PHV
U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (Jefferson City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:17−cv−04149−SRB

Gasca, et al v. Precythe, et al Assigned to: District Judge Stephen R. Bough Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Stephanie Gasca

Date Filed: 08/14/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis 3115 South Grand Boulevard Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 314−254−8543 Fax: 314−254−8547 Email: amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Locke E Bowman Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center 375 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 312−503−0844 Email: l−bowman@law.northwestern.edu LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mae C Quinn MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis 3115 South Grand Blvd. Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 314−254−8541 Email: mae.quinn@macarthurjustice.org TERMINATED: 12/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Megan G Crane MacArthur Justice Center 3115 South Grand Ste 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 314−254−8540 Email: megan.crane@macarthurjustice.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A Bedi Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center 375 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 312−503−2492 Email: sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu TERMINATED: 06/01/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Mildred Curren
Plaintiff Kenneth Hemphill

PRO HAC VICE
William P. Mobley 3115 s. Grand Blvd. Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63115 314−254−8540 Email: pat.mobley@macarthurjustice.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Locke E Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mae C Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Megan G Crane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
William P. Mobley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Locke E Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mae C Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Jesse Neely
Plaintiff Amber Wyse

Megan G Crane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
William P. Mobley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Locke E Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mae C Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Megan G Crane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Locke E Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mae C Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Timothy Gallagher
Plaintiff Solomon Warren

Megan G Crane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
William P. Mobley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Locke E Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mae C Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Megan G Crane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
William P. Mobley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Locke E Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Anne L. Precythe in her official capacity, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections

Mae C Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Megan G Crane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
William P. Mobley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan , Sr Missouri Attorney General's Office−JC P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573−751−1800 Email: jeremiah.morgan@ago.mo.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Moore Missouri Attorney General's Office−StL 815 Olive Street Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63101 314−340−3447 Email: justin.moore@ago.mo.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Pritchett MO Attorney Generals Office P O Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573−751−4526 Fax: 573−751−9456 Email: Michael.Pritchett@ago.mo.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen David Hawke Missouri Attorney General's Office−JC P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (573) 751−3321 Fax: (573)751−3825 Email: stephen.hawke@ago.mo.gov TERMINATED: 09/01/2017

Defendant
Kenneth Jones in his official capacity, Chairman of the Missouri Division of Probation and Parole

LEAD ATTORNEY
Anthony Gonzalez Holder Susan Slusher 107 N. Seventh St. Columbia, MO 65201 573−499−1700 Fax: 573−499−0969 Email: tony.gonzalez@ago.mo.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doug Shull Missouri Department of Corrections 2729 Plaza Drive P.O. Box 236 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573−526−6505 Fax: 573−522−2636 Email: doug.shull@doc.mo.gov TERMINATED: 04/15/2019
Laura E. Elsbury Missouri Ethics Commission 3411A Knipp Drive P.O. Box 1370 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573−751−2020 Fax: 573−522−2226 Email: laura.elsbury@mec.mo.gov TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Matthew G. Kimminau Missouri Attorney General's Office−JC P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573−751−3321 Fax: 573−751−9456 Email: matthew.kimminau@ago.mo.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Quinlan Missouri Attorney General's Office−JC P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573−751−8833 Fax: 573−751−9456 Email: michael.quinlan@ago.mo.gov TERMINATED: 11/30/2017
represented by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan , Sr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Pritchett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jennifer Zamkus in her official capacity, Vice Chair of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole
Defendant Jim Wells in his official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole

Anthony Gonzalez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doug Shull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2019
Laura E. Elsbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Matthew G. Kimminau (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Quinlan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/30/2017
represented by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan , Sr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Pritchett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Gonzalez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doug Shull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2019
Laura E. Elsbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Matthew G. Kimminau (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Quinlan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/30/2017
represented by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan , Sr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Moore

Defendant
Martin Rucker in his official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Pritchett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Gonzalez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doug Shull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2019
Laura E. Elsbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Matthew G. Kimminau (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Quinlan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/30/2017
represented by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan , Sr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Pritchett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Gonzalez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doug Shull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2019
Laura E. Elsbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Matthew G. Kimminau (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Quinlan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/30/2017

Defendant Ellis McSwain, Jr in his official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole
Defendant Don Ruzicka in his official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole TERMINATED: 12/15/2017

represented by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan , Sr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Pritchett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Gonzalez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doug Shull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2019
Laura E. Elsbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Matthew G. Kimminau (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Quinlan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/30/2017
represented by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan , Sr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Pritchett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Gonzalez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doug Shull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2019
Laura E. Elsbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2018

Defendant Gary Dusenberg in his official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole
Defendant Paul Fitzwater in his official capacity, Member of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole

Matthew G. Kimminau (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Quinlan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/30/2017
represented by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan , Sr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Pritchett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Gonzalez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doug Shull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2019
Laura E. Elsbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Matthew G. Kimminau (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Quinlan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/30/2017
represented by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan , Sr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Pritchett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Gonzalez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

interested party
Joe Wells 159941 SOUTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL CENTER 5−A−111 255 West Highway 32 Licking, MO 65542 TERMINATED: 05/17/2018
interested party
Daunte Smith

Doug Shull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2019
Laura E. Elsbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Matthew G. Kimminau (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/14/2017
08/16/2017 08/28/2017 08/31/2017
09/01/2017 09/05/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Filing fee $400, receipt number 0866−5399204. Service due by 11/13/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Civil Cover Sheet)(Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED and emailed to plaintiff's attorney as to Gary Dusenberg, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS REISSUED as to Don Ruzicka and emailed to plaintiff's counsel. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
2 MOTION to substitute attorney filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/14/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attorney Laura E. Elsbury added to party Gary Dusenberg(pty:dft), Attorney Laura E. Elsbury added to party Kenneth Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Laura E. Elsbury added to party Ellis McSwain, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Laura E. Elsbury added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft), Attorney Laura E. Elsbury added to party Martin Rucker(pty:dft), Attorney Laura E. Elsbury added to party Don Ruzicka(pty:dft), Attorney Laura E. Elsbury added to party Jim Wells(pty:dft), Attorney Laura E. Elsbury added to party Jennifer Zamkus(pty:dft))(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
3 Before the Court is Substitution of Counsel. (Doc. #2). For good cause stated attorney Stephen Hawke is hereby removed as counsel of record for Defendants, and attorneys Laura E. Elsbury and Michael Quinlan are added as counsel of record for Defendants. Signed on 9/1/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
4 Consent MOTION for extension of time to file answer or Responsive Motion filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/19/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/06/2017
09/18/2017 09/27/2017 09/28/2017
09/29/2017 09/29/2017 09/29/2017 09/29/2017 09/29/2017 09/29/2017 09/29/2017 09/29/2017 10/02/2017
10/06/2017

5 Before the Court is Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Responsive Motion. (Doc. #4). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Defendants Anne Precythe, Kenneth Jones, Jennifer Zamkus, Jim Wells, Martin Rucker, Ellis McSwain, Jr., Don Ruzicka, and Gary Dusenberg are granted an extension until and including October 6, 2017, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed on 9/6/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 09/06/2017)
6 MOTION to certify class filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/2/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Suggestions in Support of Motion for Class Certification)(Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
7 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 6 MOTION to certify class filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/11/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 6 ) (Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
8 Before the Court is Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Class Certification. (Doc. #7). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Even so, the Court finds good cause for granting a 30−day extension of time given the very early stage of this proceeding and the complexity of the issues involved. Accordingly, the MDOC Defendants are granted an extension of time until and including November 1, 2017, to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Signed on 9/28/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. Gary Dusenberg served on 8/17/2017, answer due 10/6/2017. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
10 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. Anne L. Precythe served on 8/17/2017, answer due 10/6/2017. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
11 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. Martin Rucker served on 8/17/2017, answer due 10/6/2017. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
12 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. Jim Wells served on 8/17/2017, answer due 10/6/2017. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
13 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. Jennifer Zamkus served on 8/17/2017, answer due 10/6/2017. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
14 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. Kenneth Jones served on 8/17/2017, answer due 10/6/2017. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
15 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. Ellis McSwain, Jr served on 8/17/2017, answer due 10/6/2017. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
16 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. Don Ruzicka served on 9/8/2017, answer due 10/6/2017. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
17 NOTICE of appearance by Justin Moore on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus (Attorney Justin Moore added to party Gary Dusenberg(pty:dft), Attorney Justin Moore added to party Kenneth Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Justin Moore added to party Ellis McSwain, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Justin Moore added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft), Attorney Justin Moore added to party Martin Rucker(pty:dft), Attorney Justin Moore added to party Don Ruzicka(pty:dft), Attorney Justin Moore added to party Jim Wells(pty:dft), Attorney Justin Moore added to party Jennifer Zamkus(pty:dft))(Moore, Justin) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
18 Consent MOTION for extension of time to file answer re 1 Complaint,, filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 1 ) (Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/06/2017 10/11/2017 10/11/2017
10/12/2017 10/12/2017 10/26/2017 10/26/2017 10/26/2017 11/01/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017

19 Before the Court is Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Responsive Motion. (Doc. #18). For good cause stated the motion is granted. The MDOC Defendants are granted an extension of time until and including October 25, 2017, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Signed on 10/6/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
20 MOTION for leave to file Amended Complaint filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/25/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
21 SUGGESTIONS in support re 20 MOTION for leave to file Amended Complaint filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Amber Wyse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 20 ) (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
22 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. (Doc. #20). As leave to amend should be "freely given when justice so requires" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the motion is granted. Plaintiffs are directed to file their Amended Complaint on or before Friday, October 13, 2017. Signed on 10/12/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
23 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Index 22)(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
24 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/9/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/9/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
26 Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Responsive Motion. (Doc. #24). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Defendants are granted leave to file their responsive pleading on or before October 26, 2017. Signed on 10/26/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
27 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 6 MOTION to certify class filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Reply suggestions due by 11/15/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 6 ) (Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
28 MOTION for extension of time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/24/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
29 ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 28 ). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Plaintiffs are granted an extension of time until and including November 15, 2017, to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss. Signed on 11/9/17

11/15/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017
11/16/2017 11/24/2017 11/27/2017 11/29/2017 11/29/2017 11/30/2017 11/30/2017

by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
30 MOTION for extension of time for Reply to Motion for Class Certification filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/29/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
31 Before the Court is Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Motion for Class Certification. (Doc. #30). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification is due on or before November 24, 2017. Signed on 11/15/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
32 MOTION for leave to file excess pages in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/29/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Opposition to Motion to Dismiss)(Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
33 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. Reply suggestions due by 11/29/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
34 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to Exceed Page Limitation and Suggestions in Support. (Doc. #32). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss in a length up to and including seventeen (17) pages. Signed on 11/16/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
35 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 6 MOTION to certify class filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/8/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 6 ) (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 11/24/2017)
36 Before this Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to file a Reply to the Motion for Class Certification (Doc. #35). For good cause stated, the Motion is granted. Reply Suggestions to Motion for Class Certification 6 are due on November 29, 2017. Signed on 11/27/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
37 Consent MOTION for extension of time to File Reply Suggestions filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/13/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
38 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 6 MOTION to certify class filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Related document(s) 6 ) (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
39 Before the Court is Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Suggestions. (Doc. #37). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Defendants are granted an extension of time until and including December 13, 2017, to file their reply suggestions in support of their motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Signed on 11/30/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
40 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Michael D. Quinlan on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/14/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Quinlan, Michael) (Entered:

11/30/2017 12/05/2017 12/08/2017 12/08/2017 12/08/2017 12/08/2017 12/11/2017
12/12/2017 12/13/2017 12/15/2017 12/29/2017 02/08/2018

