kathleen P. Lally One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson and J.B. Washup, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

23

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 24 of 70 Page ID #691

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BENTON DIVISION

MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL LEE and

)

KENDRICK PEARSON, on behalf of

)

themselves and all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v.

)

)

S. A. GODINEZ, Director of the Illinois

)

Department of Corrections and RANDY

)

DAVIS, Warden of Vienna Correctional

)

Center, in their official capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00704-JPG CJRA TRACK: D
PRESUMPTIVE TRIAL MONTH: July 14, 2014
Judge J. Phil Gilbert Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier

Exhibit A B
C D

EXHIBITS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Description Sept. 27, 2011 Monitoring Visit to Vienna Correctional Center by the John Howard Association of Illinois Limited Scope Compliance Examination for the Two Years Ended June 30, 2008, Vienna Correctional Center, State of Illinois, Department of Corrections (excerpt) July 1, 2013 Illinois Department of Corrections, Quarterly Report Jan. 5, 2012 Memorandum of Warden Randy Davis

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 25 of 70 Page ID #692
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 26 of 70 Page ID #693
Monitoring Visit to Vienna Correctional Center 9/27/2011
The John Howard Association (JHA) visited Vienna Correctional Center (Vienna) on September 27, 2011. It is a male minimum-security prison located in Vienna, Illinois about six hours south of Chicago.
Vital Statistics: Population: 1,616 Rated Capacity: 685 Average Annual Cost Per Inmate: $20,714 Average Age: 35 Source: DOC, 12/19/2011
Key Observations • As of December 19, 2011, Vienna is Illinois’ most overcrowded prison. It is designed to hold 685 inmates, but houses more than 1,600, which makes it about 240 percent over its design capacity. • Most of Vienna’s inmates serve less than one year at the facility. • If Governor Quinn restored Meritorious Good Time, the early-release program he suspended in late 2009, Vienna could potentially empty its most overcrowded, dilapidated housing areas. • At the time of JHA’s visit in September 2011, Vienna had only one mental health professional to meet the needs of more than 1,600 inmates. • Approximately 12 percent of Vienna’s population is 50 or older. The racialethnic makeup of Vienna’s population is roughly 67 percent African American, 21 percent White, 11 percent Hispanic, and approximately 1 percent Native American and Asian combined.

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 27 of 70 Page ID #694
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 2 of 18
Monitoring Visit to Vienna Correctional Center 9/27/2011
Executive Summary
On September 27, 2011, JHA visited Vienna Correctional Center (Vienna). Vienna is a Level Six minimum-security adult male facility that houses mostly low-level offenders. It also operates Dixon Springs-Impact Incarceration Program (IIP), a co-ed boot camp. Located on the fringes of Shawnee National Forest and adjacent to Shawnee Correctional Center, a male minimum-security prison, Vienna is about 350 miles south of Chicago and 170 miles west of Nashville, Tennessee.
Vienna represents the best of what Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) can be and the worst of what it has become through a lack of vital resources and severe overcrowding.
For most of its more than 40-year history, Vienna was widely regarded as Illinois’ most successful and innovative prison. It was designed to function as a small town where inmates could learn how to become responsible citizens. Until a little over 10 years ago, the facility did not have a fence, and inmates did not wear uniforms.
Education was critical to Vienna’s rehabilitative mission. The prison’s education and vocational program rivaled—and in some cases surpassed—the area’s best technical high schools and post-secondary institutions. In fact, Vienna’s programming was so good that local area residents took classes in the prison with inmates.
During this period, Vienna embodied a mutually beneficial relationship between prison and community that went far beyond the typical economic support prisons provide to their local economies. Up until the mid 1990s, Vienna inmates volunteered in the local community, umpired baseball games on weekends, and even ran an Emergency Technician Program, which supplied the surrounding area with a 24-hour ambulance service staffed by specially trained inmates.
Today Vienna has gone from being Illinois’ most innovative and successful prison to its most overcrowded. Although the facility was designed to hold 685 inmates, it now houses more than 1,600 people. Years of neglect and lack of essential maintenance and upkeep have made these conditions worse, as mostly low-level offenders are crammed into dilapidated buildings infested with mice and cockroaches.
While Vienna’s staff and administration are acutely aware of the problems they face, they believe if given the appropriate resources they could turn the facility around. They point to current renovations, which include a desperately needed re-roofing project. They also note how last spring, when the region faced some of the worst flooding it has ever seen,

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 28 of 70 Page ID #695
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 3 of 18
inmates and staff volunteered and helped prepare more than 400,000 sandbags, which saved countless homes and buildings from serious damage.
At JHA’s meeting with Vienna’s administration, a senior member aptly described the current state of the facility: “Vienna is a good place with a proud history in need of help.” Most urgently, Vienna needs the help of the governor and the legislature to enact legislation and support programs that will safely reduce the state’s prison population, which has reached almost 50,000 inmates, a record high. In particular, Illinois needs to find more cost-effective alternatives to incarceration for low-level, non-violent offenders who have swelled minimum-security prisons like Vienna at great cost and little benefit to taxpayers.
With a reduction in population, DOC could return Vienna to a model, re-entry prison that inmates could earn their way into through good behavior. This proposal is based not on liberal or conservative approaches to crime, but on cost-effective use of tax dollars and state resources. Ultimately, the choice for elected officials is not whether to spend money on its prison system. It is whether to put money into smart re-entry programming or an endless cycle of re-incarceration.
Recommendations:
(1) The Illinois Governor and General Assembly must reduce the prison population through sentencing reform, enact a safe replacement for Meritorious Good Time, and provide Vienna and other DOC facilities with the funding and staffing needed to meet the population’s basic medical and mental health needs. If such action is not taken, it is all but inevitable that this issue will end up being litigated in the courts.
(2) Assuming elected officials find ways to safely reduce the state’s prison population, DOC should consider investing in Vienna and making it into a premiere re-entry prison which inmates must earn their way into.
(3) As soon as it can feasibly do so, Vienna’s administration should remove inmates from the second and third floor of Building 19, the prison’s most decrepit, overcrowded living quarters.
(4) Vienna should consider using the segregation bullpen to house inmates only for short periods of time due to the fact that it is unfit for long-term living.
(5) To address the needs of its population, Vienna needs more mental health staff.
(6) DOC and Vienna should continue its efforts to rehab the facility.
(7) As recent studies have shown that prison visits reduce inmates’ likelihood of recidivating, Vienna should improve its visiting area, making it more child and family friendly.

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 29 of 70 Page ID #696
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 4 of 18
Introduction
This report examines the following issues: Vienna: Past and Present; Housing and Living Conditions; Segregation; Physical and Mental Health; Staffing & Inmate Programming; Visiting Area; and Population Demographics.
Vienna: Past & Present
It is impossible to understand Vienna today and its unrealized future potential without appreciating its unique past. Opened in 1965, Vienna was once widely regarded as the “most successful state prison in Illinois.” 1 The facility was designed as if it were a small town, complete with a fishing pond, athletic fields, and dorms for which inmates had their own keys. For the first three decades of its existence, the facility did not have a fence, and for a short period, the prison was co-ed. As one study from the 1970s put it, Vienna “approaches the quality of [a] non-penal institution. Buildings resembling garden apartments are built around a ‘town square’ complete with churches, schools, shops, and library. Paths lead off to ‘neighborhoods’ where ‘homes’ provide private rooms in small clusters.”2
The idea behind this design was to provide a rehabilitative environment for inmates to learn how to become responsible citizens. Education was key to this mission. The prison was known for its programs, which “equal[ed] or surpass[ed] those of many technical high schools.”3 Until the mid 1990s, the prison offered classes not only to its inmates, but also to citizens of the surrounding communities, who would come to the facility to take evening college classes and participate in daytime vocational programs.
Vienna blurred the boundaries between prison and the surrounding community. Of course, like most prisons, the facility employed a significant number of local residents and helped support the local economy. More surprisingly, inmates would umpire local baseball games and volunteer for community projects. The prison even ran a program called the Emergency Technician Program, which was an “ambulance service manned by eighteen trained inmates working twenty-four-hour shifts.”4
In Vienna’s early days, Illinois’ prison system was a different place than it is now. For most of the 1970s, Illinois prisons held less than 10,000 people. Through multiple factors—including the war on drugs, the war on crime, and the de-institutionalization of
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
1 James B. Jacobs, Notes on Policy and Practice, Social Service Review (December 1976) 623.
2 Jacobs, Notes on Policy and Practice, 623.
3 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals: Report on Corrections (Washington, D.C.: 1973), 345.
4 Jacobs, 628.

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 30 of 70 Page ID #697
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 5 of 18
mental health— that number began to steadily increase. 5 Today, Illinois has almost 50,000 people in its prisons, which is almost a 400 percent increase in four decades.

During this period of unprecedented growth in the prison population, the prison system

became not only more crowded, but also

Number of Inmates in Illinois Department of Corrections 1970-2011

more violent. As veteran DOC staff and inmates from the 1980s and early 1990s recall, gangs had almost complete control of prison operations. Assaults on inmates

60000

and staff were commonplace, and in some

50000

prisons, gang leaders were so powerful that they assigned new inmates to cells

40000

based on their gang affiliation.

30000

Ultimately Illinois’ prison violence spilled

20000 10000

into Vienna’s model correctional community.	   In 1993, inmates staged what the local state attorney called a “mini riot.”

0

Shortly after that incident, an inmate

sexually assaulted a correction officer and

1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

left her for dead. DOC officials soon

erected a fence around the facility, citizens

stopped going into the prison for classes, and the prison’s inmate-run Emergency Technician Program was shuttered. 6

These events effectively ended what the Chicago Tribune called Vienna’s “experiment with trust.” Around the same time, as the facility struggled to retain its programming focus, funding for prison education diminished. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which, among other things, banned prisoners from using Pell Grants to pay for classes. As Illinois’ finances began to fail, governors and legislators found funding for prison education an attractive item to cut from the state’s budget.

Then, in 2002, Governor George Ryan proposed closing Vienna to cut the state’s budget. Although Governor Ryan eventually dropped the plan, state government seemed to abandon the prison and treat it as if it were a closed facility. Several critical administrative positions were left vacant for years. Essential upkeep and maintenance ceased, as requests for repairs were either ignored or never submitted.

When JHA visited Vienna in September of 2011, we found staff and a new administration trying to dig the facility out from years of neglect and disrepair. A couple
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
5 On the rise of prison population, see Heather Ann Thompson, Why Mass Incarceration Matters, Journal of American History, (December 2010), 703-734; and Mark Mauer, Race to Incarcerate (New Press, 2006).
6 “Model prison can no longer escape violence,” Chicago Tribune, October 22, 1996.

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 31 of 70 Page ID #698
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 6 of 18
of months earlier, a housing unit had to be closed due to mold infestation. At the time of our visit, administration was trying to make the building inhabitable by tearing out the dry wall and fixing windows and shower areas. The administration noted that when they first arrived in April 2011, nearly every building had serious leak and rusting problems. During JHA’s visit, Vienna’s staff and administration described several on-going renovation projects, including a desperately needed re-roofing effort. They also noted how staff and inmates helped prepare more than 400,000 sandbags, a reminder of the partnership between prison and community that Vienna used to represent.
Despite the facility’s disrepair, JHA believes that the staff and surrounding community are ready to restore Vienna to what it once was. For this to happen though, Illinois’ elected officials first must stop wasting precious resources on imprisoning low-level, non-violent offenders who currently fill prisons like Vienna and instead continue to invest in safe and cost-effective alternatives to incarceration, like Adult Redeploy.7 This would not only help decrease Illinois’ overcrowded prison system, but allow DOC to increase programming for inmates in all of its prisons. In so doing, DOC could learn from the lessons of Vienna’s past and turn the facility into the state’s premiere re-entry prison, an institution which inmates must earn their way into and which offers innovative educational and vocational programs to facilitate their successful return to free society. This proposal is based not on liberal or conservative approaches to crime, but on costeffective use of tax dollars and state resources. Ultimately, the choice for elected officials is not whether to spend money on its prison system. It is whether to put money into smart re-entry programming or an endless cycle of re-incarceration.
Crowding
Vienna is Illinois’ most crowded prison. It is designed to hold 685 inmates, but as of December 19, 2011, housed more than 1,600 people, making it almost 240 percent over its design capacity.
As of the publication of this report, Illinois has almost 50,000 people in its prison system, which is designed to hold about 33,000. Although Illinois’ prison population has exceeded its design capacity for decades, the number of prisoners has increased by almost 10 percent since 2010. This sudden surge in the state’s population is largely due Governor Pat Quinn’s suspension of Meritorious Good Time (MGT), a 30-year-old, statute-based program that allowed inmates to earn as many as 180 days off their sentences.8
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
7 From Adult Redeploy’s website: “Adult Redeploy Illinois was established by the Crime Reduction Act (Public Act 96-0761) to provide financial incentives to local jurisdictions for programs that allow diversion of non-violent offenders from state prisons by providing community-based services. Grants are provided to counties, groups of counties, and judicial circuits to increase programming in their areas, in exchange for reducing the number of people they send to the Illinois Department of Corrections.” To learn more, go to http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/redeploy/.
8 Malcolm Young, “Setting the Record Straight: The Truth About ‘Early Release,’” October 28, 2010.

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 32 of 70 Page ID #699

Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 7 of 18
As most inmates sentenced for violent offenses were ineligible for MGT, low-level offenders have been the most affected by its suspension. Consequently, while every prison struggles with the state’s exploding inmate population, medium and minimumsecurity prisons, like Vienna, which overwhelmingly incarcerate low-level offenders serving short sentences, face the most severe overcrowding. For instance, one administrator JHA interviewed at Vienna noted that if the governor restored MGT, they could empty the most decrepit and overcrowded parts of the prison.

The overcrowding of Illinois’ medium and minimum-security prisons can undermine security and proper functioning on multiple levels. As JHA noted in its 2011 report on the

Average length of stay at Vienna (Reported 9/25/11) 12 months or less 53% 1-2 years 26%

Northern Reception and Classification Center, 3-4 years 21%

“administrators at several medium and minimum-security facilities independently have

reported to JHA that, with the increased population, they have received a substantial

influx of inmates poorly suited to be housed at their facilities because they present too

great a security risk or have too severe mental health problems and treatment needs that the facilities are not designed to handle.”9

On JHA’s visit to Vienna, we heard several examples of such classification problems. For instance, the administration noted they recently sent back an inmate to NRC on discovering that he had an outstanding warrant for murder. This is a problem because, as a minimum-security prison, Vienna allows a degree of freedom that an inmate facing a murder charge might use to escape. Another example: administration recently returned an inmate that had been sent to Vienna’s boot camp, because boot camp requires participants to engage in strenuous exercise and activity and the inmate was so physically impaired that he could hardly walk. As described by one administrator, the inmate barely had the physical strength and capacity to get off the bus at Vienna, let alone participate in a boot camp.

On top of the classification problems, administration has no choice but to pack its living quarters and house prisoners in unsuitable living areas because Vienna has significantly more prisoners than it was designed to hold. This kind of crowding also stretches vital but limited resources, from programming to healthcare. These conditions frustrate rehabilitation efforts and create a dangerous environment for inmates to live and staff to work.

At JHA, we often hear in response to our work that prisoners deserve to live in these kinds of harsh conditions, and that doing so will teach them not to break the law. These assertions fail to appreciate two vital points. First, housing prisoners in overly harsh conditions hurts not only prisoners, but also public safety as it ends up costing taxpayers more money with increased crime and high recidivism rates. More than 90 percent of people who are sent to prison eventually are released, most after serving a short sentence.
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
9 See JHA Monitoring Report of Stateville Northern Reception & Classification Center, July 12, 2011, found at http://www.thejha.org/NRC.

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 33 of 70 Page ID #700
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 8 of 18
For instance, most prisoners at Vienna serve less than one year before they are released. While there is no evidence to suggest that exposure to harsh and overcrowded conditions makes prisoners less likely to commit new crimes, there is strong evidence that it makes prisoners worse and more likely to re-offend when they are released.10
Second, harsh prison conditions can severely undermine prison security. Studies confirm that poor prison conditions correspond to significantly higher rates of violence and staff assaults.11 In addition, such conditions have a profoundly damaging impact on the physical and mental well-being of staff, by increasing the potential for violence, escalating workload pressures and making it much more difficult for staff to monitor inmates and safely and effectively perform their jobs.12 A long time Vienna correctional officer that JHA spoke with expressed the same opinion, and said that most correctional officers see overcrowding and lack of inmate programming to be serious security problems because they lead to more fights and staff assaults.
In short, packing prisons beyond their capacity and allowing prison conditions to deteriorate serves no one’s interests—not inmates, not staff, and not the public.
Housing & Living Conditions
The layout of Vienna is organized around a town square concept, with a centrally located dining facility, library, chapel, commissary, barbershop and gymnasium. Six doublecelled housing units are situated around the square and connected to each other by paths. From the outside, the units look extremely non-institutional, and resemble small apartment complexes more than prison housing. The presence of flowers and landscaping on the prison grounds adds to the residential feeling.
On our visit, JHA toured Building 1, a typical general population-housing unit. When we arrived, dozens of inmates crowded the building’s dayroom, which consisted of a table on one side which inmates used to play cards and board games and a small television set mounted on the wall on the other side. JHA interviewed several inmates in Building 1, all of whom had similar complaints and observations about their living conditions. They 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
10 See M. Keith Chang, Yale University and Cowles Foundation, Jesse M. Sapiro, University of Chicago and NBER, Do Harsh Prison Conditions Reduce Recidivism? A Discontinuity Based Approach, available at http: //faculty.som.yale.edu/keithchen/papers/Final_ALER07.pdf.
11 See David M. Bierie, Is Tougher Better? The Impact of Physical Prison Conditions On Inmate Violence, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (April 13, 2011), available at http: // ijo.sagepub.com/ content/early/2011/04 /09/ 0306624X11405157.full.pdf
12 See David M. Bierie, The Impact of Prison Conditions on Staff Well-Being, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (November 30, 2010) available at http://ijo. sagepub.com/ content/ early/2010/ 11/29/ 0306624X10388383.full.pdf+html; Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons, Executive Directives and Prison Violence (2005) available at http :// www. prisoncommission.org/ statements/ thompkins_douglas.pdf.

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 34 of 70 Page ID #701
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 9 of 18
noted the building had a significant cockroach problem. During JHA’s interview with administration, the administration acknowledged that there were bugs, mice, and other “varmints” throughout the facility. The administration believed that the varmint problem was caused by its past pest-control vendor who had provided substandard treatment due to the state’s failure to timely pay for its services. At the time of JHA’s visit, administration had just finished contracting with a new pest-control vendor and hoped it would provide better results.
Inmates also noted the bathroom was generally disgusting and in a state of disrepair, which JHA staff and volunteers confirmed. A rusty-colored liquid dripped from the ceilings, which inmates had to artfully dodge as they brushed their teeth or used the restroom. The walls were similarly discolored with patches of rust and grime.
Inmates in Building 1 also reported that air constantly blew through the air vents, making the cells very cold. Some inmates had stuffed toilet paper into the vents to block the airflow. They indicated that they risked being issued a disciplinary ticket for doing this, but that it was worth the risk, because their cells were uncomfortably cold.
Throughout JHA’s visit, we also heard from both inmates and staff about the lack of property boxes for inmates to store their personal belongings. Administration acknowledged this was a significant issue and estimated they were short more than 400 property boxes. If inmates do not have a secure place to store their belongings, they are inviting theft, which could lead not only to the loss of property, but also fights between inmates. Administration explained that it was doing everything it could to order more property boxes and repair broken ones.
Multiple inmates also complained of being issued underwear and clothing that was stained, heavily used, and worn threadbare. Based on the tattered clothing JHA saw inmates wearing on the date of our visit, it is fair to say these inmates’ reports were accurate. Administration reported that in addition to the clothes inmates are already wearing on arriving at the facility, they are given two pairs of pants, two pairs of socks, two boxers, two shirts and one coat. Laundry service is available five days a week. Shoes are issued on an “as needed” basis. Inmates are also provided with one blanket, one pillowcase and one set of sheets. General population inmates have the opportunity to shop at the commissary about twice a month, and are allowed one hour of outside recreation/yard time three days a week, for a total of three hours yard time per week.
JHA also had the opportunity to visit Building 19, a three-story structure that houses both general population and segregation inmates and is one of Vienna’s original buildings. The first floor of Unit 19 houses segregation inmates in both double-bunk cells and a small “bullpen” area. There were 26 inmates in segregation on the date of JHA’s visit. The second and third floors of Building 19 house inmates on double bunk-beds in dormitories with communal living, shower and bathroom areas. On the date of JHA’s visit, 200 inmates were housed on the second floor of Building 19 and 400 inmates were housed on the third floor.

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 35 of 70 Page ID #702
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 10 of 18
JHA found housing conditions on the second and third floors of Building 19 to be deplorable and generally unfit for the 600 hundred men who lived there. As JHA entered the second floor, we saw hundreds of inmates with nothing to do except pace around the room or huddle around a small television in the corner of the room. A Vienna staff member seemed to recognize the stunned look on our faces. “This is a nightmare,” he said quietly to one of JHA’s staff. “This should not be.”
The second floor of Building 19 features a large open area lined with metal bunk beds for approximately 200 inmates. The third floor is divided into four separate quadrants, filled with metal bunk beds for about 400 inmates. On both floors, windows were broken and without screens. As a result, birds had flown into the living areas and built nests in the light fixtures. Inmates complained that mice, cockroaches, and other insects were everywhere.
JHA volunteers saw what appeared to be rodent droppings on the floors of Building 19. Multiple inmates reported that rodent and vermin infestation was even worse in the dietary unit and dining hall. An inmate who worked in the dietary unit confirmed that mice were everywhere in the dining hall and frequently ran across the floors during meals. Inmates also reported that they were not given sufficient time to consume meals, as they were only allotted five minutes to eat.
Inmates told JHA that because Building 19 lacked air conditioning, the building was unbearably hot in the summer time, and because several windows were broken, it could become frigid in the winter. Inmates use sheets and paper to cover broken windows. The administration indicated it was in the process of soliciting contractors to have the windows fixed, and hoped that the project would be completed before harsh winter weather set in.
The metal bunk beds were also in varying states of disrepair. One inmate showed a JHA staff member how some of the beds were not bolted to the floor and could easily tip over if a heavier inmate shifted his weight unevenly when attempting to climb onto the top bunk. Another inmate showed a JHA staff member how several top bunk mattresses lacked sufficient support. As a result, when a person laid down on the top bunk, his mattress would sink and, in some instance, come close to touching the person in the bunk below.
In the living area, half of the lights were not functioning. Some fixtures showed clear water damage and appeared beyond repair. On the third floor, JHA volunteers observed large brown rectangular ventilation units that did not appear to be functioning. The vents were covered in grime and dust.
JHA found conditions in the bathrooms on both floors to be particularly disturbing. On entering the second floor bathroom, a JHA volunteer noted a strong smell of fecal matter and sewage, which several inmates reported was a constant problem. The floors were wet and slippery. One section of the bathroom had a significant amount of water leaking from the ceiling, which an inmate was trying to mop up. Throughout the bathroom, pipes

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 36 of 70 Page ID #703
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 11 of 18
in the ceiling were exposed and in serious disrepair. The second floor bathroom contained three toilets and three sinks, but inmates reported the toilets often do not work. Inmates also reported that when using the toilets, brown liquid drips onto them from the ceiling above.
Because the second floor bathroom lacks showers, all Building 19 inmates must share the seven showers that are located on the third floor. Inmates reported that several of these showers were unusable because they lacked sufficient water pressure and merely dribbled out a small stream of water. A second floor inmate explained that at 3:00 p.m. each day, correctional staff usher inmates from the second floor to the third floor to shower. Because of the sheer number of persons demanding to use the showers, it is rare that all second floor inmates have the opportunity to shower each day.
In addition to showers, the third floor bathroom contained four toilets, four sinks and two urinals. Upon walking into the third floor bathroom, JHA volunteers immediately noted a strong paint smell and signs that it had been recently painted. Despite these cosmetic efforts, the air was noticeably stuffy, humid, and fetid, and the shower seemed to lack functioning ventilation. As in the second floor bathroom, water dripped from the ceilings’ exposed and rusted pipes. Apart from the conditions of the bathroom, the third floor had only one functioning phone at the time of JHA’s visit. Already frustrated by the conditions of their confinement, inmates reported that the lack of adequate phones has led to repeated fights.
Exacerbating the situation, there are only a handful of correctional officers assigned to monitor inmates in Building 19. Administration reported that two correctional officers are assigned to monitor the second floor and three correctional officers are assigned to the third floor 24 hours a day. However, a correctional officer that JHA spoke with indicated to the contrary that only two correctional officers are assigned to the third floor during the night shift.
In either case, JHA finds these security staffing levels to be insufficient and unsafe. Indeed, an inmate reported to JHA that, in the absence of a sufficient security presence, inmates often begin fights and “jump” each other on the stairway between the second and third floors because there are no correctional officers assigned to monitor the area. Perhaps the most powerful condemnation of Building 19’s conditions came from an inmate that JHA spoke with who was recently released from Vienna, but previously lived in Building 19’s dorms. He reported that, while he was at Vienna, he knew several inmates who purposefully started fights and committed major rule infractions solely for purposes of being transferred from Vienna to another facility. Although these inmates apparently recognized their infractions would result in a lengthy period of segregation, the loss of good time credit time, and serving a longer sentence in higher security, they found these preferable to living in Building 19’s awful conditions.
Segregation
Vienna’s segregation cells are located on the first and third floors of Building 19. They

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 37 of 70 Page ID #704
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 12 of 18
can hold approximately 30 people in total. The first floor segregation area consists of double-bunk cells and a bullpen area that holds roughly ten inmates. The third floor contains several additional individual segregation cells.
During JHA’s visit, most of the inmates we interviewed were in segregation for refusing housing. According to administration, inmates typically will not spend longer than two weeks in segregation because inmates who commit serious infractions leading to longer segregation times are usually “stepped up” and transferred to a higher security facility. Administration further reported that, at the time of JHA’s visit, none of the inmates in segregation were receiving psychotropic medications or mental health treatment.
Segregation inmates are allowed one hour of out-of-cell recreation time per week and to shower once every three days. In addition, segregation inmates are permitted to have one one-hour “no contact” visit with family behind a glass enclosure each week. Segregation inmates are fed all meals in their cells and their access to personal property is limited, as televisions and radios are forbidden. Access to commissary is also limited. Once a week, segregation inmates are permitted only to buy writing paper, envelopes or shower shoes from the commissary. Hygiene products and pens are provided on an “as needed” basis, as is access to library services.
As in Vienna’s other living units, JHA saw evidence and heard multiple reports of cockroach and insect infestation in segregation housing. However, we were most struck by the exceedingly harsh living conditions of the bullpen segregation area. The bullpen, which contained a single toilet and a single sink, was cramped, dark, windowless, poorly ventilated and generally miserable in every respect. On the date of JHA’s visit, it housed ten inmates in double bunk beds. These inmates, left to lie on their beds for hours in the dark, were thoroughly despondent and dejected. Unlike the inmates in segregation that JHA generally encounters on visits, the inmates in the bullpen were neither animated nor eager to speak with us, but seemed listless and defeated.
The administration acknowledged that the bullpen was far from an ideal place for housing segregation inmates. It indicated that, if possible, it would like to knock down the bullpen’s walls to create individual segregation cells. The administration nevertheless found the bullpen to be workable and tolerable, at least for the foreseeable future, on the basis that inmates were generally not housed there for more than a few weeks. JHA asked the administration to consider the possibility of mitigating the harsh living conditions of bullpen inmates by giving them more yard time. The administration stated that increasing yard time was not a top priority given the facility’s more urgent, immediate challenges, but that it would consider the possibility.
Physical and Mental Health
While Vienna has a medical observation room and a mental health unit, the facility lacks an infirmary and crisis cells for inmates experiencing severe psychological episodes. When inmates require an infirmary or are placed on crisis/suicide watch, they must be housed in Shawnee Correctional Center, a male medium-security prison that is adjacent

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 38 of 70 Page ID #705
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 13 of 18
to Vienna.

Both the medical and mental health offices are located on the first floor of Building 19.

The facility is authorized for and employs one full-time physician and one full-time

pharmacy technician. While authorized to employ eleven full-time nurses, Vienna was

understaffed with only ten nurses at the time of JHA’s visit. On average, nurses must see

and treat 70 to 90 inmates on the sick call each day. In addition, medications must be

distributed to inmates through medication lines conducted twice daily out of the centrally

located town square.

Number of Vienna Inmates Diagnosed with Chronic

According to the health care

Illnesses (Reported 9/27/2011)

administrator, medical staff Asthma 138

members are managing their Cancer 4

caseloads fairly well, despite a Diabetes 64

great need for more nurses. At Hepatitis C 94

the same time, the Chronic Hepatitis B 1

administrator noted that the facility struggles to provide care for inmates with chronic illnesses (see chart), as well as a growing number of mentally

HIV 22 Hypertension 322 Seizures 32 Tuberculosis 29

ill inmates with medication needs. A mental health staff member noted that Vienna’s lack

of crisis cells in particular poses a huge problem, given this growing number of mentally

ill inmates. At the time of JHA’s visit, Vienna had only one part-time psychiatrist (eight

hours per week) and one full-time on site psychologist (40 hours per week) to address the

needs of almost 1,700 inmates.

JHA had the opportunity to speak with Vienna’s psychologist, and was profoundly impressed with her dedication and professionalism. However, JHA believes that this mental health staffing level cannot possibly begin to meet the needs of an inmate population this size. We also believe that these work conditions will eventually exhaust and burn out even the most dedicated and qualified staff.

The mental health staff member we spoke with noted that she tries to check each inmate who is receiving mental health treatment every 30 days, which means she needs to see about 20 inmates a day. Even as she aims to work at this feverous pace, she is still 62 percent behind. This is not surprising given the demanding mental health needs of Vienna’s population.

According to staff, the number of inmates receiving mental health treatment has tripled in the last three years. At the time of JHA’s visit, 196 inmates were under psychiatric care. Of these, 152 inmates were receiving psychotropic medications, none involuntarily. The mental health staff member explained that she currently was treating inmates with the following diagnoses: 135 affective disorders, 35 psychotic disorders, five developmentally disabled, and the rest inmates with a variety of general to severe mental disorders. She suspected that some inmates’ mental illnesses were exacerbated by the

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 39 of 70 Page ID #706
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 14 of 18
anxiety of being in a less structured environment than they have grown accustomed to in other prisons. It is equally probable that the high stress from Vienna’s overcrowded environment and extremely poor living conditions exacerbate or independently generate new symptoms of mental illnesses.13
The mental health staff also described how the lack of crisis cells interferes with her work. When inmates decompensate and need to be closely monitored, Vienna’s staff must take them to Shawnee’s crisis unit. In a typical month, Vienna’s health care staff sends about six to eight inmates to Shawnee for this purpose. Even though these inmates are housed in Shawnee’s crisis unit, they remain Vienna’s responsibility. Consequently, Vienna’s sole mental health care worker must regularly visit these inmates, which is important, but takes her away from the facility and the other inmates in her care.
To address the lack of medical and mental health staffing, DOC utilizes telemedicine, a program that uses telecommunications and information technology to administer health care remotely. Both the heath care administrator and mental health staff were ambivalent about telemedicine. In general, they said telemedicine relies on two things that Vienna currently lacks: adequate support staff and an electronic system for medical records
In addition to all these issues, Vienna lacks sufficient dental providers to meet the needs of its population. While the facility is authorized for and employs one full-time dentist and one full-time dental assistant, it does not have a dental hygienist to perform teeth cleanings. Further, it has only one functioning dental chair. Consequently, there are substantial backlogs for inmates to receive dental treatment. At the time of JHA’s visit, the administration reported the following wait times: one to two weeks wait for tooth extractions; two years for dentures; two years for fillings; and two and a half years for teeth cleaning.
Staffing & Inmate Programming
Severe overcrowding, understaffing and lack of programming at Vienna have placed a tremendous strain on correctional staff. A senior correctional officer reported to JHA that while he did not believe in “catering to inmates,” increasing programming, inmate jobs and regular recreation times at Vienna was important for safety reasons because inmate idleness and frustration had led to short tempers, increased staff assaults and inmate fighting. As this officer expressed, “We all want to be able to go to work, do our jobs, and come home at the end of the day.” This officer was heartened that money was finally being reinvested in Vienna to fix some of its severe physical plant issues, like broken windows in housing units and roofs that were collapsing. However, he was skeptical that the situation would improve significantly without increasing inmate programming and clerical and security staffing levels.
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
13 See Terry A. Kupers M.D., Trauma and Its Sequelae In Male Prisoners: Effects of Confinement, Overcrowding and Diminished Services, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry Vol. 66, Issue 2 (April, 1996) (discussing research that links prison overcrowding and diminished services to increased violence, psychiatric decompensation, suicide, hypertension, and other medical and mental health conditions).