11/30/2017)
41 ORDER: Before the Court is Motion to Withdraw as Co−Counsel of Record. (Doc. #40). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Attorney Michael Quinlan is hereby withdrawn as counsel of record for all Defendants. Signed on 11/30/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
42 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to FRCP 23 (Doc. #6) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed on 12/4/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
43 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/22/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
44 Before the Court is Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. (Doc. #43). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Attorney Mae C. Quinn is hereby withdrawn as counsel of record for all Plaintiffs. Signed on 12/8/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
45 Motion to allow Sheila A. Bedi to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt number 0866−5547312) filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
46 Motion to allow Locke E. Bowman to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt number 0866−5547365) filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
47 ORDER granting 45 & 46 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorneys Sheila A Bedi and Locke E Bowman for plaintiff's allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.
Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a CM/ECF account. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Please return the original completed ECF Registration Form to 80 Lafayette Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101.
This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
48 RULE 16 NOTICE. Proposed scheduling order due by 2/9/2018. Scheduling Conference set for 2/21/2018 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3B, Jefferson City (WAK) before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. Signed on 12/12/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
49 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. (Related document(s) 25 ) (Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
50 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc.#25) is DENIED. Further, the Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Mr. Paul Fitzwater for Mr. Ruzicka. Signed on 12/15/17 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
51 ANSWER to 23 Amended Complaint,, on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 12/29/2017)
52 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells,

02/08/2018 02/09/2018 02/12/2018 02/20/2018 02/20/2018
02/21/2018
02/23/2018 02/23/2018 02/26/2018 03/06/2018
03/07/2018

Jennifer Zamkus.(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
53 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
54 Joint PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
55 FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 502(d) ORDER. Signed on 2/8/2018 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 02/12/2018)
56 MOTION for leave to appear by telephone for scheduling conference filed by Sheila A Bedi on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/6/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
57 ORDER granting 56 Before the Court is Motion for Leave to Appear at Scheduling Conference Telephonically. (Doc. #56). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Attorney Sheila A Bedi may appear via telephone for the Scheduling Conference on February 21, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Attorney Bedi is directed to email her direct dial number where she can be reached for the hearing to Tracy Diefenbach (Tracy_Diefenbach@mow.uscourts.gov)by 8:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. Signed on 2/20/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(James, Carrie) Modified on 2/20/2018 (James, Carrie). (Entered: 02/20/2018)
58 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 2/21/2018. Scheduling order to be entered. Telephone conference set for 4/30/18 at 10:00 a.m. Conference call information emailed to counsel. Counsel appearing for Plaintiff(s): Sheila Bedi (by phone) and Amy Breihand. Counsel appearing for Defendant(s): Laura Elsbury and Mike Pritchett. Time in court: 9:35 am to 10:00 am. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Modified on 2/21/2018 to correct the name of attorneys appearing for defendants (Diefenbach, Tracy). (Entered: 02/21/2018)
59 RULES OF TRIAL Signed on 2/23/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
60 SCHEDULING ORDER: Fact Discovery due by 8/13/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 11/7/2018. Pretrial Conference set for 3/22/2019 11:00 AM Courtroom 7B, Kansas City (SRB) before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. Bench Trial set for 4/15/2019 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4B, Jefferson City (VDJJC) before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. Signed on 2/23/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
61 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
62 NOTICE of appearance by Charles Douglas Shull on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus (Attorney Charles Douglas Shull added to party Gary Dusenberg(pty:dft), Attorney Charles Douglas Shull added to party Kenneth Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Charles Douglas Shull added to party Ellis McSwain, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Charles Douglas Shull added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft), Attorney Charles Douglas Shull added to party Martin Rucker(pty:dft), Attorney Charles Douglas Shull added to party Don Ruzicka(pty:dft), Attorney Charles Douglas Shull added to party Jim Wells(pty:dft), Attorney Charles Douglas Shull added to party Jennifer Zamkus(pty:dft))(Shull, Charles) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
63 NOTICE of appearance by Charles Douglas Shull on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus (Attorney Charles Douglas Shull added to party Ellis McSwain, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Charles Douglas Shull added to party Don

03/28/2018
04/23/2018 04/27/2018 04/27/2018 04/30/2018 05/03/2018 05/14/2018 05/16/2018 05/17/2018
06/05/2018
06/07/2018

Ruzicka(pty:dft))(Shull, Charles) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
64 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Defendants Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production and Defendants Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories filed by Charles Douglas Shull on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Attorney Charles Douglas Shull added to party Paul Fitzwater(pty:dft))(Shull, Charles) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
65 NOTICE to take deposition of Missouri Department of Corrections filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
66 Joint MOTION for protective order filed by Doug Shull on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/11/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shull, Doug) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
67 PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed on 4/27/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
68 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 4/30/2018 to discuss case status. Counsel appearing for Plaintiff(s): Amy Breihan. Counsel appearing for Defendant(s): Doug Shull and Laura Elsbury. Time in court: 10:00 am to 10:05 am. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Jean Crawford, 816−512−5642. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 04/30/2018)
69 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of First Set of Requests for Entry onto Land and Inspection of the MDOC Parole Revocation Hearing Sites filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
70 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of TBD filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
71 PRO SE MOTION for order − Request for Copies filed by Joe Wells. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/30/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
72 ORDERED: Before the Court is Joe Wells' pro se motion for copies. (Doc. #71). Mr. Wells requests records in this case pursuant to the Missouri Sunshine Law. (Doc. #71, p. 1). Mr. Wells' motion is DENIED. Signed on 5/17/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough.
Copy of this Order has been mailed to: Joe Wells 159941; SOUTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL CENTER 5−A−111; 255 West Highway 32; Licking, MO 65542. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
73 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 6/7/2018 09:00 AM in Chambers before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. A memorandum of the discovery dispute, not to exceed two pages in length, should be emailed by each party no later than twenty−four hours prior to the teleconference to Tracy Diefenbach at Tracy_Diefenbach@mow.uscourts.gov. Conference call information emailed to counsel. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
74 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: DISCOVERY DISPUTE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 6/7/2018. Order to be entered. Counsel appearing for Plaintiff(s): Amy Briehan. Counsel appearing for Defendant(s): Doug Shull. Time in court: 9:00 am to 9:15 am. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/07/2018)

06/07/2018
06/21/2018 06/21/2018 06/21/2018 06/22/2018 06/27/2018 06/27/2018 06/29/2018

75 ORDER: On June 7, 2018, the Court held a telephone conference to resolve a discovery dispute regarding Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Entry onto Land and Inspection of the Missouri Department of Corrections Parole Revocation Hearing Sites. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court overrules Defendants objections, provided that each parolee to be observed consents to the presence of Plaintiffs' counsel, one law student and/or one paralegal, one court reporter, and one videographer at that parolees parole revocation (or VOP) hearing. See Feb. 16, 2018, Minute Entry, Brown v. Precythe, No. 17−cv−4082−NKL (Doc. # 94); see also Feb. 21, 2018, Order, Id. (Doc. # 95). The Court further orders supplemental briefing by all parties, to be submitted on or before June 21, 2018, on the issue of whether any video recording of VOP hearings can include deliberations. The Court further orders a telephone conference at 11:00 a.m. on June 27, 2018, to resolve the deliberations issue and other discovery issues discussed in the June 7 telephone conference. To the extent that the parties will address discovery issues other than the deliberations issue at the June 27 telephone conference, a memorandum of the discovery dispute, not to exceed two pages in length, should be emailed by each party to Tracy Diefenbach at Tracy_Diefenbach@mow.uscourts.gov. no later than twenty−four hours prior to the telephone conference. Signed on 6/7/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
76 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Defendants filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
77 MOTION to compel DEFENDANTS COMPLIANCE WITH FIRST SET OF REQUESTS TO OBSERVE AND RECORD REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/5/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
78 SUGGESTIONS in support re 77 MOTION to compel DEFENDANTS COMPLIANCE WITH FIRST SET OF REQUESTS TO OBSERVE AND RECORD REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Request to Inspect), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Wyse Revocation Order), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Gallagher Revocation Order))(Related document(s) 77 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
79 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 77 MOTION to compel DEFENDANTS COMPLIANCE WITH FIRST SET OF REQUESTS TO OBSERVE AND RECORD REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS filed by Doug Shull on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Reply suggestions due by 7/6/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Shull, Doug) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
80 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: DISCOVERY DISPUTE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 6/27/2018. Order to be entered. Counsel appearing for Plaintiff(s): Amy Briehan. Counsel appearing for Defendant(s): Doug Shull. Time in court: 11:15 am to 11:30 am. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
81 On June 27, 2018, the Court held a teleconference to consider Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants' Compliance with First Set of Requests to Observe and Record Revocation Proceedings (Doc. #77). Because this Court finds that the deliberative−process privilege applies to the panel members' deliberations, the motion is denied. Plaintiffs are prohibited from recording or observing the panel members' deliberative process but permitted to observe and video−record other parts of the parole hearing. Signed on 6/27/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
82 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of Second Set of Requests to Inspect filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber

06/29/2018 06/29/2018
07/13/2018 07/23/2018 07/23/2018 07/24/2018 08/09/2018 08/15/2018 08/22/2018 08/23/2018 08/24/2018 08/24/2018

Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
83 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Defendants Defendants Supplemental Response 21726−148766 filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
84 ORDER: Before the Court is the parties' joint request to amend the scheduling order. The deadline to complete all fact discovery is now set for September 28, 2018. The deadline for Plaintiffs to designate expert witnesses it intends to call at trial is now August 27, 2018. The deadline for Defendants to do the same is now October 8, 2018. The deadline to file dispositive motions, motions to strike expert designations, and Daubert motions is now December 27, 2018. Signed on 6/29/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
85 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Defendants filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
86 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of Missouri Department of Corrections filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
87 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of Second Set of Requests for Production filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
88 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Defendants filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
89 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of Third Set of Requests for Production filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
90 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of Second Set of Interrogatories filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
91 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus "Defendants Response and Objections to Plaintiffs Second Request for Production and Bates Documents" filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
92 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus Defendants Jones et al Supplemental Response to 2nd Request for Production of Documents filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
93 Consent MOTION to amend/correct 60 Scheduling Order, 84 Order,, filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/7/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 60 , 84 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
94 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. (Doc. #93). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Plaintiffs' expert disclosure deadline is extended until and including September 10, 2018, and Defendants' expert disclosure deadline is extended until and including October 22, 2018. Signed on 8/24/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is

08/27/2018 08/30/2018 08/30/2018 09/06/2018 09/07/2018 09/10/2018 09/10/2018 09/11/2018 09/11/2018 10/30/2018 11/15/2018 11/15/2018

attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
95 NOTICE to take deposition of Office of the Missouri State Public Defender filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
96 NOTICE to take deposition of Michael Davis filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
97 NOTICE to take deposition of Gary Dusenberg filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
98 NOTICE to take deposition of Jeanne Larkin filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
99 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of Ellen Blau − Director of the Missouri State Public Defender filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
100 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES Certificate of Service on Plaintiff's Disclousre of Expert David Muhammad filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
101 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' THIRD Request for Production of Documents filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
102 MOTION to withdraw as attorney for Defendants filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/25/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
103 ORDER: Before the Court is Notice of Withdrawal. (Doc. #102). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Attorney Laura Elsbury is removed as counsel of record for Defendants. Signed on 9/11/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
104 NOTICE to take deposition of David Muhammad filed by Doug Shull on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Shull, Doug) (Entered: 10/30/2018)
105 Joint MOTION to continue April 15, 2019 Trial Date filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/29/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/15/2018)
106 Before the Court is Joint Motion to Continue April 15, 2019 Trial Date. (Doc. #105). For good cause stated the motion is granted. The April 15 trial date and March 22 pretrial conference are cancelled. The Court will contact the parties to reschedule the trial and pretrial conference. Signed on 11/15/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/15/2018)