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 40 of 70 Page ID #707
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 15 of 18
With 186 correctional officers, 16 correctional sergeants, and six shift supervisors, Vienna was considered “fully staffed” for these positions at the time of JHA’s visit. However, with 14 correctional lieutenants, it was well below its authorized staffing level of 17 lieutenants. Vienna was also severely understaffed with respect to clerical/ administrative support personnel. While authorized for 32 clerical support staff, only 25 of these positions were filled when JHA’s visited. Consequently, to make up for this insufficiency in clerical staff, three correctional officers had to be reassigned from their security duties to perform clerical work 22 days each month (for a total of 495 hours monthly).
Alongside of Vienna’s current staffing problems, it faces a critical wave of retirements, which, according to the administration, will “cripple” the facility and efforts to improve operations. There are 28 persons retiring, including some of the most senior, experienced staff. Among persons retiring: seven lieutenants, five sergeants, two dietary supervisors, two clinical services supervisors, two counselors, a secretary, three persons in the records office, and a supervisor at the boot camp.
At the time of JHA’s visit, there were four Adult Basic Education (ABE) classes offered. A total of 58 inmates were enrolled in these, and 170 inmates were on the waitlist for ABE classes. In addition, there were two GED classes in which 31 inmates were enrolled. A total of 43 inmates were on the waitlist for GED classes.
Vienna offers some vocational training to inmates, including courses in auto body, auto mechanics, commercial custodial work, food services, career technologies and cosmetology. Administration did not provide specific data to JHA on the number of inmates involved in vocational training, but indicated that the number was very small. The vast majority of Vienna’s inmates do not have the opportunity to participate in any educational or vocational courses.
Vienna’s administrators reported to JHA that when they first arrived at the facility, almost 90 percent of inmates had job assignments. As a result, Vienna was running $2,000 over budget each month in paying inmate wages. Administrators explained that to get the budget under control, they had to cut about 1,000 inmate jobs, which left a great number of inmates idle, frustrated, and without a means to earn money. According to administration, the job cuts were necessary, not only for budgetary reasons, but because there was not enough work to go around. Thus, multiple inmates were being assigned to jobs and getting paid for work that required only one man.
JHA agrees that budgetary constraint and fiscal responsibility are essential to a well-run facility. However, JHA remains troubled by the whole-scale cutting of inmate jobs at Vienna, particularly given the lack of other educational and vocational opportunities for Vienna inmates. Prison employment helps rehabilitate inmates, decrease recidivism, and reduce inmate idleness, increasing safety and security in the correctional environment.14 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
14	  See	  Kerry	  L.	  Pyle,	  Prison	  Employment:	  A	  Long-­Term	  Solution	  To	  the	  Overcrowding	  Crisis,	  77	  Boston	   University	  Law	  Review	  178	  (1997);	  Jessie	  L.	  Krienert,	  Mark	  S.	  Fleisher,	  Crime	  and	  Employment:	   Critical	  Issues	  in	  Crime	  Reduction	  for	  Corrections	  (2004	  AltaMira	  Press).	  

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 41 of 70 Page ID #708
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 16 of 18
To balance the needs of both rehabilitation and budgetary responsibility, Vienna’s administration should explore and seriously consider bringing an industry to Vienna, as this could help to both increase inmate employment and work skills and reduce costs to taxpayers through the sale of inmate-produced goods.
Visiting Area
General population inmates are allowed eight personal visits per month. Visits can occur on weekend days and on one weekday each week. There are no time limits on the visits, with the exception that when the visiting room becomes overcrowded, visits will be limited to two hours. Visiting hours are held Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Visitors and inmates can hold hands above the visiting tables and are allowed to hug and kiss once upon greeting and once upon leaving. Inmates are also permitted to hold their infant children. As previously stated, segregation inmates are limited to one one-hour “no contact” visit with immediate family members behind a glass enclosure each week.
JHA had the opportunity to see Vienna’s visiting room. While there some crayons and books for children, the area was otherwise very drab, dreary and institutional looking. Administration reported that work was scheduled to soon begin painting a mural in the visiting room. At the time of JHA’s visit, the visiting room was furnished with 16 tables, each table having four adjoining chairs. These furnishings were paint-chipped and in shabby condition, adding to the general gloominess of the surroundings.
As DOC refurbishes Vienna, it should improve the visiting area, making it more family and kid friendly. Visiting areas serve a vital function in any prison. They not only provide inmates with space to meet with family, friends, and loved ones, but they can also help reduce recidivism and save taxpayer money. A recent study from Minnesota Department of Corrections found that inmates who received regular visits were “significantly less likely to recidivate.”15
Moreover, parent-child visitation has beneficial effects on the emotional adjustment of children to the grief and loss caused by parental incarceration. Given that prison-visiting rooms are, in fact, public spaces often used by children, the needs of children for a physically and emotionally safe visiting environment should be recognized. Monochromatic visiting rooms areas with sparse metallic furnishings and fixtures are reminiscent of medical settings, which are often frightening to children and offer no visual reassurance. Inexpensive modifications to prison visiting rooms, such as painting
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
	  	  	  	   15 See Minnesota Department of Corrections, “The Effects of Prison Visitation on Offender Recidivism,” Nov 2011, found at http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/publications.htm.

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 42 of 70 Page ID #709
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 17 of 18
visiting room walls with bright colors or murals can help to lessen the stress of this environment for children and incarcerated parents alike.16
Population & Facility Demographics
The average age of inmates at Vienna is 35. Approximately 12 percent of Vienna’s population is 50 or older. The racial-ethnic makeup of Vienna’s population is roughly 67 percent African American, 21 percent White, 11 percent Hispanic, and approximately 1 percent Native American and Asian combined.
###
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 	   
16 See Denise Johnston, Parent-Child Visits In Jails, Children’s Environments, Vol. 12 (1) 33-56 (March 1995) available at http://colorado.edu/journals/cye/12_1/12_1article2.pdf.

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 43 of 70 Page ID #710
Monitoring Report of Vienna Correctional Center September 27, 2011 Page 18 of 18
This report was written by John Maki, Executive Director, and Maya Szilak, Director of the Prison Monitoring Project, for the John Howard Association. Maya may be reached at (312) 503-6302 or mszilak@thejha.org.
Contributing to this report were citizen observers: Laurie Jo Reynolds and Scott Main.
Since 1901, JHA has provided public oversight of Illinois’ juvenile and adult correctional facilities. Every year, JHA staff and trained volunteers inspect prisons, jails and detention centers throughout the state. Based on these inspections, JHA regularly issues reports that are instrumental in improving prison conditions.
JHA’s work on healthcare in DOC is made possible through a generous grant by the Michael Reese Health Trust.
	  
	  

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 44 of 70 Page ID #711
EXHIBIT B

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 45 of 70 Page ID #712

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 46 of 70 Page ID #713

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 47 of 70 Page ID #714
EXHIBIT C

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 48 of 70 Page ID #715
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Quarterly Report
July 1, 2013
Pat Quinn
Governor
S.A. Godinez
Director

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 49 of 70 Page ID #716

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 50 of 70 Page ID #717

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

Contents

Topic Population by Facility Facility Population by Offense Type Educational and Vocational Program Participation Capacity by Facility Facility Population by Cell Type Facility Floor Space Facility Staff Ratios Capital Projects Currently Funded Projected Prison Population Population Projection Comparison Intake, Exits, and Transfers by Facility Adult Transition Centers

Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9a 10 11

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 51 of 70 Page ID #718

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

Population by Facility
As of May 31, 2013
Facility Big Muddy River Correctional Center Centralia Correctional Center Danville Correctional Center Decatur Correctional Center (female) Dixon Correctional Center East Moline Correctional Center Graham Correctional Center Hill Correctional Center Illinois River Correctional Center Jacksonville Correctional Center Lawrence Correctional Center Lincoln Correctional Center Logan Correctional Center (female) Menard Correctional Center Pinckneyville Correctional Center Pontiac Correctional Center Robinson Correctional Center Shawnee Correctional Center Sheridan Correctional Center Southwestern Correctional Center Stateville Correctional Center Taylorville Correctional Center Vandalia Correctional Center Vienna Correctional Center Western Illinois Correctional Center Adult Transition Centers Electronic Detention Federal/Other State* Women and Children's Program In-Transit

Total

Population 1,898 1,586 1,942 696 2,400 1,412 2,082 1,828 2,128 1,458 2,381 1,013 1,960 3,640 2,537 1,963 1,209 2,117 2,057 698 4,001 1,201 1,672 1,898 2,105 925 93 30 3 0
48,933

Note: Adult Transition Centers are listed individually in Table 4 and Table 11. * Illinois inmates placed in facilities managed by other states or the federal government Source: Retrieved from Offender Tracking System, May 31, 2013

Table 1

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 52 of 70 Page ID #719

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

Facility Population by Offense Type
As of May 31, 2013

Facility Maximum Menard Correctional Center Pontiac Correctional Center Stateville Correctional Center
Maximum sub-total Female Decatur Correctional Center (medium) Logan Correctional Center (maximum)
Female sub-total Medium Big Muddy River Correctional Center Centralia Correctional Center Danville Correctional Center Dixon Correctional Center Graham Correctional Center Hill Correctional Center Illinois River Correctional Center Lawrence Correctional Center Pinckneyville Correctional Center Shawnee Correctional Center Sheridan Correctional Center Western Illinois Correctional Center
Medium sub-total Minimum East Moline Correctional Center Jacksonville Correctional Center Lincoln Correctional Center Robinson Correctional Center
Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center Taylorville Correctional Center Vandalia Correctional Center Vienna Correctional Center
Minimum sub-total

Murder

Class X

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

1
Class 4 UnclassifTieodtal

2,066 925 233 221 82 113 0 3,640 680 561 247 297 87 91 0 1,963
1,145 677 493 748 289 649 1 4,002 3,891 2,163 973 1,266 458 853 1 9,605

2

83 133 189 124 165 0 696

345 335 249 430 287 311 3 1,960

347 418 382 619 411 476 3 2,656

87 131 341 404 102 500 271 265 278
82 0
267 2,728

689 505 669 789 433 657 722 918 823 536 327 676 7,744

344 286 313 356 431 240 341 450 541 476 639 324 4,741

371 380 364 465 569 296 451 457 566 569 774 488 5,750

153 141 125 193 272
68 164 148 172 197 152 154 1,939

89 165 143 0 130 0 193 0 275 0
67 0 179 0 143 0 157 0 257 0 165 0 195 1 1,993 166

1,898 1,586 1,942 2,400 2,082 1,828 2,128 2,381 2,537 2,117 2,057 2,105 25,061

0 218 263 421 176 333

57 315 328 409 153 196

70 303 170 275 92 103

23 274 232 365 167 148

0

51 215 243 109 80

30 403 257 319 105 87

0 177 299 502 247 446

0 206 478 608 244 362

180 1,947 2,242 3,142 1,293 1,755

1 1,412 0 1,458 0 1,013 0 1,209
0 698 0 1,201 1 1,672 0 1,898 2 10,561

Total Institutions Adult Transition Centers Electronic Detention Federal/Other State2 Women and Children's Program
Total

7,146 0 0
15 0
7,161

12,272 74 0
11 1
12,358

8,338 442 3
1 0 8,784

10,777 236 52
3 2 11,070

4,101 90 18
0 0 4,209

5,077 172 83 0 20 0
00 00 5,180 172

47,883 925 93
30 3
48,934

Note: Data on class of crime are obtained from the Offender Tracking System. Class of crime data reflect the highest class of crime for which an inmate has been committed. Note: Data entry delay may cause some discrepancy with other counts. 1. Unclassified cases include Sexually Dangerous Persons and contempt of court. 2. Illinois inmates placed in facilities managed by other states or the federal government
Source: Retrieved from Offender Tracking System, May 31, 2013

Table 2

Illinois Department of Case Corrections 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 53 of 70 Page ID #720 Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013
Educational and Vocational Program Participation As of May 31, 2013

Educational: Mandatory Basic Education Basic Education English as Second Language Chapter 1 GED Special Education Literacy Program Non-Degree College Education College-2 year degree College-4 year degree
Educational Sub-Total Vocational: Auto Body Automotive Technology Bachelor Living Barbering Career Technologies Commercial Custodian Construction Occupations Cosmetology Dog Grooming Dog Training Electronics Food Service Graphic Arts / Print Management Horticulture Laundry/Dry Cleaning Industrail Maintence Manage First Tech-Related Math Warehousing Welding
Vocational Sub-Total Total Educational & Vocational

Big Muddy River 212 36 48 26 133 21

Centralia 110 11
138

82

12

19

570

278

20

28 36 20

29

21

19

20

15 15

61

162

631

440

Danville 109 3
45
245 49 451
18
32 17 19
19
15
120 571

Decatur 26 5 62 78 10 181
30
20
50 231

Dixon

Dixon

Dixon STC / Springs DuQuoin

Psych

IIP

IIP

137

39

46

11

10

25

East Moline
70

Hardin County Graham Work Camp 8
10

75

2

44

33

61

68

17

4

115

5

13

240

55

69

79

136

214

0

9
31 24 16 16

21

30

21

18

20

17

20

16

18

103

9

0

0

59

86

20

343

64

69

79

195

300

20

Hill 165 13

Illinois River
32

Jacksonville 67 2

Lawrence 93 1

Lincoln 37

Logan 104 37

Menard 38 16

Menard MSU

79

78

35

250

110

47

83

554

338

82

54

63

138

69

52

243

69

8

14

33

4

1

1

212

405

202

283

124

0

13

13

25

14

15

21

15

25

12

48

13

18

15

18

15

12

18

15

17

20

19

38

62

592

400

98

49

51

59

12

12

310

454

253

342

136

12

Students Served (Non-Duplicated)

497

393

413

178

321

60

60

77

181

240

20

474

284

254

355

192

322

120

12

Notes: Table 3 represents the number of inmates who participated in vocational and academic programs. This is a duplicated count because an inmate can be involved in more than one academic and/or vocational program. The category "Non-Degree College Education" was added in the July 2009 report to account for all students who are included in the Student Served (Non-Duplicated) Total number served in May 2013: 8,101
Source: Retrieved from Offender Tracking System, May 31, 2013

Table 3

Illinois Department of Case Corrections 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 54 of 70 Page ID #721 Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013
Educational and Vocational Program Participation (cont.)

Educational: Mandatory Basic Education

Pittsfield

Pontiac

Southwestern

Stateville

Vandalia

Western

Pinckneyville Work Camp Pontiac MSU Robinson Shawnee Sheridan Illinois Stateville MSU Taylorville Vandalia Work Camp Vienna Illinois

167

42

45

66

214

141

60

98

21

155

185

63

Basic Education

1

23

16

22

14

3

4

1

3

1

9

English as Second Language

Chapter 1

GED

94

36

36

93

107

51

40

49

53

110

101

76

Special Education

Literacy Program

Non-Degree College Education

166

199

26

30

135

103

76

132

College-2 year degree

24

19

5

7

1

1

12

11

16

College-4 year degree

2

1

1

Educational Sub-Total

451

79

0 104

395

374

236

246

152

0

76

384

0 374

296

Vocational: Auto Body

18

18

Automotive Technology

18

16

17

Bachelor Living

Barbering

20

5

Career Technologies

11

14

29

15

30

48

28

27

18 42

22

Commercial Custodian

18

20

16

44

18

41

Construction Occupations

18

34

19

19

16

Cosmetology

22

Dog Grooming

Dog Training

Electronics

Food Service

17

16

31

21

15

Graphic Arts / Print Management

Horticulture

19

22

18

18

Laundry/Dry Cleaning

Industrail Maintence

Manage First

Tech-Related Math

22

Warehousing

35

50

Welding

24

15

25

Vocational Sub-Total

64

0

14

0

84

49

140

198

5

0

83

97

18 185

92

Total Educational & Vocational

515

79

14 104

479

423

376

444

157

0

159

481

18 559

388

Total 2,550 277 48 26 2,070 21 35 2,111 415 5 7,558
36 110
9 25 549 377 292 38 0 0 29 212 15 172 0 15 15 37 85 64 2,080 9,638

Students Served (Non-Duplicated)

426

76

14

99

373

406

370

325

144

0

154

412

18 500

331

8,101

Notes: Table 3 represents the number of inmates who participated in vocational and academic programs. This is a duplicated count because an inmate can be involved in more than one academic and/or vocational program. The category "Non-Degree College Education" was added in the July 2009 report to account for all students who are included in the Student Served (Non-Duplicated) Total number served in May 2013: 8,101
Source: Retrieved from Offender Tracking System, May 31, 2013

Table 3

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 55 of 70 Page ID #722

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

Capacity by Facility
As of May 31, 2013

Facility Big Muddy River Correctional Center Centralia Correctional Center Danville Correctional Center Decatur Correctional Center (female) Dixon Correctional Center East Moline Correctional Center Graham Correctional Center Hill Correctional Center Illinois River Correctional Center Jacksonville Correctional Center Lawrence Correctional Center Lincoln Correctional Center Logan Correctional Center (female) Menard Correctional Center Pinckneyville Correctional Center Pontiac Correctional Center Robinson Correctional Center Shawnee Correctional Center Sheridan Correctional Center Southwestern Correctional Center Stateville Correctional Center Taylorville Correctional Center Vandalia Correctional Center Vienna Correctional Center Western Illinois Correctional Center
Correctional Center Subtotal Crossroads Adult Transition Center3 Fox Valley Adult Transition Center (female) North Lawndale Adult Transition Center3 Peoria Adult Transition Center
Adult Transition Center Subtotal Electronic Detention Federal/Other State4 Women & Children's Program
Total

Operational Capacity/Bedspace1

Design/Rated Capacity2

Current Population Current Percent

Est. Jan. Est. Jul. 2014 2014 Current Percent

Est. Jan. Est. Jul. 2014 2014

1,898 1,958

97% 1,958 1,958

952 199%

952

952

1,586 1,669

95% 1,669 1,669

950 167%

950

950

1,942 1,966

99% 1,966 1,966

896 217%

896

896

696

717

97%

717

717

500 139%

500

500

2,400 2,527

95% 2,527 2,527 1,430 168% 1,430 1,430

1,412 1,446

98% 1,446 1,446

688 205%

688

688

2,082 2,110

99% 2,110 2,110 1,174 177% 1,174 1,174

1,828 1,866

98% 1,866 1,866

896 204%

896

896

2,128 2,198

97% 2,198 2,198 1,011 210% 1,011 1,011

1,458 1,625

90% 1,625 1,625 1,100 133% 1,100 1,100

2,381 2,458

97% 2,458 2,458 2,257 105% 2,257 2,257

1,013 1,018 100% 1,018 1,018

500 203%

500

500

1,960 2,012

97% 2,012 2,012 1,106 177% 1,106 1,106

3,640 3,749

97% 3,749 3,749 3,098 117% 3,098 3,098

2,537 2,565

99% 2,565 2,565 2,434 104% 2,434 2,434

1,963 2,192

90% 2,192 2,192 1,800 109% 1,800 1,800

1,209 1,223

99% 1,223 1,223

600 202%

600

600

2,117 2,254

94% 2,254 2,254 1,046 202% 1,046 1,046

2,057 2,098

98% 2,098 2,098 1,304 158% 1,304 1,304

698

710

98%

710

710

600 116%

600

600

4,001 4,053

99% 4,053 4,053 3,162 127% 3,162 3,162

1,201 1,221

98% 1,221 1,221

600 200%

600

600

1,672 1,802

93% 1,802 1,802 1,100 152% 1,100 1,100

1,898 1,982

96% 1,982 1,982

925 205%

925

925

2,105 2,240

94% 2,240 2,240 1,102 191% 1,102 1,102

47,882 49,659

96% 49,659 49,659 31,231 153% 31,231 31,231

368

380

97% 380

380

250 147%

250

250

112

128

88% 128

128

100 112%

100

100

201

200

101% 200

200

200 101%

200

200

244

248

98% 248

248

200 122%

200

200

925

956

97%

956

956

750

123%

750

750

93

93 100%

93

93

93 100%

93

93

30

30 100%

30

30

30 100%

30

30

3

15

20%

15

15

15

20%

15

15

48,933 50,753

96% 50,753 50,753 32,119 152% 32,119 32,119

Note: Data entry delay may cause some discrepancy with other counts. 1. Operational Capacity/Bedspace is the maximum number of inmates a facility can hold. 2. Rated/Design Capacity is the original rated capacity of the facility when it was first constructed. 3. Contractually-operated Adult Transition Center 4. Illinois inmates placed in facilities managed by other states or the federal government. Sources: Retrieved from Offender Tracking System, May 31, 2013; Department of Corrections Data

Table 4

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 56 of 70 Page ID #723

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

Facility Population by Cell Type
As of May 31, 2013

Single-Celled Double-Celled

Multi-Celled

Uncelled

Facility

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Big Muddy River Correctional Center

36

2% 1,748

92% 114

6%

0

0%

Centralia Correctional Center

22

1% 1,518

96%

45

3%

0

0%

Danville Correctional Center

18

1% 1,812

93% 112

6%

0

0%

Decatur Correctional Center (female)

12

2%

16

2% 668

96%

0

0%

Dixon Correctional Center

383

16% 1,392

58% 625

26%

0

0%

East Moline Correctional Center

27

2% 638

45% 747

53%

0

0%

Graham Correctional Center

32

2% 1,926

93% 124

6%

0

0%

Hill Correctional Center

29

2% 1,796

98%

3

0%

0

0%

Illinois River Correctional Center

9

0% 1,920

90% 199

9%

0

0%

Jacksonville Correctional Center

16

1%

0

0% 1,442

99%

0

0%

Lawrence Correctional Center

68

3% 2,310

97%

3

0%

0

0%

Lincoln Correctional Center

29

3%

0

0% 984

97%

0

0%

Logan Correctional Center (female)

76

4% 606

31% 1,278

65%

0

0%

Menard Correctional Center

291

8% 3,328

91%

21

1%

0

0%

Pinckneyville Correctional Center

123

5% 2,038

80% 376

15%

0

0%

Pontiac Correctional Center

709

36% 1,254

64%

0

0%

0

0%

Robinson Correctional Center

14

1%

0

0% 1,195

99%

0

0%

Shawnee Correctional Center

46

2% 1,784

84% 287

14%

0

0%

Sheridan Correctional Center

29

1% 1,970

96%

58

3%

0

0%

Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center

3

0%

0

0% 695 100%

0

0%

Stateville Correctional Center

601

15% 3,226

81% 119

3%

55

0%

Taylorville Correctional Center

5

0%

0

0% 1,196 100%

0

0%

Vandalia Correctional Center

36

2%

2

0% 1,634

98%

0

0%

Vienna Correctional Center

10

1% 1,230

65% 655

35%

3

0%

Western Illinois Correctional Center

51

2% 1,826

87% 228

11%

0

0%

Total 2,675

6% 32,340

68% 12,808

27%

58

0%

Total 1,898 1,585 1,942 696 2,400 1,412 2,082 1,828 2,128 1,458 2,381 1,013 1,960 3,640 2,537 1,963 1,209 2,117 2,057 698 4,001 1,201 1,672 1,898 2,105
47,881

Note: Uncelled refers to when an inmate has been brought into a facility, but not assigned to a cell when the Offender Tracking System Housing Report was run. Note: Data entry delay may cause some discrepancy with other counts. Source: Retrieved from Offender Tracking System, May 31, 2013

Table 5

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 57 of 70 Page ID #724

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

Facility Floor Space
As of May 31, 2013

Facility Big Muddy River Correctional Center Centralia Correctional Center Danville Correctional Center Decatur Correctional Center (female) Dixon Correctional Center East Moline Correctional Center Graham Correctional Center Hill Correctional Center Illinois River Correctional Center Jacksonville Correctional Center Lawrence Correctional Center Lincoln Correctional Center Logan Correctional Center (female) Menard Correctional Center Pinckneyville Correctional Center Pontiac Correctional Center Robinson Correctional Center Shawnee Correctional Center Sheridan Correctional Center Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center Stateville Correctional Center Taylorville Correctional Center Vandalia Correctional Center Vienna Correctional Center Western Illinois Correctional Center
Average

Approximate Square Feet per
Inmate 31 32 29 40 21 47 24 31 30 29 28 26 38 37 34 47 28 31 30 31 38 29 26 33 30 32

Note: The approximate distribution of floor space per inmate only includes actual living area. This does not include dayrooms, control rooms, janitor closets, plumbing chases, showers, laundry rooms, and various offices.
Source: Department of Corrections Data

Table 6

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 58 of 70 Page ID #725

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

Facility Staff Ratios
As of May 31, 2013

Facility Big Muddy River Correctional Center Centralia Correctional Center Danville Correctional Center Decatur Correctional Center (female) Dixon Correctional Center East Moline Correctional Center Graham Correctional Center Hill Correctional Center Illinois River Correctional Center Jacksonville Correctional Center Lawrence Correctional Center Lincoln Correctional Center (female) Logan Correctional Center Menard Correctional Center Pinckneyville Correctional Center Pontiac Correctional Center Robinson Correctional Center Shawnee Correctional Center Sheridan Correctional Center Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center Stateville Correctional Center Taylorville Correctional Center Vandalia Correctional Center Vienna Correctional Center Western Illinois Correctional Center
Average

Inmate-to-Security Staff Ratio 8.6:1 5.6:1 8.5:1 5.4:1 5.9:1 7.5:1 6.5:1 8.4:1 9.2:1 5.6:1 8.2:1 6.3:1 6.4:1 5.9:1 7.8:1 3.7:1 6.8:1 8.4:1 6.3:1 4.2:1 4.8:1 7.3:1 6.9:1 8.0:1 7.9:1 6.3:1

Inmate-to-Total Staff Ratio 6.6:1 4.5:1 6.8:1 3.5:1 4.6:1 5.4:1 5.1:1 6.7:1 7.2:1 4.3:1 6.5:1 4.9:1 5.0:1 4.5:1 5.9:1 3.1:1 5.2:1 6.4:1 4.9:1 3.1:1 3.8:1 5.5:1 5.1:1 5.9:1 6.2:1 4.9:1

Security Staff per Inmate Ratio 0.117:1 0.180:1 0.117:1 0.186:1 0.168:1 0.134:1 0.153:1 0.119:1 0.109:1 0.178:1 0.122:1 0.159:1 0.157:1 0.168:1 0.129:1 0.269:1 0.147:1 0.119:1 0.158:1 0.239:1 0.207:1 0.136:1 0.146:1 0.125:1 0.127:1 0.160:1

Total Staff per Inmate Ratio
0.151:1 0.224:1 0.147:1 0.287:1 0.216:1 0.186:1 0.194:1 0.149:1 0.140:1 0.233:1 0.153:1 0.204:1 0.201:1 0.220:1 0.169:1 0.322:1 0.191:1 0.156:1 0.204:1 0.319:1 0.262:1 0.183:1 0.197:1 0.170:1 0.162:1 0.206:1

Note: Reflects the average number of staff and average inmate population for FY13 through May 31, 2013 Source: Department of Corrections Data

Table 7

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 59 of 70 Page ID #726

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

Capital Projects Currently Funded

Location

Project Completion Date

Phase-in Date

No current capital projects

Beds Phased-in

Full Occupancy Date

Total Number of Beds

Table 8

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 60 of 70 Page ID #727

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

Projected Prison Population Twelve Months Subsequent to the Reporting Date

Month July August September October November December January February March April May June

Year 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014

Population
48,880 49,015 49,149 48,984 49,118 49,253 49,087 49,222 49,356 49,191 49,325 49,462

This population forecast reflects the Department's efforts to improve the method for projecting prison population utilizing a simulation tool that includes past experience and policy changes. Conceptually, the model is designed around the movement of individuals through the prison system. The data reflect Fiscal Year 2012 experience. The underlying assumptions are:
1. New felony admissions, based on average growth rates by class of crime and gender were increased by 3.9% (3.4% for males and 8.9% for females).
2. Defaulter admissions (technical violations and new offense violations) were based on the probability (violation rate) that 40.8% of all inmates on supervision will violate supervision and be returned to prison. The violation rate is computed by adding the percent of new offense violators (6.8%) with the percent of technical violators (33.9%).
3. Admissions were seasonally adjusted based on the past ten years' average percentage distribution by month.
4. Offense class distributions were based on actual distributions of admissions by class of crime for Fiscal Year 2012 as reported in the Offender Tracking System (OTS).
5. Sentence estimates for new admissions were based on the Fiscal Year 2012 actual distribution of sentence lengths by offense class. These data were obtained from OTS.
6. All eligible inmates will receive their day-for-day good time, reduced by the average net revoked/restored days for each offense class.
7. Jail credits and probation credits were based on actual admission distribution of Fiscal Year 2012 OTS data by offense class.
8. An average of 32 days good conduct credit for behavioral adjustment and program services participation of MGT/SMGT/ED/ET/GED (good conduct credit types) per inmate will be awarded.
9. Projected exits for inmates in the current population as of June 30, 2012 were based on the sentence calculation module of OTS. For those with indeterminate sentences, it was assumed that those inmates who have yet to see the Prisoner Review Board on the minimum sentence will exit on their projected maximum release date.
10. As a result of Public Act 90-593, certain offenders will serve a greater proportion of their sentence if their crime was committed after the effective date of June 19, 1998, and their offense is provided under the Rules and Regulations for Early Release (730 ILCS 5/3-6-3). These Truth-in-Sentencing admissions are gradually phased in over the duration of the projections.

Table 9

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 61 of 70 Page ID #728

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

Population Projection Comparison
Based on FY2012 Data

Month Year

June

2012

July

2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March

2013

April

2013

May

2013

Actual Population Population Projection

48,324

48,512

48,739

48,541

48,996

48,599

49,134

48,622

49,417

48,678

49,348

48,743

49,058

48,803

49,321

48,707

49,171

48,821

49,278

48,938

49,219

48,762

48,933

48,901

Difference -188 198 397 512 739 605 255 614 350 340 457 32

Percent Difference
-0.39% 0.41% 0.82% 1.05% 1.52% 1.24% 0.52% 1.26% 0.72% 0.69% 0.94% 0.07%

Source: Historical Department of Corrections Population Forecasts

Table 9a

ICllinaoiss eDe3pa:r1tm2e-nct ovf-C0o0rre7c0tio4ns-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 62 ofQ7ua0rterlyPRaepgoert -IJDuly#17, 220193

Intake, Exits, and Transfers by Facility
As of May 31, 2013

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

BMR-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
CEN-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
DAN-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
DCT-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
DIX-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
DWI-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
EMO-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
GRA-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
HIL-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
IRI-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
JAC-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
LAW-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
LIN-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
LOG-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
MEN-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out

5

9

11

11

11

8

14

9

11

9

13

54

63

54

60

62

69

66

49

70

65

82

101

103

91

102

90

112

100

74

90

84

111

33

50

42

57

38

37

52

23

36

34

43

5

3

10

4

4

5

4

12

8

4

3

68

74

81

70

85

81

62

70

80

89

77

122

122

100

110

114

108

112

93

218

126

62

36

42

28

34

38

28

37

37

48

51

49

5

9

4

3

6

11

6

5

10

7

7

66

87

63

54

67

67

77

62

77

79

107

128

138

93

93

81

71

135

70

208

97

162

33

51

38

38

19

21

38

16

24

41

33

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

68

65

58

65

59

55

47

61

76

96

120

88

54

78

84

60

64

32

67

103

97

115

0

4

4

3

3

0

2

2

0

3

0

5

7

7

13

4

10

11

4

9

6

14

99

118

85

97

112

109

108

115

95

112

113

210

188

107

134

116

142

139

136

108

127

132

38

57

32

43

24

38

32

37

30

39

36

225

245

199

236

196

146

244

171

127

0

0

58

70

65

77

50

68

65

54

61

0

0

1

4

1

5

1

0

3

3

20

0

0

168

124

180

173

143

174

80

122 1,179

0

0

2

1

0

3

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

84

90

74

91

103

115

111

106

117

122

125

118

247

119

133

145

135

179

149

148

158

177

32

47

41

46

37

43

52

39

35

42

59

267

330

272

289

251

223

298

249

283

261

313

75

116

79

72

87

79

88

83

97

111

103

52

90

76

83

44

59

78

53

155

42

93

227

261

210

295

227

191

270

229

257

215

264

3

1

3

4

5

4

5

4

0

2

5

59

54

60

57

67

74

63

52

59

61

59

118

125

110

102

91

104

129

89

100

99

131

53

51

44

53

31

36

58

39

44

44

86

11

9

10

9

10

11

18

13

14

16

9

73

109

81

93

86

89

103

79

96

87

102

139

158

142

132

99

99

171

106

243

145

121

34

43

46

47

24

20

41

40

42

60

63

8

5

2

3

7

4

6

5

4

8

5

78

88

83

98

110

95

98

111

98

111

130

131

139

148

159

173

123

165

155

139

149

90

36

50

61

71

60

39

60

50

36

55

103

3

2

9

4

12

4

5

9

6

1

7

97

139

133

128

121

109

111

102

99

125

126

249

238

213

215

177

168

228

141

185

189

205

61

102

62

97

78

51

111

71

71

46

71

0

0

1

0

2

1

1

2

4

2

1

65

67

77

76

66

89

88

87

62

36

54

85

59

88

91

85

111

48

48 1,037

57

78

9

1

6

13

16

12

11

1

902

25

15

8

26

8

5

10

6

6

8

90

254

249

78

85

57

62

64

76

61

65

66

180

157

14

21

103

249

120

55

16

174 1,960

4

5

239

107

30

30

26

32

159

29 1,497

100

121

97

159

77

110

120

101

140

98

114

119

133

61

68

46

52

69

57

55

60

51

59

58

64

127

90

80

79

84

114

86

76

75

115

96

158

125

144

130

92

188

125

168

147

187

Total
111 694 1,058 445
62 837 1,287 428
73 806 1,276 352
1 770 842
21 90 1,163 1,539 406 1,789 568 38 2,343 10 1,138 1,708 473 3,036 990 825 2,646 36 665 1,198 539 130 998 1,555 460 57 1,100 1,571 621 62 1,290 2,208 821 14 767 1,787 1,011 670 951 2,721 2,370 1,268 636 990 1,560