11/20/2018 11/27/2018 11/27/2018 11/27/2018 11/27/2018 11/27/2018
11/27/2018
11/30/2018 12/03/2018

107 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Bench Trial set for 4/15/19 is CONTINUED TO 11/18/2019 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4B, Jefferson City (VDJJC) before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. Pretrial Conference set for 3/22/19 is CONTINUED 10/17/2019 09:30 AM Courtroom 4B, Jefferson City (VDJJC) before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
108 MOTION for leave to file Exhibit Under Seal filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/11/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
109 SUGGESTIONS in support re 108 MOTION for leave to file Exhibit Under Seal filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Related document(s) 108 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
110 Before this Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal. (Doc. #108). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file the confidential exhibit to their Suggestions in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification under seal. Signed on 11/27/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
111 MOTION to certify class filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/11/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
112 SUGGESTIONS in support re 111 MOTION to certify class filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Mueller Deposition), # 2 Exhibit B (Kasak Deposition), # 3 Exhibit C (P&P 2017 Annual Report), # 4 Exhibit D (2017 Profile of Institutional & Supervised Population), # 5 Exhibit E (Defs.' Chart of Time to Hearing by Institution), # 6 Exhibit F (Larkins Deposition), # 7 Exhibit G (Procedure No. P3−8.2), # 8 Exhibit H (MSPD Deposition), # 9 Exhibit I (Group Declarations))(Related document(s) 111 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
113 SUGGESTIONS in support (SEALED) re 111 MOTION to certify class filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Mueller Deposition−CONFIDENTIAL), # 2 Exhibit B (Kasak Deposition), # 3 Exhibit C (P&P 2017 Annual Report), # 4 Exhibit D (2017 Profile of Institutional & Supervised Population), # 5 Exhibit E (Defs.' Chart of Time to Hearing by Institution), # 6 Exhibit F (Larkins Deposition), # 7 Exhibit G (Procedure No. P3−8.2), # 8 Exhibit H (MSPD Deposition), # 9 Exhibit I (Group Declarations))(Related document(s) 111 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
114 Motion to allow Megan G. Crane to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC−6058150) filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/30/2018)
115 ORDER granting 114 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney Megan G Crane for plaintiff allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.

12/06/2018

Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e−filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e−filing account at PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
116 MOTION for order Order Case to Mediation and Stay All Other Deadline Pending Mediation filed by Doug Shull on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/20/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Shull, Doug) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/06/2018 12/06/2018 12/07/2018 12/07/2018 12/11/2018 12/11/2018
12/11/2018
12/11/2018 12/26/2018 12/26/2018 12/26/2018

117 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 111 MOTION to certify class filed by Doug Shull on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/20/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 111 ) (Shull, Doug) (Entered: 12/06/2018)
118 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 12/11/2018 03:00 PM in Chambers before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. Conference call information emailed to counsel. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 12/06/2018)
119 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 116 MOTION for order Order Case to Mediation and Stay All Other Deadline Pending Mediation filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. Reply suggestions due by 12/21/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 116 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/07/2018)
120 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 117 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 111 MOTION to certify class filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. Reply suggestions due by 12/21/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 117 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/07/2018)
121 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 12/11/2018. Order to be entered. Counsel appearing for Plaintiff(s): Amy Breihan and Megan Crane. Counsel appearing for Defendant(s): Doug Shull. Time in court: 3:00 pm to 3:15 pm. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 12/11/2018)
122 Before this Court is a Motion for Extension of Time. (Doc. #117). For good cause stated and for reasons discussed during the telephone conference held on December 11, 2018, the Motion is granted. Defendants are granted an extension of time until and including December 21, 2018, to file their response to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs are granted an extension of time until and including January 11, 2019, to file their reply. Signed on 12/11/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Modified on 12/11/2018 to correct date the reply is due. Notice regenerated. (Diefenbach, Tracy). (Entered: 12/11/2018)
123 Before this Court is Defendants' Motion to Order this Case to Mediation and Stay All Other Deadlines Pending that Mediation. (Doc. #116). For reasons stated during the telephone conference held on December 11, 2018, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion to Order this Case to Mediation is granted. Mediation is to be completed on or before October 18, 2019. The Motion to Stay All Other Deadlines Pending Mediation is denied. Signed on 12/11/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 12/11/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 111 MOTION to certify class . Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/21/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. Reply suggestions due by 1/11/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 12/11/2018)
124 MOTION for leave to file Exhibits Under Seal filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/9/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
125 SUGGESTIONS in support re 124 MOTION for leave to file Exhibits Under Seal filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Related document(s) 124 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
126 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 111 MOTION to certify class filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Related document(s) 111 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/26/2018)

12/26/2018 12/27/2018 12/27/2018 12/27/2018
12/27/2018
01/04/2019 01/08/2019 01/15/2019 01/15/2019 01/15/2019

127 ORDER: Before this Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal. (Doc. #124). For good cause stated the Motion is granted. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file exhibits to their Suggestions in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment under seal. Signed on 12/26/18 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
128 MOTION to strike Expert Designation filed by Doug Shull on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/10/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Shull, Doug) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
129 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/17/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
130 SUGGESTIONS in support re 129 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE, # 32 Exhibit FF, # 33 Exhibit GG, # 34 Exhibit HH, # 35 Exhibit II, # 36 Exhibit JJ)(Related document(s) 129 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
131 SUGGESTIONS in support (SEALED) re 129 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (sealed), # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J (sealed), # 11 Exhibit K (sealed), # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O (sealed), # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S (sealed), # 20 Exhibit T (sealed), # 21 Exhibit U (sealed), # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB (sealed), # 29 Exhibit CC (sealed), # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE, # 32 Exhibit FF, # 33 Exhibit GG (sealed), # 34 Exhibit HH, # 35 Exhibit II (sealed), # 36 Exhibit JJ)(Related document(s) 129 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
132 ORDERED Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Class Certification (Doc. #111) is GRANTED. Signed on 1/4/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
133 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 128 MOTION to strike Expert Designation filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. Reply suggestions due by 1/22/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Deposition of David Muhammad))(Related document(s) 128 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 01/08/2019)
134 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 1/23/2019 10:00 AM in Chambers before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. Conference call information emailed to counsel. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
135 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 129 MOTION for summary judgment through and including 01/28/2019 filed by Doug Shull on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/29/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 129 ) (Shull, Doug) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
136 Before this Court is State Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time. (Doc. #135). For good cause stated the motion is granted. State Defendants are granted an extension of time until and including January 28, 2019, to file their response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed on 1/15/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 01/15/2019)

01/23/2019 01/23/2019
01/24/2019 01/28/2019 02/01/2019 02/06/2019
02/06/2019 02/07/2019 02/11/2019 02/27/2019 03/11/2019 03/28/2019

137 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 1/23/2019. Order to be entered. Time in court: 10:00 am to 10:20 am. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
138 ORDER: On January 23, 2019, the Court held a telephone conference. As discussed during the telephone conference, the parties are directed to file on or before February 1, 2019, (1) a notice of class certification that reflects the changes discussed during the telephone conference and (2) a proposed order regarding dissemination of notice to class members. Signed on 1/23/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
139 ORDER: Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Expert Designation and Exclude Testimony of that Expert at Trial. (Doc. #128). The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Please see Order for additional information. Signed on 1/24/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
140 RESPONSE to motion re 129 MOTION for summary judgment and Request filed by Doug Shull on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Reply suggestions due by 2/11/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Shull, Doug) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
141 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 2/6/2019 03:00 PM in Chambers before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. Conf call information emailed to counsel. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
142 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Teleconference held January 23, 2019, before Judge Stephen R. Bough. Court Reporter: Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641, gayle_wambolt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 15. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 2/13/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/6/2019.(Wambolt, Gayle) (Entered: 02/06/2019)
143 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 2/6/2019. Order to be entered. Time in court: 3:00 pm to 3:15 pm. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 02/06/2019)
144 ORDER ON DISSEMINATION OF CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE. Signed on 2/7/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
145 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 129 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Related document(s) 129 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 02/11/2019)
146 ORDER granting 129 motion for summary judgment. Signed on 2/27/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 02/27/2019)
148 STATUS REPORT :Defendants' Declaration re: Docket Entry 144, paragraph 3 by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. (Shull, Doug) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
149 PRO SE MOTION to intervene filed by William Cooper. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/11/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 03/29/2019)

04/08/2019 04/09/2019 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 04/11/2019 04/12/2019 04/12/2019 04/15/2019 04/15/2019
04/16/2019
05/15/2019

150 MOTION for extension of time for Dissemination of Class Certification Notice filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/22/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crane, Megan) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
151 Before this Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension for Dissemination of Class Certification Notice. (Doc. #150). For good cause stated the motion is granted. Plaintiffs are granted an extension of time until and including April 18, 2019, to complete the process of mailing notice to class members not in the custody of MDOC. Signed on 4/9/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 04/09/2019)
152 PRO SE MOTION to Request Docket Sheet filed by William Cooper. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/24/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Lock, Tania) Modified on 4/11/2019 to correct docket text. Regenerated NEF to all parties (Lock, Tania). (Entered: 04/10/2019)
153 PRO SE MOTION for order − Request for Copies filed by William Cooper. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/24/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
154 RESPONSE to motion re 149 MOTION to intervene filed by Pro Se Inmate William Cooper filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. Reply suggestions due by 4/25/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crane, Megan) (Entered: 04/11/2019)
155 MOTION for Substitution of Counsel by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus (Pritchett, Michael) Modified on 4/15/2019 to change event to motion (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 04/12/2019)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION and Set Deadlines as to 155 MOTION to substitute attorney. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/26/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
156 ORDER: Before the Court is Substitution of Counsel. (Doc. #155). The Court construes the notice as a motion to withdraw in accordance with Local Rule 83.2. For good cause stated the motion is granted. Attorney Doug Shull is withdrawn as counsel of record for Defendants. Signed on 4/15/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
157 ORDER: Before this Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene as Class Representative (Doc. #149), Request for Docket Sheets or Status of this Case (Doc. #152), and Request for Set of 1983 Forms & Status of Case (Doc. #153). Based on Plaintiffs' counsel's representation that Mr. Cooper wishes to withdraw his Motion to Intervene as Class Representative, and that Plaintiffs' counsel will keep Mr. Cooper informed of the status of this case and share relevant documents with Mr. Cooper, the Motions are denied as moot. Signed on 4/15/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
158 NOTICE of appearance by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus (Attorney Michael Pritchett added to party Gary Dusenberg(pty:dft), Attorney Michael Pritchett added to party Paul Fitzwater(pty:dft), Attorney Michael Pritchett added to party Kenneth Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Michael Pritchett added to party Ellis McSwain, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Michael Pritchett added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft), Attorney Michael Pritchett added to party Martin Rucker(pty:dft), Attorney Michael Pritchett added to party Don Ruzicka(pty:dft), Attorney Michael Pritchett added to party Jim Wells(pty:dft), Attorney Michael Pritchett added to party Jennifer Zamkus(pty:dft))(Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
159 NOTICE of filing − Pro Se Entry of Appearance to Join Class Action by Mason Garrett. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/15/2019)

05/29/2019 05/29/2019 05/30/2019
05/30/2019 06/12/2019 06/14/2019 06/24/2019 06/25/2019 06/28/2019 06/28/2019 07/01/2019
07/08/2019 07/09/2019