Table 10

ICllinaoiss eDe3pa:r1tm2e-nct ovf-C0o0rre7c0tio4ns-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 63 ofQ7ua0rterlyPRaepgoert -IJDuly#17, 230103

Intake, Exits, and Transfers by Facility
As of May 31, 2013

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Total

PNK-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
PON-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
ROB-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
SHA-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
SHE-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
STA-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
SWC-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
TAM-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
TAY-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
VAN-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
VIE-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
WIL-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out
TOT-In Ex Tr-In Tr-Out

4 163 290
62 3
104 124
70 16 66 90 30
4 83 208 56
0 57 162 29 2,120 222 55 1,880
0 35 49 18
0 19
4 37
2 49 56 10
0 130 220
64 0
161 280
90 3
104 166
51 2,796 2,276 3,324 3,492

4 186 297
88 0
110 156
78 14 63 100 44
6 137 205
55 0
75 193
46 2,237
270 40
1,849 0
51 80 29
0 10
2 66 11 62 94 16
0 152 215
63 0
169 220
68 7
138 228
64 3,085 2,716 3,643 3,614

3 137 219
68 0
90 93 48
9 56 86 36
4 98 155 55
0 83 84 14 1,830 283 105 1,805
0 44 62 19
0 5 11 7 8 41 55 18 0 125 198 84 0 149 233 78 4 108 148 69 2,471 2,315 3,008 3,250

3 143 237
83 1
104 115
63 8
58 106
35 4
108 181
69 0
71 102
23 1,958
303 86
1,704 0
44 82 35
0 11 15
8 13 35 59 32
0 121 204
69 0
167 253
86 5
84 168
74 2,686 2,401 3,380 3,425

5 156 197
66 3
99 80 43 12 78 85 21
8 132 168
47 0
85 98 19 1,851 340 90 1,689
0 47 55 20
0 12 18
4 9 54 60 15 0 134 183 60 0 178 261 80 6 97 159 64 2,532 2,620 2,929 3,022

4 145 184
55 3
93 229
42 12 72 84 21
4 109 146
53 16 76 181 16 1,651 326 66 1,452
0 43 40 14
0 2 5 239 7 45 47 19 0 135 182 46 0 143 202 56 2 109 163 53 2,235 2,530 2,964 2,880

7 163 278
99 2
83 126
91 8
64 124
55 9
120 251
78 0
79 209
31 2,028
354 94
1,742 0
32 80 32
0 0 0 0 7 45 79 34 0 124 205 70 1 175 233 69 2 96 158 79 2,822 2,538 3,486 3,571

3 142 192
65 0
96 139
68 14 65 82 30 12 124 179 48
0 98 107 22 1,695 351 120 1,680
0 37 53 21
0 0 0 0 6 52 81 23 0 128 171 65 0 151 228 83 6 89 170 70 2,325 2,489 2,966 3,035

5 138 169
69 1
99 140
58 8
64 89 28
9 110 250
67 0
88 155
17 1,923
368 99
1,568 0
38 64 20
0 0 0 0 6 45 60 21 0 132 180 41 1 181 203 46 1 88 163 67 2,636 2,555 6,362 6,371

13 152 281
96 1
140 120
54 9
73 94 24
5 136 200
66 0
103 191
45 2,017
396 95
1,788 0
50 67 26
0 0 0 0 11 70 71 27 1 129 209 76 2 163 229 62 4 77 127 55 2,752 2,822 3,133 3,221

4 169 312
78 2
139 94 65 16 68 90 37 8
149 141
90 0
111 173
39 1,985
364 97
1,613 0
46 66 20
0 0 0 0 13 70 91 19 2 160 201 53 1 187 242 89 4 139 258 64 2,795 3,015 3,362 3,297

55 1,694 2,656
829 16
1,157 1,416
680 126 727 1,030 361
73 1,306 2,084
684 16
926 1,655
301 21,295
3,577 947
18,770 0
467 698 254
0 59 55 361 93 568 753 234
3 1,470 2,168
691 5
1,824 2,584
807 44
1,129 1,908
710 29,135 28,277 38,557 39,178

In = Intake; Ex = Exit; Tr-In = Transfers In; Tr-Out = Transfers Out Note: The Department of Corrections manages its population from a total system perspective. Provided in Table 10 are historical data on intake (court + supervision violators), exits (adult transition center, Mandatory Supervised Release, parole, discharge, death), inter-institutional transfers in and inter-institutional transfers out. Source: Retrieved from Offender Tracking System, May 31, 2013

Table 10

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 64 of 70 Page ID #731

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

Adult Transition Centers
As of May 31, 2013

Center

Population Bedspace

Crossroads Adult Transition Center*

368

380

Fox Valley Adult Transition Center (female)

112

128

North Lawndale Adult Transition Center*

201

200

Peoria Adult Transition Center

244

248

Total

925

956

Rated Capacity 250 100 200 200 750

* Contractually-operated Adult Transition Center Sources: Retrieved from Offender Tracking System, May 31, 2013; Department of Corrections Data

Table 11

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 65 of 70 Page ID #732

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 66 of 70 Page ID #733

Illinois Department of Corrections

Quarterly Report - July 1, 2013

This page intentionally left blank.

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 67 of 70 Page ID #734
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 1301 Concordia Court P.O. Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277 Tel: (217) 558-2200 TDD: (800) 526-0844 info@doc.illinois.gov
http://www.idoc.state.il.us/

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 68 of 70 Page ID #735
EXHIBIT D

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 69 of 70 Page ID #736

Case 3:12-cv-00704-JPG-PMF Document 51 Filed 10/29/13 Page 70 of 70 Page ID #737

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BENTON DIVISION

MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL LEE and

)

KENDRICK PEARSON, on behalf of

)

themselves and all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v.

)

)

S. A. GODINEZ, Director of the Illinois

)

Department of Corrections and RANDY

)

DAVIS, Warden of Vienna Correctional

)

Center, in their official capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00704-JPG CJRA TRACK: D
PRESUMPTIVE TRIAL MONTH: July 14, 2014
Judge J. Phil Gilbert Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathleen Lally, hereby certify that on October 29, 2013, I electronically filed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Exhibit Index and Exhibits thereto with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

Dated: October 29, 2013

s/Kathleen P. Lally Counsel for Plaintiffs LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5800 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: 312-876-7700 Facsimile: 312-993-9767

24

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL LEE, KENDRICK )

PEARSON and J.B. WASHUP, on behalf of )

themselves and all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

S. A. GODINEZ, Director of the Illinois

)

Department of Corrections and RANDY

)

DAVIS, Warden of Vienna Correctional

)

Center, in their official capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-704-JPG-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Class Certification for Purposes of Settlement (Doc. 33) and supplemental brief in support of the motion for settlement class certification (Doc. 49). The plaintiffs filed this putative class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the conditions of confinement at Vienna Correctional Center (“Vienna”). In a September 16, 2013, order (Doc. 44), the Court found that all of the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) for class certification for settlement purposes had been satisfied except for Rule 23(a)(4), the adequacy of the named plaintiffs to represent the class. The Court noted that the plaintiffs did not have a personal stake in the outcome of this litigation and allowed them additional time to recruit a substitute plaintiff or to argue why they should be allowed to represent the class anyway. The plaintiffs have done both. They have recruited an additional named plaintiff – J.B. Washup – and offer him as an adequate representative. They have also argued that the original three named plaintiffs – Michael Boyd, Paul Lee and Kendrick Pearson – would also be adequate class representatives in light of the

inherently transitory nature of the alleged wrongs at issue in this case. The wrongs are inherently transitory, the plaintiffs argue, because it is unlikely any member of the proposed class will remain incarcerated at Vienna for the entire duration of the litigation. They note that inmates are generally incarcerated at Vienna for less than a year, and they are subject to transfer at any time. Additionally, they must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, which could take as long as eight months, substantially narrowing the window for filing a lawsuit and obtaining a decision on class certification.
The “inherently transitory” concept is an exception to the mootness doctrine that allows the Court to retain jurisdiction over class claims that constantly present but that are so short-lived for any individual that it is uncertain whether they will endure for any one person long enough for the Court to certify a class. See United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 399 (1980) (citing Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n.11 (1975)). In order for the “inherently transitory” exception to the mootness doctrine to apply, it must be uncertain that the claim would remain live for anyone long enough for the Court to certify a class, and there must be a constant class of persons suffering the wrong alleged in the complaint. Olson v. Brown, 594 F.3d 577, 582 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 110 n. 11; Zurak v. Regan, 550 F.2d 86, 91-92 (2d Cir. 1977)).
There is no question in this case that the original plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in September 2012 (Doc. 16), filed when they were still incarcerated at Vienna, has prevented this case from becoming moot. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Class-action plaintiffs can move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint. The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs” to make their claims moot before class certification.). It is also clear that had the Court granted class certification while the named plaintiffs were still incarcerated at Vienna
2

and had a personal stake in this case, and had they then lost that personal interest after class
certification, they could still continue as class representatives. See Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki,
513 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 2008) (“Since the named plaintiff is the representative of the
unnamed class members, the evaporation of his claim no more bars him from continuing in that
capacity (provided a class has been certified) . . . than a lawyer is barred from representing a
litigant just because the lawyer himself has no dispute with the defendant.”).
However, the question before the Court now is not about mootness but the suitability of
the named plaintiffs to be named as class representatives under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)(4). Counsel has not explained how the “inherently transitory” doctrine relating to
mootness applies to the adequacy of a class representative under Rule 24(a)(4). The Court is
given further pause by the actual recruitment of Washup as additional plaintiff who, if he
remains incarcerated at Vienna at the end of today, will have had a live controversy long enough
for the Court to rule on the settlement class certification motion. If Washup exists and is willing
and available to take the baton from Boyd, Lee and Pearson, there is no need for Boyd, Lee and
Pearson to represent the class.
The Court believes Washup is an adequate representative of the putative class. The Court
has set forth the standards for adequacy in its September 16, 2013, order:
The proposed class representatives must at a minimum “possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” East Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977) (internal quotations omitted). They must also not have any interests in conflict with those of other members of the class and must have a sufficient interest in the litigation to ensure vigorous advocacy. Chandler v. Southwest Jeep-Eagle, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 302, 308 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (internal quotation omitted); see Spano v. The Boeing Co., [633] F.3d 574, 586-87 (7th Cir. 2011).
Mem. and Order at 6-7 (Doc. 44). There is no indication Washup has any interests that conflict
with putative class members, and his current incarceration at Vienna ensures he will vigorously
fight to improve the living conditions there. It appears he will be an adequate class 3

representative. Having found in its September 16, 2013, order (Doc. 44) that the plaintiffs have satisfied
the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1), (2) and (3), Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(g), and having found in this order that plaintiff Washup has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4), the Court:
 GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Class Certification for Purposes of Settlement (Doc. 33);
 CERTIFIES the following class for settlement purposes only: All inmates housed at Vienna Correctional Center since June 13, 2012, and all inmates to be housed at Vienna Correctional Center;
 APPOINTS plaintiff J.B. Washup as class representative; and  APPOINTS attorneys Mark Mester and Kathleen Lally, of Latham & Watkins LLP, and
Alan Mills, of Uptown People’s Law Center, as class counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 31, 2013.
s/J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

 
 Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 106 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #804

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL BOYD,

)

PAUL LEE,

)

KENDRICK PEARSON, and

)

J.B. WASHUP,

)

on behalf of themselves and all

)

others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs.

)

)

S.A. GODINEZ, and

)

RANDY DAVIS.

)

)

Defendants. )

Case No. 12-cv-0704-MJR-DGW

ORDER

REAGAN, Chief District Judge:

In 2012, a group of Illinois prisoners brought a federal suit against S.A. Godinez,

the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, and Randy Davis, the Warden of

Vienna Correctional Center. The plaintiffs, all represented seemingly on a pro bono basis

by several Chicago attorneys, alleged that the conditions at the Vienna Correctional

Center were so deplorable as to violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States

Constitution, and they sought to represent a class consisting of a number of other

prisoners like themselves who were housed at Vienna. Shortly after the class complaint

was filed, the plaintiffs submitted a motion for class certification—the plaintiffs asked

the Court to defer ruling on the motion until sufficient discovery had taken place to

litigate the class point, but wanted the motion left on the docket to avoid mootness

problems should the named plaintiffs be transferred or released from their prison.

1

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 106 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #805
Judge Gilbert, to whom the case was initially assigned, allowed the motion to remain on the docket to prevent that problem, and the parties started the discovery process.
Initial discovery didn’t get far, as the parties also began settlement talks amongst themselves in earnest. Those discussions led the plaintiffs to file another motion for class certification in August 2013, this one for settlement purposes only. The motion was unopposed by the defendants on the condition that certification be for settlement purposes alone. Judge Gilbert granted that motion in late 2013 and certified the class for settlement, but he left the original motion for class certification intact and pending. From 2013 to 2016, the parties worked towards a final settlement concerning the conditions at Vienna, but those talks stalled in late 2016, and at the parties’ request Judge Gilbert returned the case to the trial calendar and entered a revised scheduling order. While the parties continue to engage in settlement talks and are hopeful for a non-adversarial resolution, the case is now set for trial in March 2018.
In mid-2016, this case was reassigned to the undersigned judge, and the only question before the Court at present is whether the initial class certification motion needs to remain active on the docket to safeguard the plaintiffs from the danger of their case being rendered moot by a prison transfer or release. The initial class certification motion expressly relied on the Seventh Circuit's decision in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), which held that plaintiffs in putative class cases could use early class certification motions to avoid the danger that a defendant would foist full monetary relief on the named plaintiff, thereby mooting the case before the putative class could be certified. The rub is that Damasco was overruled by Chapman
2

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 106 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #806
v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015), and the ongoing need for plaintiffs to file early class certification motions to avoid monetary-related mootness problems has been placed into considerable doubt by the Seventh Circuit in Chapman, by the Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), and by the Ninth Circuit in Chen v. Allstate Insurance Co., 819 F.3d 1136, 1145-46 (9th Cir. 2016). In light of this change in the legal landscape, the Court directed the plaintiffs to file a brief justifying the need for the initial class certification motion to stay on the docket, and invited the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ brief if they wished.
The plaintiffs have submitted a brief as requested. They argue that a typical prisoner class action might still need a protective certification motion despite Damasco and the other cases mentioned above given the differences between monetary-related mootness and the mootness problems that might arise in a prisoner case, but insist that the Court needn’t resolve that point given this case’s posture. According to the plaintiffs, the initial certification motion here doesn’t need to stay active because Judge Gilbert already implicitly ruled on it when he certified the case for settlement purposes or, failing that, that Judge Gilbert’s settlement certification removes any mootness concerns, for no one has moved to decertify that class. The plaintiffs are wrong on the first point. The defendants agreed not to oppose the second motion for class certification, but only on the condition that the case be certified for settlement only. Once more, Judge Gilbert made clear in his certification order that he was only granting the second, settlement-related motion for certification, and that the case was only being certified for that purpose. And if there was any room for doubt, Judge Gilbert’s 2016
3

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 106 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #807
scheduling order directs the plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by March 2017, a directive that would have been pointless had he actually ruled on the initial certification motion. So the plaintiffs will still need to move to certify the case for class treatment for purposes of litigation, as the case has never been certified in that fashion.
All that said, the plaintiffs seem to be right that settlement certification, without subsequent decertification, is enough to protect them from the specter of mootness by release or mootness by transfer. Once a class has been certified, the class achieves a legal status separate from the interest asserted by the named plaintiffs, with Article III standing requirements being assessed with reference to the class as a whole. E.g., Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 399 (1975); Payton v. County of Kane, 308 F.3d 673, 680 (7th Cir. 2002); Whitlock v. Johnson, 153 F.3d 380, 384 (7th Cir. 1998). No case that the Court can find has limited that legal status based on whether a class was certified in the settlement context or in the litigation context, and such a limitation would make little sense, as the requirements for the certification of a settlement class are nearly identical to the requirements for a litigation class. See Martin v. Reid, 818 F.3d 302, 308 (7th Cir. 2016). The defendants were given an opportunity to dispute this point but haven’t done so, and given that failure and the logic cited above, the Court is of the view that there is no longer a need to keep a placeholder motion for certification on the docket to safeguard the plaintiffs from any mootness problem. And because there’s no need to let the first motion for class certification languish on the docket, the motion (Doc. 16) is DENIED without prejudice on docket management grounds. This denial is with leave to resubmit in a manner consistent with the Court’s 2016 scheduling order.
4

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 106 Filed 09/22/16 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #808

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 22, 2016

/s/ Michael J. Reagan Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan United States District Court

5

 
 Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 126 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #971

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL LEE,

)

KENDRICK PEARSON and

)

J.B. WASHUP,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

S.A. GODINEZ and RANDY DAVIS, )

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DALY, Magistrate Judge:

This is a prisoner civil rights action involving the conditions of confinement at Vienna

Correctional Center (“Vienna”), a minimum security prison within the Illinois Department of

Corrections (“IDOC”). Plaintiffs filed suit on June 13, 2012 (Doc. 2) seeking to proceed as a

class action. Plaintiffs asserted in their complaint that the conditions at Vienna had become

squalid, overcrowded and unfit for human habitation. In their complaint, Plaintiffs only sought

prospective injunctive relief; they did not seek monetary damages. The Court later granted

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, limited for the purposes of settlement. (Doc. 52).