161 NOTICE of filing "Defendants' Response to Pro Se Motion of Mason Garrett to Join this Class Action and Proceed Separately" by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus re 159 Notice of filing (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
162 RESPONSE to motion to Proceed Separately & Request for Additional Time to Respond filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. Reply suggestions due by 6/12/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
163 ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Response to Pro Se Motion to Proceed Separately and Request for Additional Time to Respond. (Doc. #162). For good cause stated, Plaintiffs' request is granted. Plaintiffs are granted an extension of time until and including June 28, 2019, to respond to Mason Garrett's pro se motion to proceed separately. Signed on 5/30/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
Set Deadlines as to 159 NOTICE of filing − Pro Se Entry of Appearance to Join Class Action by Mason Garrett. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/28/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
164 PRO SE NOTICE of filing− Entry of appearance by Daniel S. Thorsen (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
165 PRO SE NOTICE of filing− Request for Attorney by Darrell C Smith (Ellis, Lindsey) Modified on 6/14/2019 to restrict document to case participants only due to personal identifiers. (Ellis, Lindsey). (Entered: 06/14/2019)
166 NOTICE of filing Plaintiffs' Response to Pro Se Motion to Intervene by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse re 159 Notice of filing (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
167 NOTICE of filing "Defendants' Response to Pro Se Motion of Daniel S. Thorsen to Join this Class Action and Proceed Separately" by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus re 164 Notice of filing (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 06/25/2019)
168 ORDERED: Mr. Garretts pro se motion to intervene (Doc. #159) is DENIED. Signed on 6/28/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. Copy of this order mailed to: Mason Garrett, Pulaski Co. Jail, 301 Historic 66 E., Suite 136, Waynesville, MO 65583. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
169 ORDERED: Mr. Thorsens pro se motion to intervene (Doc. #164) is DENIED. Signed on 6/28/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. Copy of this order mailed to: Daniel S. Thorsen, c/o Amanda Moran, 24245 Thames Lane, St. Robert, MO 65584. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
170 ORDER: On June 14, 2019, purported class member Darell C. Smith filed a motion in this case requesting the Court appoint him a new attorney, citing difficulty contacting Plaintiffs' counsel (Doc. #165). The Court directs Plaintiffs' counsel to file a response to this motion on or before July 8, 2019. Signed on 7/1/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. Copy of this text order mailed to: Darrell C. Smith, 705 Virginia Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64106. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
171 NOTICE of filing PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO PRO SE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse re 170 Order,, 165 Notice of filing (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
172 ORDER: Mr. Smiths pro se motion to intervene and challenge the effectiveness of class counsel (Doc. #165) is DENIED. Signed on 7/9/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Copy of this order mailed to Darell C. Smith, 705 Virginia Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64106.

08/07/2019 08/08/2019 08/12/2019

Modified on 7/24/2019 to reflect copy of this Order has been mailed to: Darrel C. Smith at 11410 Coco Pah Street; Avondale, AZ 85323, address provided by Mr. Smith via phone call 7/24/19 (Ellis, Lindsey). (Entered: 07/09/2019)
173 PRO SE NOTICE of filing − Request for filings in this case by Dennis L Morris (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 08/07/2019)
174 MAIL RETURNED as return to sender/ unclaimed. Mail sent to Darrel C Smith. (Related document(s) 172 ) (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
175 ORDER: Before the Court is a letter from Dennis L. Morris construed by the Court as a pro se motion for copies of pleadings. (Doc. #173). Mr. Morris's motion is DENIED. Signed on 8/12/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough.

08/23/2019 08/28/2019
09/06/2019
09/09/2019
09/18/2019 09/19/2019 09/30/2019
10/02/2019
10/04/2019 10/07/2019

Copy of this Order has been mailed to: Dennis L Morris #177325; Wyandotte County Sheriff's Office; 710 N. 7th St; Ste 20; Kansas City, KS 66101 (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
176 PRO SE MOTION filed by Dennis L. Morris. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/6/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Kern, Kendra) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
177 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 176 MOTION for order filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Reply suggestions due by 9/11/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 176 ) (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 08/28/2019)
178 RESPONSE to motion re 176 MOTION for order filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. Reply suggestions due by 9/20/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
179 ORDER denying 176 pro se motion requesting a claim for money damages be added to this case. Signed on 9/9/2019 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Woods, Gloria) Modified on 9/11/2019 to note that on this date, copy of the Order was mailed to: Dennis L Morris #177325; Wyandotte County Sheriff's Office; 710 N. 7th St; Ste 20; Kansas City, KS 66101(Woods, Gloria). (Entered: 09/09/2019)
180 PRO SE MOTION copies filed by Dennis Morris. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/2/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Kern, Kendra) (Entered: 09/18/2019)
181 PRO SE NOTICE of filing− by Dennis L. Morris re 180 MOTION for order (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
182 NOTICE of filing Defendant's Response to Pro Se Motion of Dennis L. Morris to Reconsider Denial of Intervention by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus re 181 Notice of filing (Pritchett, Michael) (Main Document 182 replaced on 9/30/2019) (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 09/30/2019)
183 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 180 MOTION for order Reconsideration filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. Reply suggestions due by 10/16/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 180 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
184 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill. (Crane, Megan) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
185 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 10/17/2019 12:00 PM in Chambers before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. In person status conference set for 10/17/19 at 9:30 a.m. is cancelled. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Conference call information emailed to counsel. (Entered: 10/07/2019)

10/07/2019 10/16/2019 10/16/2019 10/17/2019
10/17/2019 10/22/2019 10/25/2019
10/25/2019 10/29/2019 11/01/2019 11/01/2019

NOTICE OF HEARING CANCELLATION − The Pretrial Conference (Status conference) scheduled for 10/17/19 at 9:30 a.m. has been cancelled. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 10/07/2019)
186 Emergency MOTION for hearing Regarding Remedy filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/30/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crane, Megan) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
187 SUGGESTIONS in support re 186 Emergency MOTION for hearing Regarding Remedy filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit Requests for Production)(Related document(s) 186 ) (Crane, Megan) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
188 Minute Entry. On October 17, 2019, the Court held a telephone conference regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Remedy (Doc. #186). As discussed during the telephone conference, Defendants are ordered to respond to Plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests for production on or before November 7, 2019. The parties are ordered to meet and confer to schedule depositions to take place after the November 7, 2019, discovery response deadline. The parties are ordered to appear for the evidentiary hearing scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on December 16, 2019, in Courtroom 4B in Jefferson City, Missouri. The Court will allot 6 hours for the evidentiary hearing. Time in court: 12:20 pm to 12:30 pm. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641, gayle_wambolt@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
189 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
190 PRO SE NOTICE of filing − By Dennis L. Morris re 183 Suggestions in Opposition to Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Woods, Gloria) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
191 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus "Certificate of Service−Defendant Precythe's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff" filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
192 ORDERED: Mr. Morris's pro se motion for copies (Doc. #180) and pro se motionrequesting a claim for money damages be added to this case (Doc. #181) are denied. Signed on 10/25/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Mailed copy of order to Mr. Morris at Wyandotte Co. Adult Detention Center, 710 N. 7th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101. (Woods, Gloria). (Entered: 10/25/2019)
NOTICE OF HEARING CANCELLATION − The Bench Trial scheduled for 11/18/19 at 9:00 a.m. has been cancelled. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Docket entry for daily docket purposes. No notice sent. (Entered: 10/29/2019)
193 Before this Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Order (Doc. #186). Pursuant to the phone conference of October 17, 2019, the Motion is granted and the hearing scheduled for December 16, 2019 at 8:30 am in Courtroom 4B in Jefferson City, Missouri. Signed on 11/1/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
194 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot and for Failure to Join an Indispensable Party" filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/15/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit N, #

11/04/2019 11/04/2019 11/07/2019
11/12/2019 11/15/2019
11/15/2019 11/18/2019 11/18/2019 11/18/2019 11/18/2019

15 Exhibit Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit R)(Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
195 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Oral Argument on 194 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot and for Failure to Join an Indispensable Party" set for 12/16/2019 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4B, Jefferson City (VDJJC) before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
196 Second NOTICE to take deposition of Missouri Department of Corrections filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
197 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus "Certificate of Service − Defendants Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs Third Set of Interrogatories and Fourth Request for Production" filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
198 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of MDOC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/12/2019)
199 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 11/18/2019 11:00 AM in Chambers before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. A memorandum of the discovery dispute, not to exceed two pages in length, should be emailed by each party no later than twenty−four hours prior to the teleconference to Tracy Diefenbach at Tracy_Diefenbach@mow.uscourts.gov. Conference call information emailed to counsel.(Woods, Gloria) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
200 Consent MOTION for leave to file excess pages in Response to Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/29/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Proposed Suggestions in Opposition))(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
201 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to Exceed Page Limitation and Suggestions in Support. (Doc. #200). For good cause stated the Motion is granted. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in a length up to and including 17 pages. Signed on 11/18/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
202 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 194 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot and for Failure to Join an Indispensable Party" filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. Reply suggestions due by 12/2/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 194 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
203 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 11/18/2019. Time in court: 11:00 am to 11:35 am. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Jean Crawford, 816−512−5642, jean_crawford@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
204 On November 18, 2019, this Court conducted a discovery dispute teleconference. Counsel are ordered to meet and confer about the discovery sought by Defendants. Counsel shall reconvene for a teleconference to apprise the Court of their progress on Thursday, November 21, at 1:00 PM. Conference call information has been previously provided to Counsel. Signed on 11/18/2019 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This

11/21/2019
11/21/2019
11/21/2019 11/21/2019
11/25/2019 11/27/2019 12/02/2019 12/03/2019

is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
205 NOTICE of appearance by Anthony Gonzalez on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus (Attorney Anthony Gonzalez added to party Gary Dusenberg(pty:dft), Attorney Anthony Gonzalez added to party Paul Fitzwater(pty:dft), Attorney Anthony Gonzalez added to party Kenneth Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Anthony Gonzalez added to party Ellis McSwain, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Anthony Gonzalez added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft), Attorney Anthony Gonzalez added to party Martin Rucker(pty:dft), Attorney Anthony Gonzalez added to party Don Ruzicka(pty:dft), Attorney Anthony Gonzalez added to party Jim Wells(pty:dft), Attorney Anthony Gonzalez added to party Jennifer Zamkus(pty:dft))(Gonzalez, Anthony) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
206 NOTICE of appearance by Matthew G. Kimminau on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus (Attorney Matthew G. Kimminau added to party Gary Dusenberg(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew G. Kimminau added to party Paul Fitzwater(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew G. Kimminau added to party Kenneth Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew G. Kimminau added to party Ellis McSwain, Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew G. Kimminau added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew G. Kimminau added to party Martin Rucker(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew G. Kimminau added to party Don Ruzicka(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew G. Kimminau added to party Jim Wells(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew G. Kimminau added to party Jennifer Zamkus(pty:dft))(Kimminau, Matthew) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
207 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 11/21/2019. Time in court: 1:00 pm to 1:10 pm. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Katie Wirt, 816−512−5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
208 ORDER: On November 21, 2019, this Court conducted a discovery dispute teleconference. As discussed, the parties are ordered to conduct discovery in accordance with the compromise set forth on pages 23 of Plaintiffs' November 20, 2019, discovery dispute memorandum. Oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot and for Failure to Join an Indispensable Party (Doc. #194) will occur as scheduled on December 16, 2019, for a duration of one hour, with 30 minutes of argument per side. The evidentiary hearing regarding remedy is postponed. The Court will contact the parties to reschedule. Signed on 11/21/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
209 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Oral Argument set on 194 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot and for Failure to Join an Indispensable Party" reset for 12/16/2019 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4B, Jefferson City (VDJJC) before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN TIME ONLY. (Entered: 11/25/2019)
210 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/6/2020 09:00 AM and 2/7/2020 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7B, Kansas City (SRB) before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 11/27/2019)
211 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 194 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot and for Failure to Join an Indispensable Party" filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit S, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit T)(Related document(s) 194 ) (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
212 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Discovery Dispute − Teleconference held 11/18/2019 before Judge Stephen R. Bough. Court Reporter: Jean Crawford, 816−512−5642, jean_crawford@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 23. NOTICE

12/03/2019 12/11/2019 12/13/2019 12/16/2019
12/19/2019 12/20/2019 12/20/2019 12/20/2019 01/08/2020 01/10/2020 01/10/2020

RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 12/10/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/28/2020.(Crawford, Jean) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
213 NOTICE OF INTENT TO REDACT "Defendants' Notice of No Intent to Redact" by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus re 212 Electronic Transcript. Redactions to transcript due by 12/23/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
214 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs Fifth Request for Production filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
215 Third NOTICE to take deposition of Missouri Department of Corrections filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/13/2019)
216 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: ORAL ARGUMENT held on 12/16/2019. Counsel appearing for Plaintiff(s): Amy Breihan and Megan Crane. Counsel appearing for Defendant(s): Michael Pritchett and Matthew Kimminau. Time in court: 1:25 p.m. to 2:35 p.m. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Judy Moore, 816−512−5622, judy_moore@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 12/16/2019)
217 ORDER denying 194 motion to dismiss. Signed on 12/19/19 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 12/19/2019)
218 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of MDOC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
219 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse Answers and Objections to RFP and Interrogatories filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
220 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs Sixth Requests for Production filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
221 MAIL RETURNED as Return to Sender Unable to Forward Mail sent to Darrell C Smith. (Related document(s) 172 ) (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
222 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 1/13/2020 01:30 PM in Chambers before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Conference call information emailed to counsel. (Entered: 01/10/2020)
223 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus "COS−Defendants Response and Objections to Plaintiff's Fifth Set Request for Production to Defendants" filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 01/10/2020)

01/13/2020
01/13/2020
01/15/2020 01/15/2020 01/17/2020 01/21/2020
01/22/2020 01/22/2020 01/22/2020 01/22/2020 01/22/2020 01/23/2020 01/24/2020

224 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 1/13/2020 Counsel appearing for Plaintiff(s): Amy Breihan and Megan Crane. Counsel appearing for Defendant(s): Michael Pritchett and Matthew Kimminau. Time in court: 1:30 pm to 2:05 pm. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641, gayle_wambolt@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
225 On January 13, 2020, this Court conducted a telephone conference. As discussed, the evidentiary hearing scheduled for February 6−7, 2020, is continued. The parties are directed to confer and e−mail Tracy Diefenbach with new hearing dates on or before January 15, 2020. The parties may file pre−hearing briefs one week before the to−be−scheduled hearing. The Court further orders the deadline for issuing discovery requests is set for January 17, 2020. Signed on 1/13/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
226 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Evidentiary Hearing set for 4/9/2020 and 4/10/2020 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7B, Kansas City (SRB) before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 01/15/2020)
227 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of MDOC filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 01/15/2020)
228 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of MDOC filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
229 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus "Defendants Response and Objections to Plaintiffs' Sixth Set of Request for Production" filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 01/21/2020)
230 NOTICE to take deposition of Mary Gaines filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
231 NOTICE to take deposition of James Weston filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
232 NOTICE to take deposition of Donald Culbertson filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
233 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs Fourth Set of Interrogatories filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
234 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs Seventh Request for Production filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
235 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs Supplemental Answers and Objections to First Interrogatories filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 01/23/2020)
236 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus "COS−Defendants Supplemental Response and Objections to Plaintiff's Sixth Set Request for Production to Defendants" filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of

01/31/2020
01/31/2020 02/03/2020 02/04/2020 02/07/2020 02/13/2020 02/13/2020 02/13/2020 02/14/2020 02/14/2020 02/21/2020

Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
237 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Oral Argument held 12/16/2019 before Judge Stephen R. Bough. Court Reporter: Judy Moore, 816−512−5622, judy_moore@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 46. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 2/7/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/27/2020.(Moore, Judy) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
238 NOTICE OF INTENT TO REDACT by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus re 237 Electronic Transcript. Redactions to transcript due by 2/18/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
239 NOTICE OF INTENT TO REDACT by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse re 237 Electronic Transcript. Redactions to transcript due by 2/18/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 02/03/2020)
240 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Response to First Interrogatories filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 02/04/2020)
241 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of Addendum to Expert Report filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
242 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of Mary Gaines filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
243 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of Donald Culbertson filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
244 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of James Weston filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
245 MOTION for extension of time "Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time in Due Date of Interrogatory Responses" filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/28/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
246 ORDER: Before the Court is Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time in Due Date of Interrogatory Responses. (Doc. #245). For good cause stated the Motion is granted. Defendants are granted an extension of time until and including February 28, 2020, to respond to Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Defendants. Signed on 2/14/2020 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Ellis, Lindsey) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
247 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus

02/28/2020 03/23/2020 03/24/2020 03/25/2020 03/25/2020
03/26/2020 03/30/2020
03/30/2020
04/03/2020

"Certificate of Service−Defendants Response and Objections to Plaintiffs Seventh Set of Requests for Production to Defendants" filed by Matthew G. Kimminau on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Kimminau, Matthew) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
248 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus "Certificate of Service−Defendants Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs Fourth Set of Interrogatories" filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus.(Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
NOTICE OF HEARING CANCELLATION − The Evidentiary Hearing scheduled for 4/9/20 and 4/10/20 has been cancelled. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
249 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Evidentiary Hearing reset for 6/10/2020 09:00 and 6/11/2020 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7B, Kansas City (SRB) before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 03/24/2020)
250 Emergency MOTION for order Relief Pursuant to All Writs Act filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/8/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 03/25/2020)
251 SUGGESTIONS in support re 250 Emergency MOTION for order Relief Pursuant to All Writs Act filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Dr. Stern Dec.), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Dr. Beyrer Dec.), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Dec. of Medical Professionals), # 4 Exhibit 4 (EXiT Statement), # 5 Exhibit 5 (NJ Consent Order), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Amend at UCSF Guidance), # 7 Exhibit 7 (Defs' Interrogatory Responses), # 8 Exhibit 8 (J. Weston Depo.))(Related document(s) 250 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 03/25/2020)
252 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 3/30/2020 10:15 AM in Chambers before District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Conference call information emailed to counsel. (Entered: 03/26/2020)
253 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 3/30/2020. Order to be entered. Counsel appearing for Plaintiff(s): Amy Breihan and Megan Crane. Counsel appearing for Defendant(s): Michael Pritchett. Time in court: 10:15 am to 10:25 am. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641, gayle_wambolt@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
254 ORDER: On March 30, 2020, the Court conducted a telephone conference. As discussed during the telephone conference, Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Relief Pursuant to All Writs Act (Doc. #250) is due on or before April 3, 2020. Plaintiffs' reply is due on or before April 6, 2020. A hearing on the motion shall be conducted via telephone conference at 10:15 am on April 7, 2020. Counsel shall use the same conference call information previously emailed to them. Signed on 3/30/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
255 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 250 Emergency MOTION for order Relief Pursuant to All Writs Act filed by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Don Ruzicka, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Reply suggestions due by 4/17/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 250 ) (Attorney Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr added to party Gary Dusenberg(pty:dft), Attorney Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr added to party Paul Fitzwater(pty:dft), Attorney Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr added to party Kenneth Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr added to party Ellis McSwain,

04/06/2020 04/06/2020 04/07/2020
04/07/2020
04/07/2020
04/15/2020 04/27/2020 05/05/2020 05/06/2020 05/07/2020

Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft), Attorney Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr added to party Martin Rucker(pty:dft), Attorney Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr added to party Don Ruzicka(pty:dft), Attorney Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr added to party Jim Wells(pty:dft), Attorney Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr added to party Jennifer Zamkus(pty:dft))(Morgan, Jeremiah) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
256 MOTION for leave to file Supplemental Briefing filed by Matthew G. Kimminau on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/20/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B)(Kimminau, Matthew) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
257 MOTION for leave to file Reply Suggestions in Excess of Page Limitation filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/20/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Proposed Reply Suggestions, with exhibits))(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
258 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation and Suggestions in Support (Doc. #257). For good cause stated the Motion is granted. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file reply suggestions in support of their motion for emergency relief in a length up to and including 24 pages. Additionally, before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing (Doc. #256). For good cause stated the Motion is granted. Signed on 4/7/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
259 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 250 Emergency MOTION for order Relief Pursuant to All Writs Act filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Salm Dec.), # 2 Exhibit B (Boyd Dec.), # 3 Exhibit C (Gallagher Dec.), # 4 Exhibit D (Sudenberg Dec.), # 5 Exhibit E (Thompson Salm Dec.))(Related document(s) 250 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
260 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 4/7/2020. Telephone Hearing held on 250 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Relief Pursuant to All Writs Act. Counsel appearing for Plaintiff(s): Amy Breihan. Counsel appearing for Defendant(s): Michael Pritchett. Time in court: 10:15 am to 11:00 am. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641, gayle_wambolt@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
261 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for Relief Pursuant to All Writs Act. (Doc. #250). The Court has considered the parties arguments set forth in the briefing and asserted at oral argument. For the reasons stated, the motion is DENIED. Signed on 4/15/2020 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
262 PRO SE MOTION to join filed by Daunte Smith. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/11/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
263 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 262 MOTION to join filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Reply suggestions due by 5/19/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 262 ) (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
264 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 262 MOTION to join filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. Reply suggestions due by 5/20/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 262 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
265 ORDER denying pro se motion to join. (Doc. #159). Signed on 5/7/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (A copy of this order was mailed to

05/26/2020 05/26/2020 05/26/2020 05/28/2020 05/28/2020 05/29/2020 06/01/2020
06/01/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020

Daunte Smith B Wing, Mississippi County Jail, 200 West Commercial Street, Charleston, MO 63834 on 5/7/2020.) (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
266 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/9/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
267 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/9/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
268 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/9/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
269 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Amy Campbell filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/11/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crane, Megan) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
270 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum Dammeon Binion filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/11/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crane, Megan) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
271 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/12/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
272 Before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record. (Doc. #271). For good cause stated the Motion is granted. Attorney Sheila A. Bedi is removed as counsel of record for Plaintiffs. Signed on 6/1/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Modified on 6/1/2020 to correct entry. Notice regenerated. (Diefenbach, Tracy). (Entered: 06/01/2020)
273 APPLICATION for Writ of of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Darius Hunt by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Crane, Megan) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
274 ORDER granting 268 motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Shawna Lipe. Signed on 6/2/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for Shawna Lipe to appear on 6/10/20. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)
275 ORDER re 273 Application for Writ for Darius Hunt. Signed on 6/2/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for Darius Hunt to appear on 6/10/20. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)
276 ORDER granting 266 motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Charles Braxton. Signed on 6/2/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for Charles Braxton to appear on 6/10/20. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)
277 ORDER granting 267 motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Oscar Glover. Signed on 6/2/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020 06/03/2020 06/03/2020 06/03/2020
06/03/2020
06/03/2020 06/03/2020 06/03/2020 06/03/2020 06/03/2020

Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for Oscar Glover to appear on 6/10/20. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)
278 ORDER granting 269 motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Amy Campbell. Signed on 6/2/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for Amy Campbell to appear on 6/10/20. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)
279 ORDER granting 270 motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Dammeon Binion. Signed on 6/2/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for Dammeon Binion to appear on 6/10/20. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) Four Certified Copies Delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/02/2020)
280 AMENDED ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM as to Oscar Glover. Signed on 6/3/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) 4 certified copies delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/03/2020)
AMENDED Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for OSCAR GLOVER to appear on 6/10/20. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) 4 certified copies delivered to the USM. (Entered: 06/03/2020)
281 MOTION to seal document Exhibits to Pre−Hearing Brief filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/17/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
282 SUGGESTIONS in support re 281 MOTION to seal document Exhibits to Pre−Hearing Brief filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Related document(s) 281 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
283 TRIAL BRIEF Defendants' Pre−Hearing Brief by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
284 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST Defendants' Exhibit List by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
285 PROPOSED WITNESS LIST by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus Defendants' Witness List. (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
286 Motion to allow W. Patrick Mobley to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC−6883062) filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
287 TRIAL BRIEF Pre−Hearing Brief by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Procedure No. P3−9.1), # 2 Exhibit B (Notice of Rights During the Revocation Process), # 3 Exhibit C (Screening for Counsel Instrument), # 4 Exhibit D (Request for or Waiver of Preliminary Hearing Form), # 5 Exhibit E (Procedure No. P6−8.1), # 6 Exhibit F (Request for or Waiver of Revocation Hearing Form), # 7 Exhibit G (Procedure No. P3−9.2), # 8 Exhibit H (Procedure No. P6−8.2), # 9 Exhibit I (Feb. 6, 2020 Addendum to Expert Opinion on Missouri Parole Revocation System, by David Muhammad), # 10 Exhibit J (Declaration of Christopher Rogers), # 11 Exhibit K (Declaration of Kenneth Kennedy), # 12 Exhibit L (Declaration of Patrick Livell), # 13 Exhibit M (Declaration of Dewandell Brinker), # 14 Exhibit N (Declaration of Steven Johnson), # 15 Exhibit O (Declaration of Fabian Turner), # 16 Exhibit P (Declaration of Darius Hunt), # 17 Exhibit Q (Declaration of Shawna Lipe),

06/03/2020 06/03/2020 06/04/2020 06/04/2020
06/04/2020

# 18 Exhibit R (Declaration of Roxanne Hanna), # 19 Exhibit S (Declaration of Amy Campbell), # 20 Exhibit T (Declaration of Travis Hurlbert), # 21 Exhibit U (Declaration of Dustin Venneman), # 22 Exhibit V (Declaration of Joseph Fozzy), # 23 Exhibit W (Declaration of Charles Braxton), # 24 Exhibit X (Declaration of Adam Weston), # 25 Exhibit Y (Declaration of Hannah Moore), # 26 Exhibit Z (Dec. 18, 2019 Memorandum re: Denial of Counsel for Oscar Glover), # 27 Exhibit AA (Transcript of Dec. 5, 2019 Oscar Glover Revocation Hearing), # 28 Exhibit BB (Transcript of Dec. 5, 2019 Derrick Burnett Revocation Hearing), # 29 Exhibit CC (Transcript of Dec. 10, 2019 Revocation Hearing of Lorenzo Tucker), # 30 Exhibit DD (Transcript of Revocation Hearing of Richard Hunter), # 31 Exhibit EE (MDOC Spreadsheet of Days to Revocation Hearings and Outcomes from Feb. 27. 2019))(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
288 PROPOSED WITNESS LIST by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse . (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
289 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST for Evidentiary Hearing by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Daunte Smith, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Crane, Megan) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
290 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal. (Doc. #281). For good cause stated the Motion is granted. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file under seal exhibits in support of their Pre−Hearing Brief,including transcripts of parole revocation hearings and information provided by Defendants regarding the processing of alleged parole violators. Signed on 6/4/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
291 Pre TRIAL DOCUMENT (SEALED) Pre−Hearing Brief by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Procedure No. P3−9.1, # 2 Exhibit Notice of Rights During the Revocation Process, # 3 Exhibit Screening for Counsel Instrument, # 4 Exhibit Request for or Waiver of Preliminary Hearing Form, # 5 Exhibit Procedure No. P6−8.1, # 6 Exhibit Request for or Waiver of Revocation Hearing Form, # 7 Exhibit Procedure No. P3−9.2, # 8 Exhibit Procedure No. P6−8.2, # 9 Exhibit Feb. 6, 2020 Addendum to Expert Opinion on Missouri Parole Revocation, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of Christopher Rogers, # 11 Exhibit Declaration of Kenneth Kennedy, # 12 Exhibit Declaration of Patrick Livell, # 13 Exhibit Declaration of Dewandell Brinker, # 14 Exhibit Declaration of Steven Johnson, # 15 Exhibit Declaration of Fabian Turner, # 16 Exhibit Declaration of Darius Hunt, # 17 Exhibit Declaration of Shawna Lipe, # 18 Exhibit Declaration of Roxanne Hanna, # 19 Exhibit Declaration of Amy Campbell, # 20 Exhibit Declaration of Travis Hurlbert, # 21 Exhibit Declaration of Dustin Venneman, # 22 Exhibit Declaration of Joseph Fozzy, # 23 Exhibit Declaration of Charles Braxton, # 24 Exhibit Declaration of Adam Weston, # 25 Exhibit Declaration of Hannah Moore, # 26 Exhibit Dec. 18, 2019 Memorandum re: Denial of Counsel for Oscar Glover, # 27 Exhibit Transcript of Dec. 5, 2019 Oscar Glover Revocation Hearing, # 28 Exhibit Transcript of Dec. 5, 2019 Derrick Burnett Revocation Hearing, # 29 Exhibit Transcript of Dec. 10, 2019 Revocation Hearing of Lorenzo Tucker, # 30 Exhibit Transcript of Revocation Hearing of Richard Hunter, # 31 Exhibit MDOC Spreadsheet of Days to Revocation Hearings and Outcomes from Feb. 27. 2019)(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
292 ORDER granting 286 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney William P. Mobley for Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Solomon Warren and Amber Wyse allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.

Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e−filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e−filing account at PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 06/04/2020)

06/09/2020 06/09/2020 06/09/2020 06/09/2020 06/09/2020 06/09/2020 06/10/2020 06/10/2020
06/10/2020 06/11/2020

293 MOTION to certify class Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class filed by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/23/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Morgan, Jeremiah) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
294 SUGGESTIONS in support re 293 MOTION to certify class Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class filed by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe. (Related document(s) 293 ) (Morgan, Jeremiah) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
295 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum returned unexecuted as to Shawna Lipe. Pursuant to the E−Government Act and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 49.1(a), access to this document is restricted to case participants and the court. (Attachments: # 1)(Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
296 MOTION to strike 291 Trial Document (Sealed),,,,,,, 287 Trial Brief,,,,,,,, Exhibits Attached to Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/23/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 291 , 287 ) (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
297 SUGGESTIONS in support re 296 MOTION to strike 291 Trial Document (Sealed),,,,,,, 287 Trial Brief,,,,,,,, Exhibits Attached to Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief filed by Michael Pritchett on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe, Martin Rucker, Jim Wells, Jennifer Zamkus. (Related document(s) 296 ) (Pritchett, Michael) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
298 MOTION to strike Plaintiffs' Expert Designation and Exclude Testimony of that Expert at Trial filed by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr on behalf of Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/23/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Morgan, Jeremiah) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
299 Before the Court is a Motion to Strike Inadmissible Exhibits Attached to Plaintiffs' Pretrial Brief. (Doc. #296). For the reasons stated on the record at the evidentiary hearing on June 10, 2020, the motion to strike Plaintiffs' expert's report is DENIED and the motion to strike transcripts of revocation hearings is DENIED. The Court will take under advisement the motion to strike declarations of offenders who are not listed as witnesses. Signed on 6/10/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
300 Before the Court is Defendants' Renewed Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Expert Designation and Exclude Testimony of That Expert at Trial. (Doc. #298). For the reasons stated on the record at the evidentiary hearing on June 10, 2020, and for the same reasons discussed by the Court in its Order issued on January 24, 2019, (Doc. #139) the Motion is DENIED. David Muhammad is permitted to serve as Plaintiffs' expert and testify as to his opinions about alleged deficiencies in Defendants' current parole revocation process and the characteristics of a constitutionally−compliant parole revocation process. Mr. Muhammad is not, however, permitted to testify as to the ultimate issue of whether Defendants' current parole revocation process is unconstitutional. Signed on 6/10/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
301 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: Day One of EVIDENTIARY HEARING held on 6/10/2020. Time in court: 9:00 a.m. to 5:17 p.m.. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641, gayle_wambolt@mow.uscourts.gov. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
302 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' oral motion to introduce deposition testimony of Mary Gaines, Donald Culbertson, and James Weston. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on June 11, 2020, the motion is granted. Signed on 6/11/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/11/2020)

06/11/2020
06/11/2020 06/12/2020 06/17/2020 06/17/2020 06/17/2020 06/17/2020 06/17/2020 06/17/2020 06/18/2020
07/01/2020

303 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Stephen R. Bough: DAY TWO of EVIDENTIARY HEARING held on 6/11/2020. Time in court: 9:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641, gayle_wambolt@mow.uscourts.gov. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
304 Plaintiffs' EXHIBIT INDEX. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
305 Defendants' EXHIBIT INDEX. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
306 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued upon Oscar Glover returned executed on 6/10/2020 Pursuant to the E−Government Act and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 49.1(a), access to this document is restricted to case participants and the court. (Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
307 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued upon Charles Braxton returned executed on 6/10/2020 Pursuant to the E−Government Act and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 49.1(a), access to this document is restricted to case participants and the court. (Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
308 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued upon Darius Hunt returned executed on 6/10/2020 Pursuant to the E−Government Act and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 49.1(a), access to this document is restricted to case participants and the court. (Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
309 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued upon Amy Campbell returned executed on 6/10/2020 Pursuant to the E−Government Act and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 49.1(a), access to this document is restricted to case participants and the court. (Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
310 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum returned unexecuted as to Shawna Lipe Pursuant to the E−Government Act and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 49.1(a), access to this document is restricted to case participants and the court. (Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
311 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued upon Damion Binion returned executed on 6/10/2020 Pursuant to the E−Government Act and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 49.1(a), access to this document is restricted to case participants and the court. (Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
312 ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' oral motion to extend the deadline to respond to Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class. The motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall file their response to Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class (Doc. #293) on or before July 10, 2020. Defendants shall file their reply on or before July 24, 2020. Signed on 6/18/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
313 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing − Volume 1 held June 10, 2020, before Judge Stephen R. Bough. Court Reporter: Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641, gayle_wambolt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 268. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. If necessary, Notice of Intent to Redact is due by 7/8/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/29/2020. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period.

07/01/2020

(Wambolt, Gayle) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
314 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Evidentiary Hearing − Volume 2 held June 11, 2020, before Judge Stephen R. Bough. Court Reporter: Gayle Wambolt, 816−512−5641, gayle_wambolt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 268. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding.

The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. If necessary, Notice of Intent to Redact is due by 7/8/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/29/2020. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period.