However, despite protracted settlement discussions the parties were unable to reach a settlement

agreement.

Plaintiffs now seek voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. Plaintiffs state

that the conditions at Vienna have greatly improved and that IDOC officials have reduced the

inmate population at Vienna by approximately 42%. Additionally, general population inmates

are no longer housed in Building 19, the housing structure noted as having the worst conditions

at Vienna. In January, 2017 notice of dismissal was provided to the current inmates at Vienna.

1

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 126 Filed 08/16/17 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #972
No class members objected to dismissal and the Defendants did not file a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. For the following reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal be granted and that this matter be dismissed without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs initiated this action on June 13, 2012. (Doc. 2). Plaintiffs state in their complaint that Vienna is a minimum security prison in Southern Illinois that houses low level offenders. (Doc. 2, p. 1, ¶1). When Vienna opened in 1965, IDOC provided inmates at the facility with an assortment of educational and vocational opportunities. Id. The prison focused on rehabilitation and providing skills to assist with the inmates’ reentry back into society. Id. The prison itself functioned similarly to a small town or college campus, and until about the late 1990s inmates did not wear uniforms nor did the facility have a fence. See John Howard Association Report, Id. at pp. 26-43. Furthermore, IDOC officials permitted Vienna inmates to perform volunteer work outside the prison, and local residents were allowed to enroll in the prison educational programs. Id. at p. 4, ¶ 15.
According to Plaintiffs’ complaint, the conditions of confinement at Vienna have declined substantially since its opening. (Doc. 2, p. 1, ¶ 2). It was initially intended that the facility would hold a maximum of 925 prisoners, but in 2012 the facility incarcerated approximately 1900 individuals. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2. Inmates at Vienna were housed in six single story housing structures and one three story housing structure referred to as “Building 19.” Id. at p. 5, ¶ 17. The overpopulation situation was particularly acute in Building 19. Id. at p. 5, ¶ 17. The first floor of Building 19 contained the prison’s segregation unit and the two upper floors housed general population inmates. Id. at p. 5, ¶ 18. The inmates on the two upper floors did not live in cells, but were housed in crowded open bays consisting of narrow rows of double bunkbeds. Id.
2

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 126 Filed 08/16/17 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #973
at p. 5, ¶ 18. Due to the high inmate population, Building 19 lacked sufficient sinks, toilets and showers. Id. at p. 5, ¶ 18. Furthermore, common area space was sharply limited and inmates in Building 19 only received two to three hours of recreation time per week. Id. at p. 6, ¶ 21.
Plaintiffs also stated in their complaint that prison officials failed to provide necessary maintenance and upkeep to the physical plant. (Doc. 2, p. 7, ¶ 26). Mice, insects and other vermin were commonplace in the structures at Vienna. Id. at p. 7, ¶ 27. Many of the windows in the housing units were broken and boarded up. Id. at p. 9, ¶ 37. Mold was also found throughout the structures at Vienna and inmates were not provided adequate cleaning supplies to correct the problem. Id. at pp. 10-11, ¶¶ 40-45. The conditions in Building 19 were particularly bad. Id. at p. 11, ¶ 46. Mold was pervasive, the ventilation was inadequate, the plumbing fixtures did not function properly and the overall conditions were generally filthy. Id at pp. 11-13, ¶¶ 40-45.
Plaintiffs brought this action against S.A. Godinez, IDOC Director, and Randy Davis, Warden of Vienna, each in his official capacity. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and declaratory relief. They have not sought monetary damages.
On August 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an “Unopposed Motion for Class Certification for Purposes of Settlement.” (Doc. 33). Finding that the Plaintiffs satisfied all of the requirements for class certification set forth in Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion on October 31, 2013. (Doc. 52). The class consists of “[a]ll inmates housed at Vienna Correctional Center since June 13, 2012, and all inmates to be housed at Vienna Correctional Center.” Id. Plaintiffs and Defendants subsequently engaged in settlement negotiations. On October 30, 2014, the Court held an in person status conference at Vienna with Judge Gilbert and Judge Frazier in attendance. (Doc. 65). Judge Frazier also conducted settlement conferences on December 13, 2013 (Doc. 56) and on June 25, 2015 (Doc. 89).
3

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 126 Filed 08/16/17 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #974
However, the parties were unable to reach a settlement. (See Joint Status Report, filed May 10, 2016 at Doc. 96). On May 20, 2016, the Court issued a revised scheduling order and the parties returned to active litigation. (Doc. 97).
As the parties engaged in the discovery process, Plaintiffs became aware that the conditions at Vienna have improved significantly since this lawsuit was initially filed. (Declaration of Kathleen Lally, Doc. 115, pp. 23-29). In response to Plaintiffs’ requests for admissions, Defendants stated that they no longer house inmates in general population in Building 19, and they do not IDOC intend to place inmates in the Building 19 areas that previously housed general population units. Id. at p. 27. On October 31, 2016, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants conducted a tour of Vienna. Id. at p. 28. During the tour, Plaintiffs’ counsel observed that inmates were no longer being housed on the second and third floors of Building 19. Id. at p. 28. Inmates were housed in the Building 19 first floor infirmary and the segregation cells; however, inmates were no longer housed in the “cage like” first floor segregation bunk room. Id. at p. 28. Outside of building 19, Plaintiffs’ counsel observed that the windows of the inmate cells in the six, single story housing units had been replaced. Id. at p. 28. Despite these improvements, renovations were still needed for some of the windows in the day room areas and guard areas. Id. at p. 28. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that they toured one of the single story housing units (Housing Unit 6) and the Vienna dining hall. Id. at p. 29. Both structures generally appeared to be clean. Id. at p. 29.
On December 9, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 114). The parties subsequently filed a Joint Motion to Set Schedule for Distribution of Class Notice and Date for Fairness Hearing. (Doc. 116). The undersigned granted the joint motion, ordering that the dismissal notice be provided to the settlement class no later than January 30, 2017.
4

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 126 Filed 08/16/17 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #975
(Doc. 119). The dismissal notice advised members of the settlement class they could file objections or comments to the dismissal no later than March 1, 2017. The dismissal notice was posted on the inmate bulletin boards in the six housing units at Vienna, posted in the law library and displayed on the institution television channel. (Notice of Compliance at Doc. 121). The comment period lapsed with no objections being filed.
On March 28, 2017, the undersigned held a fairness hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal. (Minute Entry at Doc. 123). The parties reiterated that the conditions at Vienna have improved since this lawsuit began and that inmates are no longer being housed in the general population units in Building 19. Due to these changes, Plaintiffs seek to dismiss the action without prejudice. However, Plaintiffs stated that they intend to monitor the status of the housing arrangements at Vienna. If the situation at the facility reverts back to its previous conditions or if inmates are brought back to the general population units at Building 19, Plaintiffs indicated that they will refile this litigation.
II. ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court has held that prisoners have an Eighth Amendment right to “adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care[.]” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1976, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994). In other words, prisoners must be provided “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S. Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1981). Plaintiffs asserted in their complaint that the overcrowded, squalid housing conditions at Vienna amounted to an ongoing violation of their Eighth Amendment rights. Since filing suit, the conditions at Vienna have improved significantly. As a result, Plaintiffs state in their motion to dismiss that they “do not believe the remaining issues [at Vienna] provide a continued basis for their Eighth Amendment claims” and that they would like
5

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 126 Filed 08/16/17 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #976
to dismiss the action without prejudice. (Doc. 115, p. 6). Plaintiffs also note that “Defendants have agreed to provide written notice to Class Counsel should Defendants intend to repopulate Building 19 within two years of the date of dismissal” and that they intend to remain vigilant if issues arise at Vienna in the future. Id
Because the class in this matter was certified for the purposes of settlement, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Court approval is needed prior to voluntary dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Rule 23(e) states “The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval.” Prior to approving dismissal of a certified class, “[t]he court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). Additionally, “[i]f the proposal would bind class members, the court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). Although the class in this case was certified only for the purposes of settlement, and the Plaintiffs seek dismissal without prejudice, the Court nonetheless finds that the all of the requirements set forth in Rule 23(e) have been satisfied.1
In this case, notice was provided in a reasonable manner to all the class members at Vienna. (Dismissal Notice included as exhibit to Court Order at Doc. 119). “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is
1 This matter was certified for the purpose of settlement only. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek dismissal without prejudice. Because it does not appear that dismissal without prejudice will actually “bind” the members of the class, it is not clear whether the requirements set forth at Rule 23(e) are strictly necessary in this case. After this matter is dismissed without prejudice, an inmate at Vienna would be free to file his own lawsuit seeking prospective injunctive relief or monetary damages. See Crowder v. Lash, 687 F.2d 996, 1009 (7th Cir. 1982) (Court noted approvingly that “several circuits have held that where a prisoner seeks damages for allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement he is not precluded by an earlier class action in which only declaratory and injunctive relief were sought”). However, the Rule 23(e) notice requirement and the requirements that the dismissal be fair, reasonable and adequate are all met in this case.
6

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 126 Filed 08/16/17 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #977
notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S. Ct. 652, 657, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950). Although the dismissal notice was not hand delivered to the inmates at Vienna, it was posted in the housing units, the law library, and broadcast on the prison television channel. The notice itself uses plain English, instructs the class members as to the ongoing proceedings, and provides directions as to how class members may file an objection to the dismissal. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking only declaratory relief and prospective injunctive relief. The class members consist of incarcerated individuals. Under these circumstances, the parties appear to have exercised “due regard for the practicalities and peculiarities of the case” in drafting the notice and providing it to the class members. Id. As such, the dismissal notice (and the manner in which it was provided to the class members) satisfied due process requirements, and was adequate under Rule 23(e).
Furthermore, voluntary dismissal under these circumstances is fair, reasonable and adequate. Plaintiffs filed their complaint seeking only declaratory relief and prospective injunctive relief. In their motion for voluntary dismissal, Plaintiffs note that the conditions of confinement at Vienna have significantly improved and that they are now under the belief that the “current conditions at Vienna do not provide the basis for a viable Eighth Amendment claim.” Plaintiffs concede that they no longer have a viable Eighth Amendment claim for the purposes of prospective injunctive relief. In other words, Plaintiffs admit that a live controversy no longer exists. Although IDOC officials have not provided all of the facility renovations that Plaintiffs would like to see, Plaintiffs state that the changes to date “provide most of the relief that [was] sought[.]” Plaintiffs also state in the motion for voluntary dismissal that they are
7

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 126 Filed 08/16/17 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #978
satisfied with how the Defendants have handled Building 19 and that moving the general population inmates out of the structure “go[es] beyond what Class Counsel thought could be achieved either through settlement or litigation.”
District Courts are directed to consider a variety of factors when making the determination that the proposal is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Such factors include “a comparison of the strengths of plaintiffs’ case versus the amount of the settlement offer; the likely complexity, length, and expense of the litigation; the amount of opposition to the settlement among affected parties; the opinion of competent counsel; and, the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery already undertaken at the time of the settlement.” E.E.O.C. v. Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., 768 F.2d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 1985). Plaintiffs appear to concede that their claims in this matter are now moot. A class action becomes moot “[w]hen the claims of all of the class members are moot.” Davis v. Ball Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 753 F.2d 1410, 1416 (7th Cir. 1985). In sum, Plaintiffs essentially achieved the relief they were seeking in this case. Plaintiffs contend that the claims are now moot and no member of the class filed an objection to the notice of dismissal. Dismissal is also without prejudice. Finally, Plaintiffs state that they are continuing to monitor the situation at Vienna and that IDOC will “stipulate to providing written notice if it intends to house general population inmates in Building 19 or reopen the dormitory-style segregation unit any time within two years of dismissal.” When viewed as a whole, voluntary dismissal without prejudice constitutes a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution to this matter.
8

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 126 Filed 08/16/17 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #979 III. RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 114) be
granted. If this Report and Recommendation is adopted, this matter shall be dismissed without prejudice. No further claims shall remain.
SO RECOMMENDED. DATED: August 16, 2017.
s/Reona J. Daly REONA J. DALY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9

 
 Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 127 Filed 09/07/17 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #981

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL BOYD, PAUL LEE, and KENDRICK PEARSON, and J.B. WASHUP on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
S.A. GODINEZ and RANDY DAVIS,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Case No. 12-cv-704-MJR-RJD ) ) ) ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

REAGAN, Chief District Judge:

On June 13, 2012, Plaintiffs Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, and Kendrick Pearson,

inmates at Vienna Correctional Center, filed suit against Defendants S.A. Godinez and

Randy Davis. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief to correct living

conditions at Vienna that they described as squalid, overcrowded, inhumane, and unfit

for human habitation. In August 2013, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to certify a

class for settlement purposes. On October 29, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an amended

complaint adding Plaintiff J.B. Washup as a class representative. District Judge J. Phil

Gilbert certified a class for settlement purposes on October 31, 2013. The parties

engaged in protracted settlement negotiations that deadlocked without a resolution in

2016. In May 2016, the parties filed a joint status report requesting that the Court set a

1

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 127 Filed 09/07/17 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #982
new scheduling order and trial date. Judge Gilbert re-set the case for trial, but the case was transferred to the undersigned in August 2016.
On December 9, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a voluntary motion to dismiss this action in its entirety. According to the motion, the Illinois Department of Corrections made significant improvements to the living conditions at Vienna that resolved the unconstitutional conditions. Class counsel toured parts of Vienna at issue in this action and observed the improvements. After a limited deposition of Michael P. Atchison, Chief of Operations for IDOC, and the tour of Vienna, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss their claims without prejudice.
On January 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly ordered that notice of the dismissal be provided to the settlement class no later than January 30, 2017. The notice informed class members that they could file objections or comments on or before March 1, 2017. No objections or comments were filed. On March 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Daly held a fairness hearing on the motion for voluntary dismissal.
On August 16, 2017, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), Magistrate Judge Daly submitted a detailed Report & Recommendations (Doc. 126) to the undersigned District Judge. According to the Report, the plaintiffs’ proposal to dismiss their claims without prejudice satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs dismissals of class actions once a class is certified. Notice was provided as required, and Judge Daly found that dismissal of this action without prejudice is a fair,
Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD Document 127 Filed 09/07/17 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #983

reasonable, and adequate resolution at this juncture. The Report recommends that the undersigned grant Defendants’ motion for voluntary dismissal.
The docket entry associated with the Report and Recommendations clearly states that any objections to Judge Daly’s recommendation were due by September 5, 2017. No objections were filed by that deadline, nor did either party move for additional time to file objections. Accordingly, this Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)(“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions”).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Daly’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 126) and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 114). All claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. As no claims remain pending, the Clerk is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 7, 2017

Page 3 of 3

s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN Chief Judge United States District Court