07/10/2020
07/10/2020
07/24/2020 07/24/2020 07/31/2020 08/05/2020

(Wambolt, Gayle) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
315 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 293 MOTION to certify class Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse. Reply suggestions due by 7/24/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Transcript of Teleconference Proceedings on Jan. 23, 2019))(Related document(s) 293 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
316 NOTICE of filing Plaintiffs' Post−Hearing Brief by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition of Donald Culbertson, # 2 Exhibit Deposition of Mary Gaines, # 3 Exhibit Deposition of James Weston, # 4 Exhibit Admin. Order No. 19−03, # 5 Exhibit Media Article, # 6 Exhibit RubinBrown Report)(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
317 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 293 MOTION to certify class Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class filed by Jeremiah Joseph Morgan, Sr on behalf of Defendants Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe. (Related document(s) 293 ) (Morgan, Jeremiah) (Entered: 07/24/2020)
318 NOTICE of filing Defendants' Post−Hearing Brief by Gary Dusenberg, Paul Fitzwater, Kenneth Jones, Ellis McSwain, Jr, Anne L. Precythe (Morgan, Jeremiah) (Entered: 07/24/2020)
319 NOTICE of filing Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Post−Hearing Brief by Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Solomon Warren, Amber Wyse (Crane, Megan) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
320 ORDERED Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class (Doc. #293) is DENIED. Signed on 8/5/20 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

STEPHANIE GASGA, MILDRED CURREN,

)

TIMOTHY GALLAGHER, KENNETH HEMPHILL, )

JESSE NEELY and AMBER WYSE,

)

)

on behalf of themselves and all similarly

)

situated individuals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ANNE PRECYTHE, in her official capacity as Director )

of the Missouri Department of Corrections;

)

KENNETH JONES, in his official capacity as

)

Chairman of the Missouri Division of Probation

)

and Parole; JENNIFER ZAMKUS, in her official

)

capacity as Vice Chair of the Missouri Board of

)

Probation and Parole; and JIM WELLS,

)

MARTIN RUCKER, ELLIS MCSWAIN, JR.,

)

DON RUZICKA, and GARY DUSENBERG, in

)

their official capacities as Members of the Missouri )

Board of Probation and Parole.

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. __________________

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs STEPHANIE GASCA, MILDRED CURREN, TIMOTHY GALLAGHER, KENNENTH HEMPHILL, JESSE NEELY and AMBER WYSE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, file this complaint against ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, KENNETH JONES, Chairman of the Missouri Division of Probation and Parole, and Missouri Parole Board Members JENNIFER ZAMKUS, JIM WELLS, MARTIN RUCKER, ELLIS MCSWAIN, JR., DON RUZICKA, and GARY DUSENBERG, and allege as follows:

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 36

INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil rights class action complaint filed on behalf of men and women in custody, or under supervision, of the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), and who are at risk of imprisonment without adequate due process as a result of unconstitutional practices, procedures, and customs of both the MDOC and its Division of Probation and Parole (“Parole Board”) with respect to parole revocation proceedings. 2. The Defendants have developed fundamentally unfair and procedurally flawed parole revocation processes that violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as set forth in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), and related cases. This Court should declare such procedures unlawful and enjoin them from being used now and in the future. 3. In blatant disregard of the United States and Missouri Constitutions, the Parole Board consistently detains individuals accused of parole violations and renders findings against them by way of faux-proceedings that have few of the trappings of due process required before an individual can be imprisoned or otherwise deprived of their liberty. 4. Pursuant to policies, practices, and customs of the Parole Board and MDOC, parole officers issue and execute their own parole violation warrants, taking parolees into custody without sufficient cause or independent review, and then re-incarcerate them within the prison system. 5. Thereafter, meaningful probable cause preliminary hearings or final hearings are almost never held. Instead, parolees are denied adequate notice and information about the specific allegations against them and their rights during such proceedings, including the right to counsel. 6. In the end, Parole Board members merely rubber stamp parole violation allegations made by such parole officers, who themselves almost never appear to testify. Proceedings are also
2 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 36

frequently bifurcated as between violation adjudications and dispositions without adequate notice to parolees about this unique process or their rights during such prolonged proceedings.
7. Finally, the Defendants uniformly refuse to provide attorneys to parolees at any point in the parole revocation process. This is true even if a parolee is both indigent and (1) has a colorable claim that he did not commit an alleged violation, (2) has mitigating evidence explaining why revocation is inappropriate and/or (3) would have difficulty advocating for themselves given the complexity of the process or their own mental health, medical, educational, or other challenges.
8. Given these shockingly deficient processes that have been in place for years, parole revocation hearings in Missouri have been and continue to be a sham.
9. The Defendants conduct thousands of these proceedings each year and, in effect, have created a procedural vortex from which people on parole cannot escape and are at continual risk of being rearrested and reentered into the prison system in violation of their rights. As a result of Defendants’ policies, procedures, and customs, the Plaintiffs are constantly rotated in and out of the prison system—often as a result of non-criminal technical parole violations, and often based upon unsubstantiated accusations that the parolee committed a new criminal offense.
10. The vast majority of parolees in the State of Missouri need and are entitled to appointed counsel to help them navigate these arcane proceedings. Yet, as a matter of practice, procedure, and custom, the Defendants systematically deny indigent parolees their right to counsel. Indeed, they absolutely fail to consider whether indigent parolees qualify for the appointment of counsel, at cost to the State, and they fail to appoint counsel to those parolees who do qualify, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
11. As a result of Defendants’ failure to appoint counsel, parolees find themselves without anyone to help ensure adherence with other procedural protections—including the right to
3 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 36

speak on their own behalf, present evidence, and cross-examine adverse witnesses during parole revocation proceedings—to which they are also constitutionally entitled.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of the Plaintiffs rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 13. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this complaint occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 14. Plaintiff STEPHANIE GASCA is a parolee currently in the custody of MDOC. She was taken into custody by parole officials in June 2017 for allegedly violating the terms of her parole. Her parole revocation proceedings are not yet final. She has a colorable claim that she did not willfully commit the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be further imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Ms. Gasca is afforded appropriate process and is represented by counsel during parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Gasca will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations. 15. Plaintiff MILDRED CURREN is a parolee currently in the custody of MDOC. She was taken into custody by parole officials in April 2017 for allegedly violating the terms of her parole. Her parole revocation proceedings are not yet final. She has a colorable claim that she did not willfully commit the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be
4 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 36

further imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Ms. Curren is afforded appropriate process and is represented by counsel during parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Curren will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
16. Plaintiff TIMOTHY GALLAGHER is a parolee currently in the custody of the MDOC. He was taken into custody by parole officials in November 2015 for allegedly violating the terms of his parole. He continues to have a colorable claim that he did not willfully commit at least some of the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be further imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. He further fears his parole proceedings may have been tainted by misconduct and has been seeking further review. Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Mr. Gallagher is afforded appropriate process and is represented by counsel during parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately rereleased on parole in the days ahead Mr. Gallagher will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
17. Plaintiff KENNENTH HEMPHILL is a parolee who is currently in the custody of the MDOC. He was taken into custody by parole officials in May 2017 for allegedly violating the terms of his parole. His parole revocation proceedings are not yet final. He has a colorable claim that he did not willfully commit the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed to ensure that Mr. Hemphill was represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Mr. Hemphill will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
5 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5 of 36

18. Plaintiff JESSE NEELY is a parolee who is currently in the custody of the MDOC. He was taken into custody by parole officials in January 2017 for allegedly violating the terms of his parole. His parole revocation proceedings are not yet final. Mr. Neely has colorable claims relating to the willful violation of parole, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants have failed to ensure that Mr. Neely is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Mr. Neely will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
19. Plaintiff AMBER WYSE is a parolee who is currently in the custody of MDOC. She was taken into custody by parole officials in April 2017 for allegedly violating the terms of her parole. Her parole revocation proceedings are not yet final. Ms. Wyse has colorable claims relating to willfully committing the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants have failed to ensure that Ms. Wyse is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Wyse will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
20. Defendant ANNE PRECYTHE is the Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). She is responsible for the operations of MDOC, including adopting, approving and implementing and/or modifying the policies, practices and customs applicable to prisons that MDOC operates throughout the State of Missouri, the Division of Probation and Parole, and the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole (the “Board” or “Parole Board”). The Parole Board is responsible for determining whether a person confined in the Department of Corrections shall be paroled or conditionally released, and for supervising all persons on probation and parole. As part
6 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6 of 36

of that supervision, the Board’s staff issue parole violation reports and warrants based on such reports. Individuals facing alleged parole violations are frequently re-imprisoned by MDOC pending resolution of the alleged parole violations. Upon information and belief, Director Precythe is the final policymaker for MDOC, including the Board. She is sued in her official capacity.
21. Defendant KENNETH JONES is the chairman of the Parole Board. In this capacity, he supervises and directs all of the Division’s staff and operations as reflected in the organizational chart attached hereto as Exhibit 1.1 This includes serving overseeing the Parole Board’s staff and members in the course of parole revocation proceedings. Chairman Jones is further responsible for developing and implementing the rules, regulations, procedures, standards and customs governing the Parole Board, parole supervision, and revocation processes in the State of Missouri. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jones also personally participates in, leads, or directs parole hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing possible revocation. He is sued in his official capacity
22. Defendant JIM WELLS is a member of the Parole Board. In that capacity, Defendant Wells personally participates in, leads, or directs parole hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. He is sued in his official capacity.
23. Defendant MARTIN RUCKER is a member of the Parole Board. In that capacity, Defendant Rucker personally participates in, leads, or directs parole hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. He is sued in his official capacity.

1

This exhibit, and all others attached to this Complaint, is incorporated herein by reference

and should be read as facts pled in this case.

7

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 7 of 36

24. Defendant ELLIS MCSWAIN, JR., is a member of the Parole Board and the former Chairman of the Board. As Chairman, McSwain was responsible for, among other things, the operations of the Board, including the policies, practices and customs governing the parole hearings for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. In his current capacity, Defendant McSwain personally participates in, leads, or directs parole hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. He is sued in his official capacity.
25. Defendant DON RUZICKA was a member of the Parole Board until his resignation on or about June 12, 2017. In that capacity, Defendant Ruzicka personally participated in, led, or directed parole hearings, and contributed to or made decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. As further described below, he was the subject of MDOC internal investigation, has a confirmed history of abusing his position on the Board, and yet—until recently, after Plaintiffs’ counsel brought his misconduct to light—he remained on the Board participated in countless proceedings each week. He is sued in his official capacity, with the understanding and expectation that if and when his position on the Board is filled, the new member of the Board will automatically be substituted in as a party pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d).
26. Defendant JENNIFER ZAMKUS is the Vice Chair and a member of the Parole Board. Upon information and belief, in her capacity as Vice Chair, Defendant Zamkus is responsible for, among other things, the operations of the Board, including the policies, practices, and customs governing parole hearings for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings, and the Board’s funds and expenditures. In her capacity as a member of the Board, Defendant Zamkus personally participates in, leads, or directs parole hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions
8 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 8 of 36

regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. She is sued in her official capacity.
27. Defendant GARY DUSENBERG is a member of the Parole Board. In that capacity, Defendant Dusenberg personally participates in, leads, or directs parole hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. He is sued in his official capacity.
28. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants Precythe, Jones, Wells, Rucker, McSwain, Ruzicka, Zamkus, and Dusenberg (collectively, “Defendants”) all acted under color of law.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 29. Plaintiffs bring this suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all men and women in the custody, or under supervision, of MDOC, and who are at risk of imprisonment without adequate due process as a result of unconstitutional practices, procedures, and customs of MDOC and its Division of Probation and Parole, including parolees in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections who currently or will in the future face parole revocation proceedings. 30. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. Clear and accurate statistics about parole violations in Missouri are hard to come by given the arbitrary practices of MDOC and its lack of transparency. 31. However, in 2015 it appears that more than 15,000 persons were under MDOC parole supervision. See Exhibit 2 at 8. According to records provided in response to a Sunshine Law request from undersigned counsel, between March 2014 and March 2017, fewer than 250 parole revocation hearings were held by MDOC and the Parole Board. See Exhibit 3.
9 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 9 of 36