 
 11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
CASREF,CJRA_A,CJRA_D,CLOSED,JPG,KLL,RJD
U.S. District Court Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:12-cv-00704-MJR-RJD

Boyd et al v. Godinez et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff Michael Boyd on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

Date Filed: 06/13/2012 Date Terminated: 09/07/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Kathleen P. Lally Latham & Watkins LLP-Chicago 330 North Wabash Ave., Ste. 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 312-876-7700 Fax: 312-993-9767 Email: kathleen.lally@lw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan S. Mills Uptown People's Law Generally Admitted 4413 N. Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 773-769-1411 Fax: 773-769-2224 Email: alanmills@comcast.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew T. Gehl Latham & Watkins LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5800 Chicago, IL 60606 312-876-7700 Fax: 312-993-9767 Email: andrew.gehl@lw.com TERMINATED: 09/08/2016

Malorie R. Medellin Latham & Watkins LLP-Chicago 330 North Wabash Ave., Ste. 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 312-876-7700 Fax: 312-993-9767 Email: malorie.medellin@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark S. Mester

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

1/17

11/2/2017
Plaintiff Paul Lee on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
Latham & Watkins LLP-Chicago 330 North Wabash Ave., Ste. 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 312-876-7700 Fax: 312-993-9767 Email: mark.mester@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Collins , III Latham & Watkins LLP-Chicago 330 North Wabash Ave., Ste. 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 312-876-6566 Fax: 312-993-9767 Email: robert.collins@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sajid Saleem Latham & Watkins LLP-Chicago 330 North Wabash Ave., Ste. 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 312-876-6576 Email: sajid.saleem@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan S. Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew T. Gehl (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2016
Kathleen P. Lally (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Malorie R. Medellin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark S. Mester (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Collins , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sajid Saleem (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

2/17

11/2/2017
Plaintiff Kendrick Pearson on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff J.B. Washup

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
represented by Alan S. Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew T. Gehl (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2016
Kathleen P. Lally (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Malorie R. Medellin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark S. Mester (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Collins , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sajid Saleem (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert C. Collins , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sajid Saleem (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen P. Lally (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant S.A. Godinez Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, in his ofﬁcial capacity
https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

represented by Robert L. Fanning Ofﬁce of the Attorney General-Springﬁeld 500 South Second Street Springﬁeld, IL 62701 217-782-2077 Fax: 217-782-8767 Email: rfanning@atg.state.il.us LEAD ATTORNEY
3/17

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher L. Higgerson Illinois Attorney General's Ofﬁce Springﬁeld Generally Admitted 500 South Second Street Springﬁeld, IL 62706 217-782-9096 Fax: 217-524-5091 Email: chiggerson@atg.state.il.us TERMINATED: 02/05/2016

Defendant
Randy Davis Warden of Vienna Correctional Center, in his ofﬁcial capacity

Dylan P. Grady Ofﬁce of the Attorney General-Springﬁeld 500 South Second Street Springﬁeld, IL 62701 217-782-9026 Fax: 217-782-8767 Email: dgrady@atg.state.il.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert L. Fanning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher L. Higgerson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2016

Dylan P. Grady (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Joshua Wallace

Movant
Renard Jones TERMINATED: 04/27/2015

represented by Renard Jones N62652 HILL CORRECTIONAL CENTER 600 South Linwood Road PO Box 1700 Galesburg, IL 61402 PRO SE

Movant
Ralph Allston TERMINATED: 04/27/2015

represented by Ralph Allston N47639 TAYLORVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

4/17

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
Route 29 South PO Box 1000 Taylorville, IL 62568 PRO SE

Date Filed 06/13/2012 06/13/2012 06/13/2012 06/13/2012 06/13/2012 06/13/2012 06/13/2012 07/19/2012 08/29/2012
08/29/2012 08/29/2012 09/11/2012 09/11/2012 09/17/2012 09/19/2012

# Docket Text
1 Case Opened. Documents may now be electronically ﬁled. Case number 12-704-JPG must be placed on all documents prior to ﬁling them electronically. (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Magistrate Judge)(bkl) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
2 COMPLAINT against Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0754-1714038.), ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen Patricia Lally on behalf of Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark S. Mester on behalf of Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson (Mester, Mark) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Christian Collins, III on behalf of Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson (Collins, Robert) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew T. Gehl on behalf of Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson (Gehl, Andrew) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Alan S. Mills on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
8 MOTION - Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Review Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/19/2012)
9 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier, Denying 8 MOTION - Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Review Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Kendrick Pearson, Paul Lee. The threshold review of the complaint having now been completed, Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to serve Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4. Defendants are ORDERED to timely ﬁle an appropriate responsive pleading to the complaint and shall not waive ﬁling a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/28/2012. (tjk) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
10 Summons Issued as to S.A. Godinez. (jdh) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
11 Summons Issued as to Randy Davis. (jdh) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. Randy Davis served on 9/6/2012, answer due 9/27/2012. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/11/2012)
13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. S.A. Godinez served on 8/29/2012, answer due 9/19/2012. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/11/2012)
14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 2 Complaint by Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
15 ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. A responsive pleading is

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

5/17

11/2/2017
09/21/2012 10/09/2012 10/17/2012 10/17/2012 10/18/2012
10/18/2012
11/12/2012 11/27/2012 11/27/2012 01/22/2013 01/28/2013

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
now due from Randy Davis and S.A. Godinez by 10/9/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 9/19/2012. (kls)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 09/19/2012)
16 MOTION to Certify Class - Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. Responses due by 10/25/2012 (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
17 ANSWER to 2 Complaint and Afﬁrmative Defenses by Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
Pro Se Threshold Determination $ 0 Track D. Final Pre-trial set for 7/10/2014 at 9:30 a.m. with a Bench trial setting of 7/14/2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Benton, IL. (by:kjr) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
18 CJRA TRACK D assigned: Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/10/2014 at 09:30 AM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. Bench Trial set for 7/14/2014 at 09:00 AM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. (by:kjr) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
19 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Scheduling and Discovery Conference set for 11/27/2012 8:45 AM via telephone before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier. Counsel for plaintiff is responsible for placing the conference call. The telephone number for the Court is 618439-7750. Lead counsel must participate in the conference call. (krm) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
20 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY: Discovery disputes which cannot be resolved through informal means pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 shall be handled in the following manner. The party seeking the discovery shall be responsible for arranging for a prompt telephone conference with the Court and opposing counsel, by ﬁrst contacting Karen Metheney, Courtroom Deputy to Judge Frazier, at 618-439-7754. If written discovery is involved, the disputed portion(s) shall be faxed to the Court prior to the telephone conference. Motions to Compel discovery and/or for appropriate sanctions shall be presented orally at the telephone conference. Written motions to compel or legal memoranda will not be accepted unless speciﬁcally requested by the Court. Expense of the call will be borne by the non-prevailing party. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 10/18/2012. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 10/18/2012)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by Malorie R. Medellin on behalf of Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson (Medellin, Malorie) (Entered: 11/12/2012)
22 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier: Scheduling and Discovery Conference held on 11/27/2012. (krm) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
23 SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY ORDER: Joint Report approved and entered. Discovery to be completed by 3/6/2014. Dispositive Motions to be ﬁled by 3/21/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 11/27/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Report)(krm) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
24 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
25 ORDER granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Discovery. Defendants shall serve responses to plaintiffs requests for production of documents by January 29, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 1/28/2013. (kls)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/28/2013)

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

6/17

11/2/2017
02/21/2013 02/21/2013 02/25/2013 02/25/2013
02/26/2013 04/30/2013 05/02/2013 08/01/2013 08/01/2013
08/01/2013 08/07/2013
08/12/2013 08/13/2013 08/15/2013

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
26 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
27 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 23 Scheduling Order, by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
28 ORDER granting 27 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. A modiﬁed scheduling order will be entered, extending certain deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 2/25/2013. (kls) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
29 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: extending the deadline for plaintiffs' brief in support of class certiﬁcation to 7/1/2013. Opposition is now due by 7/29/2013. Any reply is now due by 8/12/2013. See Order for additional details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 2/25/2013. (kls) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
30 PRETRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER granting 26 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 2/26/2013. (kls) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
31 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 29 Scheduling Order, Set Scheduling Order Deadlines,, by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
32 ORDER granting 31 Motion to Amend and Modifying (Doc. No. 23) Scheduling and Discovery Order. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 5/2/2013. (kls) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
33 MOTION to Certify Class - Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Class Certiﬁcation for Purposes of Settlement by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. Responses due by 9/6/2013 (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
34 MEMORANDUM in Support re 33 MOTION to Certify Class - Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Class Certiﬁcation for Purposes of Settlement ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit 1 to 20, # 3 Exhibit 21 to 35)(Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
35 MOTION to Seal - Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Document 34 Exhibits 7, 12, 14-17, 19-20, 23-24, 26-29, and 31) by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
36 MINUTE ORDER re 35 MOTION to Seal and to File Documents Under Seal (Document 34 Exhibits 7, 12, 14-17, 19-20, 23-24, 26-29, and 31 ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Kendrick Pearson, Paul Lee. (kjr) Motion Hearing set for 8/22/2013 at 01:30 PM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/7/2013. Parties should read minute order for complete details.(kjr, )(Entered: 8/7/2013) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
37 MOTION for Order to Reset Hearing - Unopposed Motion to Reset Hearing by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
38 MINUTE ORDER (kjr); granting 37 MOTION for Order to Reset Hearing. Hearing re 35 MOTION to Seal reset for 8/15/2013 01:30 PM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert.(dka, ) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
39 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. (kjr) Motion Hearing held on 8/15/2013 re 16 MOTION to Certify Class, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Kendrick Pearson, Paul Lee, and 35 MOTION to Seal Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Document 34 Exhibits 7, 12, 14-17, 19-20, 23-24, 26-29, and 31 ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Kendrick Pearson, Paul Lee, 33 MOTION to Certify Class - Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Class Certiﬁcation for Purposes of Settlement ﬁled by

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

7/17

11/2/2017
08/27/2013 08/27/2013
08/30/2013
09/09/2013 09/16/2013 10/15/2013
10/18/2013
10/18/2013 10/25/2013 10/25/2013
10/29/2013

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
Michael Boyd, Kendrick Pearson, Paul Lee. The Court reserves ruling on motions.(Court Reporter Chris Dohack.)(kjr, )(Entered: 8/21/2013) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
40 Amended MOTION to Seal - Amended Motion to File Documents Under Seal by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
41 EXHIBIT by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. Exhibit to 33 Motion to Certify Class - Amended Exhibits to Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Class Certiﬁcation for Purposes of Settlement. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - 6, # 2 Exhibit 7 Part 1, # 3 Exhibit 7 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit 7A, # 5 Exhibit 8 - 17, # 6 Exhibit 18 27, # 7 Exhibit 28 - 35)(Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
42 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Granting 40 Amended MOTION to Seal Amended Motion to File Documents Under Seal ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Kendrick Pearson, Paul Lee, and renders as moot 35 MOTION to Seal Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Document 34 Exhibits 7, 12, 14-17, 19-20, 23-24, 26-29, and 31) ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Kendrick Pearson, Paul Lee. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/30/2013. (jdh) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
43 Sealed Document. (Lally, Kathleen) Exhibit re 33 Motion to Certify Class. Modiﬁed on 9/9/2013 (bkl). (Entered: 09/09/2013)
44 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: class certiﬁcation. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 9/16/2013. (jdh) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
45 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 10/18/2013 11:00 AM via telephone before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier. Counsel for Plaintiffs to place the conference call between the Court and counsel. The telephone number for the Court is 618-439-7750. Lead counsel must participate in the conference call. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 10/15/2013)
46 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier: Status Conference held on 10/18/2013. Attorneys Lally and Mills present for plaintiffs. Attorney Higgerson present for defendants. A settlement conference is set for 12/13/2013 9:30 AM before Judge Frazier in Benton. Separate order to enter. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 10/18/2013)
47 ORDER FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference set for 12/13/2013 9:30 AM in Benton Courthouse before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier. Settlement statements to be submitted by 12/6/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 10/18/2013. (krm) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
48 MOTION to Amend/Correct 2 Complaint - Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
49 MEMORANDUM in Support re 33 MOTION to Certify Class - Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Class Certiﬁcation for Purposes of Settlement - Supplemental Brief in Further Support of Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Class Certiﬁcation for the Purposes of Settlement ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
50 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Granting 48 MOTION to Amend/Correct 2 Complaint Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Kendrick Pearson, Paul Lee. The Court reserves the ruling on the motion for class certiﬁcation. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/29/2013. (jdh) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

8/17

11/2/2017
10/29/2013 10/31/2013
11/15/2013 11/26/2013 12/16/2013
01/09/2014 03/10/2014
03/17/2014
03/24/2014 04/29/2014 05/06/2014
06/10/2014

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
51 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson, J.B. Washup.(Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
52 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Class Certiﬁcation for Purposes of Settlement (Doc. 33 . The Court CERTIFIES the following class for settlement purposes only and APPOINTS plaintiff J.B. Washup as class representative; and APPOINTS attorneys Mark Mester and Kathleen Lally, of Latham & Watkins LLP, and Alan Mills, of Uptown Peoples Law Center, as class counsel. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/31/2013. (jdh) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
53 Defendants ANSWER to 51 Amended Complaint by Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
54 ORDER re 47 Order for Settlement Conference. The named plaintiffs are excused from attending the settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 11/26/2013. (kls)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 11/26/2013)
55 ORDER re 23 Scheduling and Discovery Order. In view of the progress made toward settlement, approaching deadlines regarding experts, discovery, and dispositive motions (paragraphs 14-17 of Doc. No. 23) are VACATED and will be reset as needed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 12/16/2013. (kls)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 12/16/2013)
56 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier: Settlement Conference held on 12/13/2013. Conference is continued. (kls) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
57 NOTICE AND ORDER: A Status Conference is set for 3/20/2014 9:30 AM via telephone before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier. Counsel for Defendants shall place the conference call between the Court (618-439-7750) and counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 3/10/2014. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/10/2014)
58 NOTICE AND ORDER re 57 Notice and Order setting a status conference. Due to a scheduling conﬂict, the Status Conference presently set for 3/20/2014 9:30 AM is CONTINUED TO 3/24/2014 11:00 AM. Counsel for Defendants shall place the conference call between the Court (618-439-7750) and counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 3/17/2014. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/17/2014)
59 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier: Status Conference held on 3/24/2014. Parties to report status of settlement discussions to Judge Frazier by the end of April. (krm) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
60 STATUS REPORT - Joint Status Report by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
61 NOTICE AND ORDER: A Status Conference is set for 6/10/2014 at 9:30 AM via telephone before Magistrate Judge Frazier. Counsel for Defendants is responsible for placing the conference call. The telephone number for the Court is 618-439-7750. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 5/6/2014. (krm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 05/06/2014)
62 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier: Status

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

9/17

11/2/2017
07/08/2014 09/17/2014 09/23/2014
10/14/2014 10/20/2014 10/31/2014 01/15/2015 01/16/2015
01/29/2015

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
Conference held on 6/10/2014. Appearances: Alan S. Mills, Kathleen Lally, Robert C. Collins III, for Plaintiffs. Christopher L. Higgerson, for Defendants. (Court Reporter N/A.) (krm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 06/11/2014)
63 NOTICE AND ORDER: The Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/10/2014 at 9:30 AM and Bench Trial set for 7/14/2014 at 9:00 AM before Judge J. Phil Gilbert in Benton are STRICKEN from the docket and to be reset at a later date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 7/8/2014. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 07/08/2014)
64 NOTICE AND ORDER. A Status Conference isset for 9/23/2014 at 1:15 PM via telephone before Magistrate Judge Frazier. Counsel for Plaintiffs will be responsible for initiating the conference call between the Court (618-439-7750) and counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 9/17/2014. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 09/17/2014)
65 NOTICE AND ORDER Canceling the Status Conference set for 9/23/2014 1:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Frazier. This Order will conﬁrm that the parties and the Court will meet at the Vienna Correctional Center at 9:00 AM on October 30, 2014. It is anticipated that Judge Gilbert will participate. It is requested that the Attorney General's Ofﬁce make arrangements with the Department of Corrections to facilitate the visit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 9/23/2014. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 09/23/2014)
66 Letter returning unsolicited correspondence from Alexander Howard (kls) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
67 Letter returning unsolicited correspondence from Phillip Hale (kls) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
68 ORDER: Preliminary draft of the joint proposed consent decree must be submitted by January 15, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 10/31/14. (kos) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
69 MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
70 ORDER granting 69 Motion for Extension of Time to File. In order to allow further discussion between the parties, the deadline to submit a preliminary joint proposed consent decree is hereby extended to February 17, 2015. Additionally, the parties are ORDERED to submit separate ex parte statements regarding the negotiation efforts for in camera review. The statements should include a short summary of the issues that are in agreement, what issues are still in dispute, and the parties' respective positions on the disputed issues. Counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants are to submit their statements to Judge Frazier's proposed documents email account no later than January 23, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 1/16/15. (kos)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/16/2015)
71 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 2/6/2015 at 9:30 AM via telephone before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier. Counsel for Defendants will be responsible for arranging the conference call. The telephone number for the Court is: 618-439-7750. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/29/2015)

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

10/17

11/2/2017
02/06/2015 03/19/2015 03/24/2015 04/03/2015 04/22/2015
04/23/2015 04/24/2015 04/27/2015 04/28/2015 05/08/2015
05/26/2015
06/11/2015
06/25/2015

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
72 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier and Minute Order: Status Conference held on 2/6/2015. The 2/17/2015 deadline for submitting the proposed consent decree is stricken and will be reset after 3/2/2015. (krm) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
73 Pro Se MOTION for Joinder by Joshua Wallace. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(mar) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
74 ORDER denying 73 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 3/24/15. (kos) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
75 ORDER: In light of the ongoing settlement negotiations, the deadline for submitting a consent decree will be reset in the near future. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 4/3/15. (kos)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 04/03/2015)
76 NOTICE AND ORDER: A Status and Scheduling Conference is set before Magistrate Judge Frazier via telephone on 5/8/2015 10:00 AM for the purpose of setting a settlement conference. Counsel for Plaintiffs is responsible for placing the conference call. The telephone number for the Court is 618-439-7750. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 4/22/2015. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 04/22/2015)
77 Pro Se MOTION for Joinder by Renard Jones. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(anm) (Entered: 04/23/2015)
78 Pro Se MOTION for Joinder by Ralph Allston. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(mar) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
79 ORDER denying 77 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 4/27/15. (kos) (Entered: 04/27/2015)
80 ORDER denying 78 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 4/28/15. (kos) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
81 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier: Status and Scheduling Conference held on 5/8/2015. Settlement negotiations discussed. Counsel for the Defendants shall contact the Court regarding scheduling a settlement conference. Appearances for Plaintiffs: Kathleen Lally, Robert Collins III, Alan Mills. Appearances for Defendants: Christopher Higgerson, LaShonda Hunt, David Tracy. (krm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 05/08/2015)
82 ORDER FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference set for 6/25/2015 9:00 AM in Benton Courthouse before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 5/26/2015. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 05/26/2015)
83 ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: The Settlement Conference presently set before Magistrate Judge Frazier on 6/25/2015 at 9:00 AM at the Benton Courthouse will instead be held at the East St. Louis Courthouse (Visiting Judge's Courtroom) on 6/25/2015 beginning at 8:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 6/11/2015. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 06/11/2015)
89 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier: Settlement Conference held on 6/25/2015. Case did not settle. (kos)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

11/17

11/2/2017
12/15/2015 01/22/2016 01/26/2016 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 02/05/2016
02/09/2016
04/13/2016 04/15/2016
05/10/2016 05/16/2016 05/17/2016

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/04/2016)
84 NOTICE of Hearing: IN PERSON Status Conference set for 1/26/2016 at 10:00 AM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. (tag)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 12/15/2015)
85 NOTICE of Hearing: IN PERSON Status Conference is Reset for 1/27/2016 at 10:30 AM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. (tag)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/22/2016)
86 NOTICE of Hearing: IN PERSON Status Conference is Reset for 2/9/2016 at 10:00 AM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. This matter is STRICKEN from the 1/27/2016 docket.(tag)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/26/2016)
87 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert L. Fanning on behalf of Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez (Fanning, Robert) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
88 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Robert Fanning in for Christopher Higgerson by Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez. (Fanning, Robert) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
90 ORDER, granting 88 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Robert Fanning in for Christopher Higgerson ﬁled by Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez., Attorney Christopher L. Higgerson terminated. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/5/2016. (jdh)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/05/2016)
91 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Phil Gilbert: Status Conference held on 2/9/2016. Counsel for the Plaintiff moves to continue this matter. Defendant has no objection to the continuance. The Court is hereby granting the oral motion to continue. IN PERSON Status Conference is set for 4/20/2016 at 10:00 AM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. (Court Reporter Stephanie Rennegarbe.) (tag) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
92 MOTION to Continue - Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Continue In-Person Status Hearing by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson, J.B. Washup. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
93 MINUTE ORDER re 92 MOTION to Continue IN PERSON Status Conference. The Court is hereby Granting 92 MOTION to Continue Status Conference. The IN PERSON Status Conference is Reset for 5/17/2016 at 9:30 AM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. This matter is STRICKEN from the 4/20/2016 docket. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/15/2016. (tag)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 04/15/2016)
94 STATUS REPORT - Joint Status Report by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson, J.B. Washup. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
95 NOTICE of Appearance by Dylan P. Grady on behalf of Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez (Grady, Dylan) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
96 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Phil Gilbert: Status Conference held on 5/17/2016. Parties advise the Court that settlement discussions have stalled and they desire to proceed with litigation. Scheduling order to follow. (Court Reporter Stephanie Rennegarbe.) (tag) (Entered: 05/17/2016)

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

12/17

11/2/2017
05/20/2016 05/20/2016 06/07/2016 06/22/2016
08/15/2016

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
97 REVISED SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY ORDER (PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 5/20/2016. (jdh) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
98 NOTICE of Hearing: Final Pretrial Conference is set for 1/11/2018 at 9:30 AM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. The Bench Trial is set for 1/22/2018 at 9:00 AM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. (tag)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 05/23/2016)
99 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 188 REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan for all further proceedings. Judge J. Phil Gilbert no longer assigned to case. All future pleadings shall bear the case number 12-704-MJR/PMF. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 6/6/2016. (jaj)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 06/07/2016)
100 ORDER: On June 7, 2016, this case was transferred to the undersigned Chief District Judge via Administrative Order No. 188. The undersigned now VACATES all settings before Judge Gilbert and RE-SETS jury trial (before the undersigned, in the East St. Louis, IL courthouse) for 9:00 a.m. on Monday, March 26, 2018. The ﬁnal pretrial conference will be held by Magistrate Judge Frazier and set by separate notice. If the parties desire an earlier or different trial setting, they are free to consent to trial before Magistrate Judge Frazier, who enjoys a more ﬂexible trial docket and generally can accommodate requests for agreed trial dates. (This is mentioned only as an option. Adverse consequences will not result from any party electing to withhold consent.) For the convenience of the parties, the Clerk's Ofﬁce will furnish a consent form upon request or the form may be found at http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/Forms/Consentotmag.pdf. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 06/22/16. (dkd)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 06/22/2016)
101 ORDER: Shortly after ﬁling their putative class action complaint in this Court, Plaintiffs, all prisoners incarcerated at Vienna Correctional Center who maintain that the conditions at Vienna are inhumane, ﬁled a motion for class certiﬁcation, asking the Court to certify this case for class treatment. As a part of the class certiﬁcation motion, Plaintiffs said that they ﬁled the class certiﬁcation motion early to stop any problem with mootness that might occur if they were transferred or released from Vienna during the pendency of this case. The motion expressly relied on the Seventh Circuit's decision in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), which held that plaintiffs in putative class cases could use early class certiﬁcation motions to avoid mootness problems. The rub is that Damasco was overruled by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015), and the ongoing need for plaintiffs to ﬁle early class certiﬁcation motions to avoid mootness has been placed into considerable doubt by the Seventh Circuit in Chapman and by the Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016). Given this change in the legal landscape, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiffs to ﬁle a brief supporting the need to keep the class certiﬁcation motion pending on the docket by Tuesday, August 30, 2016. If Plaintiffs are of the view that they no longer need a pending class certiﬁcation motion to avoid the problems they advanced to justify the early motion, they are DIRECTED to alternatively ﬁle a motion to withdraw the class certiﬁcation motion without prejudice by Tuesday, August 30, 2016. Plaintiffs will, of course, be free to ﬁle a new motion for class certiﬁcation once the issue is ready for resolution. Defendants are free to respond to Plaintiffs' brief or motion to withdraw by Tuesday, September 13, 2016. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/15/2016. (wtw) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 08/15/2016)

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

13/17

11/2/2017
08/25/2016

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
102 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney - Motion for Leave to Withdraw Appearance of Andrew T. Gehl by All Plaintiffs. (Collins, Robert) (Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/30/2016

103 RESPONSE to 101 Order, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Plaintiffs' Memorandum Regarding Motion for Class Certiﬁcation in Response to the Court's August 15, 2016 Order ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson, J.B. Washup. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

09/08/2016

104 ORDER granting 102 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Andrew T. Gehl terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 9/8/16. (kos)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 09/08/2016)

09/13/2016

105 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 189 REASSIGNING CASE REFERRAL signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 9/9/2016. Case referral reassigned to Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly for all further proceedings. Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier. All future pleadings shall bear the case number 12-704-MJR-RJD.(msd)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 09/13/2016)

09/22/2016

106 ORDER denying without prejudice on docket management grounds 16 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 9/22/2016. (wtw) (Entered: 09/22/2016)

09/28/2016

107 Joint MOTION to Stay - Joint Motion to Stay Discovery Deadlines in Order to Conduct Certain Limited Discovery by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson, J.B. Washup. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/28/2016)

09/29/2016

108 ORDER: The parties have jointly moved to stay all pending deadlines from Judge Gilbert's May 2016 scheduling order, citing the need to conduct an inspection of Vienna Correctional Center and a limited representative deposition of an ofﬁcial from Vienna, both to attempt to speed a potential settlement. This case was ﬁled in 2012 and was effectively stayed for a lengthy period of time while the parties tried to settle the case, only to be reset for trial by Judge Gilbert in mid-2016 when settlement deadlocked. After the case was transferred to the undersigned, the parties received an additional two month extension to the ultimate trial date, which is now set for March 2018. To the extent the parties' current motion to stay seeks to pause the case in a manner that would impact the March 2018 trial date or the substantive motion deadline in the Court's local rules (that all motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the pleadings, and for summary judgment must be ﬁled no later than 100 days before the ﬁrst day of the trial month), the motion to stay (Doc. 107 ) is DENIED, as the parties have already been given many extensions to the trial date. The remainder of the motion to stay is referred to Magistrate Judge Daly, who is free to adjust the other deadlines in this case as she sees ﬁt. If the parties require additional time to ﬁle substantive motions or wish another extension to the trial date, the parties remain free to consent this case to Judge Daly, who has a less congested trial docket, enjoys a more ﬂexible schedule, and typically can accommodate agreed-upon alterations to the trial setting. This is mentioned only as one option as the Court appreciates the schedule facing counsel herein; no adverse consequences result from declining to consent to trial before Judge Daly. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 9/29/2016. (wtw) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 09/29/2016)

10/05/2016

109 ORDER: Status Conference re 107 Joint MOTION to Stay set for 10/18/2016 at 09:00 AM via telephone before Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly. To join the conference call, the parties should call 888-684-8852. The access code is 1026624. The security code is 82176. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in the conference call. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 10/5/2016. (jlm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

14/17

11/2/2017
10/18/2016
10/19/2016 11/01/2016 11/07/2016 11/22/2016
11/23/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/30/2016 01/03/2017
01/12/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 10/05/2016)
110 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly: Status Conference held on 10/18/2016 via telephone. Attorneys Kathleen Lally, Robert Collins III and Sajid Saleem present for the plaintiffs. Attorney Saleem notiﬁed the Court that he will soon enter his appearance in this matter. Assistant Attorney General Dylan Grady for the defendants. The parties shall ﬁle a status report no later than November 7, 2016. The Court will defer ruling on the motion to stay / amend discovery deadlines (Doc. 107) until that date. (kos)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 10/18/2016)
Status Report due by 11/7/2016. (jaj) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
111 NOTICE of Appearance by Sajid Saleem on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Saleem, Sajid) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
112 STATUS REPORT - Joint Status Report by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson, J.B. Washup. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
113 ORDER granting in part 107 Joint Motion to Stay Discovery Deadlines in Order to Conduct Certain Limited Discovery. The plaintiffs have notiﬁed the Court that they intend to ﬁle a motion to dismiss. The scheduling order in this case is amended as follows. The plaintiffs shall ﬁle their motion to dismiss and accompanying memorandum no later than December 9, 2016. The defendants may ﬁle a response no later than December 30, 2016. The plaintiffs may then ﬁle a reply no later than January 13, 2017. After the matter is fully briefed, the Court will schedule a fairness hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 11/22/16. (kos)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 11/22/2016)
Set Deadline: Pursuant to Order at Doc. 113 The plaintiffs shall ﬁle their motion to dismiss and accompanying memorandum no later than December 9, 2016. Action due by 12/9/2016. (slj2) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
114 MOTION to Dismiss - Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson, J.B. Washup. Responses due by 1/12/2017 (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
115 MEMORANDUM in Support re 114 MOTION to Dismiss - Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson, J.B. Washup. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
116 Joint MOTION to Set Schedule for Distribution of Class Notice and Date for Fairness Hearing by Michael Boyd, Paul Lee, Kendrick Pearson, J.B. Washup. (Lally, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/30/2016)
117 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 116 Joint MOTION to Set Schedule for Distribution of Class Notice and Date for Fairness Hearing: Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2017 at 9:30 AM via telephone before Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly. To join the conference call, the parties should call 888-684-8852. The access code is 1026624. The security code is 3139. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in the conference call. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 1/3/2017. (jlm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/03/2017)
118 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly: Motion Hearing held on 1/12/2017 re 116 Joint MOTION to Set Schedule for Distribution of Class Notice and Date for Fairness Hearing ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Kendrick Pearson,

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

15/17

11/2/2017
01/13/2017
01/17/2017 03/27/2017 03/28/2017
03/28/2017 03/28/2017 03/28/2017 08/16/2017 09/07/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd
J.B. Washup, Paul Lee. Attorneys Kathleen P. Lally, Alan S. Mills, Robert C. Collins, III and Sajid Saleem present for plaintiffs. Attorney Dylan P. Grady present for defendants. Parties discussed scheduling issues and the dismissal notice that will be provided to the class members. Separate order to enter. (kos)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/12/2017)
119 ORDER granting 116 Motion to Set Schedule for Distribution of Class Notice and Date for Fairness Hearing. Notice to be distributed to Settlement Class on or before January 30, 2017. Members of the Settlement Class may ﬁle any objections or other comments no later than March 1, 2017. Class counsel may ﬁle responses to the objections and comments no later than March 20, 2017. The Court will conduct a fairness hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal on March 28, 2017 at 10:30 A.M. in the Benton Courthouse before Magistrate Judge Daly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 1/13/17. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice) (kos) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
120 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 114 MOTION to Dismiss - Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal: Fairness Hearing set for 3/28/2017 at 10:30 AM in Benton Courthouse before Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly. (jlm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/17/2017)
121 NOTICE by Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez re 119 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Grady, Dylan) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
122 NOTICE OF ERRORS AND/OR DEFICIENCIES re 121 Notice (Other) ﬁled by Randy Davis, S.A. Godinez. Document 121 incorrectly reﬂects the case number as 12-704-JPG. The correct case number for future ﬁlings is 3:12-cv-704-MJR-RJD. This Notice of Errors is being sent for informational purposes only.(kls3)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/28/2017)
123 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly: Motion Hearing held on 3/28/2017 re 114 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. The Court takes up the Motion. Report and recommendation to issue. (Court Reporter Liberty Recording.) (jlm) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
124 STRICKEN - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 3/28/2017. (Court Reporter Stephanie Rennegarbe.) (jlm) Modiﬁed on 3/28/2017 (jlm). (Entered: 03/28/2017)
125 NOTICE OF ERRORS AND/OR DEFICIENCIES re 124 Preliminary Injunction Hearing. Document stricken - ﬁled in incorrect case. (jlm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/28/2017)
126 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 114 Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal ﬁled by Michael Boyd, Kendrick Pearson, J.B. Washup, Paul Lee. Objections to R&R due by 9/5/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 8/16/17. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Notice)(kos) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
127 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Daly's Report and Recommendations (Doc. 126 ) and GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 114 ). All claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. As no claims remain pending, the Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 9/7/2017. (rah) (Entered: 09/07/2017)

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

16/17

11/2/2017

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

11/02/2017 20:37:58

hs0328:2563377:0 Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

16

Cost:

3:12-cv-00704-MJRRJD
1.60

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?586049770977077-L_1_0-1

17/17