32. But in supplementing these materials, MDOC also conceded that many more parole revocation proceedings take place than reflected in parole revocation hearing statistics. See Exhibit 4. This is because the vast majority of individuals facing parole violations are never given any kind of formal hearing, but instead supposedly waive such rights without being provided with access to counsel or knowingly and intelligently assessing the risks involved with such waivers.
33. Indeed, between March 20, 2017 and June 2, 2017 alone, approximately 600 parole revocation proceedings occurred in Missouri. See Exhibit 4. Using these figures as a base-line, it appears that approximately 3,000 individuals face violation of parole violations each year. See id.
34. However, statistics from the United States Department of Justice suggest that in 2015, nearly 7,000 persons on parole in Missouri found themselves re-incarcerated based upon alleged parole violations, new sentences, or other reasons unknown. See Exhibit 5 at 24.
35. The class also includes many future members whose names are not known, since new people are released from prison and placed on parole each day and Defendants initiate the parole revocation proceedings many times each week.
36. There are questions of law and fact common to all class members. This includes, but is not limited to, the question of whether the Defendants’ policy and practice of systematically denying appointed counsel to parolees under the supervision of the MDOC and failing to inform parolees of such a right violates the United States and Missouri Constitutions.
37. The questions of law and fact common to all class members further includes, but is not limited to, the question of whether the Defendants’ parole revocation procedures, under which parolees are denied basic information about the allegations against them, are pressured into waiving hearing and other rights without understanding what these things mean, and are violated without meaningful preliminary or final hearings, all fail to provide parolees with adequate due process.
10 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 10 of 36

38. Because the practices and procedures challenged in this Complaint apply with equal force to the named Plaintiffs and the other members of the class, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class in general.
39. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. They each possess a strong personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and are represented by experienced local counsel with the MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, who are part of an even larger team of civil rights attorneys at MacArthur Justice Center offices across the country. Counsel have the legal knowledge and resources to fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members in this action.
40. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class: their policies, procedures, practices, acts, and omissions have affected all class members. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT A. PAROLE REVOCATION IN MISSOURI: THOUSANDS OF PERSONS ARE DEPRIVED OF
LIBERTY EACH YEAR WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OR LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN A SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN CALLED ARBITRARY, “DISTURBING,” AND “DISGUSTING” 1. National Spectacle Marred by Massive Re-Incarceration Rates 41. According to a Council of State Government’s Justice Center Report presented to Governor Eric Greitens’ Justice Reinvestment Task Force on July 11, 2017, Missouri’s current incarceration rate is the eighth highest in the nation. See Exhibit 6 at 3. Although prison incarceration rates have dropped across the country, Missouri is one of only a small handful of states where the incarceration rate has risen. Id. Indeed, Missouri has the “fastest-growing female prison population in the United States.” Id.
11 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 11 of 36

42. In addition, in recent years, Missouri’s Parole Board has come under intense scrutiny. From the Washington Post to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, investigative journalists have reported that Missouri’s parole processes are arbitrary and lack of transparency. See Exhibit 7.
43. Most recently Missouri’s parole system became a national spectacle when one of its Board Members was forced to resign for literally turning parole proceedings into games for his own enjoyment. That Board Member, Don Ruzicka, and staff working with him, visited irrelevant, ridiculous words and phrases into hearings – such as “platapus” and “armadillo” – to see if inmates might repeat them. See Exhibit 8. Ruzicka and the staff kept score to see who could make the most persons – desperate for their liberty – repeat these idiotic phrases. Id.
44. Concerns about the competency, professionalism, and reliability of Missouri’s parole system based on these and other problems have resulted in legislators and even Governor Eric Greitens calling out Missouri Parole Board abuses as “disgusting” and “disturbing.” See Exhibits 9.
45. More conservative assessments, such as from the Council of State Governments, call our parole system “lackluster” at best. See Exhibit 6 at 3. Yet a large proportion of prison growth in Missouri stems from readmission based upon alleged parole violations being processed within this system. Indeed, recent estimates suggest that nearly half of Missouri’s current prison admissions are attributable to probation or parole violation proceedings. Id.
46. Regarding parole specifically, approximately 15,000 people were under supervision in Missouri in 2015. See Exhibit 2 at 8. As noted above, conservative estimates provided by MDOC in response to a recent Sunshine Law request by undersigned counsel, suggest that about 3,000 such persons faced parole revocation that year. See Exhibit 5. However, statistics from the United States Department of Justice claim that in 2015, nearly 7,000 persons on parole in Missouri found
12 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 12 of 36

themselves re-incarcerated based upon alleged parole violations, new sentences, or other reasons unknown. See Exhibit 5 at 24. As a result, Missouri was sixth in the nation for parolee returns to prison. See Exhibit 5 at 34.
2. Failure to Provide Constitutionally-Required Protections 47. Such alarming re-incarceration rates are in no small part due to Defendants’ failure to provide parolees with procedural rights under controlling Supreme Court precedent, as set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer 408 U.S. 471, to protect against questionable parole violation claims. Such constitutional protections include but are not limited to:
• The right and opportunity to receive adequate written notice of allegations and accurate information about rights during revocation proceedings;
• The right to a formal preliminary and final hearing on the alleged violations; • The right and opportunity to present written evidence and witnesses at both the
preliminary and final hearing; • The right and opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses at both
the preliminary and final hearing; and • The right to be protected from involuntary waivers that are not knowingly and
intelligently entered. 48. Instead, from beginning to end Missouri’s parole revocation process is inscrutable and byzantine. First, in many instances parolees are not at all certain of the terms of their parole. As a matter of policy, practice, and custom, inmates are released under a Parole Order that sets forth the general terms of their parole. See Exhibit __ (sample Order of Release on Parole provided to undersigned counsel in response to a Missouri Sunshine Law request).
13 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 13 of 36

49. But that Order is sometimes in conflict with the Release Decision Form completed by the Parole Board, which may list various special conditions. See, e.g., Exhibit 20 (reflecting competing release conditions for Mr. Gallagher).
50. What is more, local parole officers are empowered to add any additional directives they wish. As a result, parole officers often unilaterally modify these terms with directives that also may be in conflict with original terms or confusing to parolees. See Exhibit 10 (noting “I will abide by any directions given me by my Probation and Parole Officer”); see also Exhibit 11 (reflecting unilateral directive by Mr. Gallagher’s parole officer that he no longer live with his mother, thus rendering him homeless).
51. From there, parolees may find themselves involved in parole revocation proceedings that lack regularity and fail to comply with state and constitutional law. For instance, in some instances, parole revocation proceedings are initiated when an MDOC employees serves a parolee with a copy of a Field Violation Report. See Exhibit 11. In other cases, parole officers unilaterally issue a warrant for the parolee’s arrest without any prior notice of the allegations or review of warrant request. See Exhibit 12 (sample Parole Warrant document provided to undersigned counsel in response to a Missouri Sunshine Law request).
52. One way or another, parolees facing violation proceedings are uniformly taken into custody rather than being permitted to post bail or seek release pending resolution of the allegations. Some parolees, when facing new criminal charges, may be confined at local jails for weeks prior to being removed to the prison system to have their revocation matter resolved. Others are moved near immediately from local jails back to prison, sometimes without ever seeing a parole officer or having a preliminary hearing relating to their alleged violations.
14 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 14 of 36

53. Some parolees are informed that a preliminary hearing can be held prior to a final revocation determination. But many do not understand what such a process entails or what their rights are during such a process. The MDOC Parole Revocation Handbook entitled “Rights of Offender to Preliminary and Revocation Hearing,” purports to inform parolees of their rights relating to parole revocation proceedings. See generally Exhibit 18.
54. However, frequently parolees are not provided with this Handbook, otherwise known as the “Red Book,” until after proceedings have taken place. Some parolees my receive the wrong Handbook or none at all. See, e.g., Exhibit 11 (one of Mr. Gallagher’s forms notes that no booklet was given, the other claims that he was given a booklet entitled “Right of Alleged Violator” – not “Rights of Offender to Preliminary and Revocation Hearing”). Moreover, as further described below, the information in MDOC’s Handbook is confusing and fails to correctly set forth constitutional standards. See generally Exhibit 18.
55. The forms provided to parolees to give notice of alleged violations are in many instances dense and incomprehensible. The complex language and confusing design of these forms, as reflected in a sampling of Field Violation Reports in Mr. Gallagher’s case that are provided here as representative for the class, far exceed the comprehension of the average parolee. See, e.g., Exhibit 11.
56. Other forms fail to provide parolees with important information about their rights or what to expect at final revocation hearings. For instance, the “Board Decision” memorandum in Plaintiff Timothy Gallagher’s case informed him that “revocation proceedings” will be held, but provided no details about what to expect or the right to counsel. See Exhibit 16.
15 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 15 of 36

57. The Parole Board Inter-Office Communication Memoranda provided in cases of parolees like Plaintiffs Mildred Curren and Amber Wyse are not only confusing, but actually dissuade the women from even asking any questions of parole staff. See Exhibit 14.
58. And Notice of Revocation Hearing Forms, like those provided to Plaintiffs Amber Wyse and Timothy Gallgher, contain almost no explanations or detail. Indeed, they include no facts at all to support the findings of the Board. See Exhibit 16. For instance, while in both of their cases the Board supposedly determined that they had committed law violations – there is no indication what law was supposedly violated and based upon what conduct. They also provide no information about the next stage of the process where disposition or the length of parole “hit” is determined, or how an appeal might be taken regarding the revocation decision. See generally id.
59. Most frequently, sometimes after being provided with incorrect information or being pressured by parole staff who repeatedly return to urge informal resolution, parolees sign waiver forms giving up their rights to preliminary hearings and/or final parole revocation hearings.
60. This waiver process generally happens in just a matter of minutes, while the parolee is in a secure facility, in a small visit space, before a parole officer, without any prior access to a law library, and without access to counsel. It is also accomplished by way of waiver forms, samples of which are attached hereto, that are confusing and lack sufficient information about their implications. See Exhibits 13 and 15.
61. All of the above is borne out from data collected from a random sampling of twentyfive Missouri parole revocation cases handled by the Parole Board from December 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017, provided to undersigned counsel in response to a Sunshine Law request. In all twenty-five matters, no preliminary hearing was held, even though formal waivers appear to have been executed in only ten cases. Not a single revocation hearing was held, although final hearing
16 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 16 of 36

waivers appear to have been executed in only eight cases. And in each case no witnesses were called and no evidence was presented to substantiate the allegations. See Exhibit 3.
62. MDOC records over an extended period of time shed further shocking light on the extensive waiver process employed by Missouri parole officials. In approximately 600 parole revocation proceedings conducted by the Parole Board between March 20, 2017 through June 2, 2017, it appears violation hearings were provided in only six cases. See Exhibit 4.
63. Even when preliminary hearings occur, parolees generally are not provided with a meaningful opportunity to present evidence or live witnesses on their behalf. For instance, some hearings are held in jails and security issues prevent witnesses from attending such hearings.
64. Some preliminary hearings are conducted by supervisory parole officers – others are apparently conducted by the very parole officer assigned to the case and who may be the only witness to the underlying technical allegation.
65. Sometimes police or parole reports are admitted as evidence. Sometimes they are not. Parole staff may also consider information that was not presented at the hearing, such as information contained in the parolee’s computerized parole file and to which the parolee has no access.
66. When preliminary hearings are conducted they are very brief—sometimes less than five minutes—and they are generally routine affairs during which probable cause is almost always found.
67. Thereafter, parolees proceed to final revocation. How this occurs also appears to fluctuate. Sometimes parolees may be seen by a member of the Parole Board along with other parole staff. Other times they may not. The final revocation hearing is often held only after the
17 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 17 of 36

parolee has been imprisoned for weeks or months following a preliminary hearing or preliminary hearing waiver.
68. Final hearing dates frequently change with little notice to the parolee, regardless of whether travel arrangements need to be made for witnesses or evidence. When final revocations hearings do occur, generally they are a retread of what occurs at the preliminary hearing—cursory proceedings during which no witnesses are called and no evidence is presented beyond the written parole violation report. Decisions relating to violation findings are not made at the hearing. Instead, a written decision or Order of Revocation is issued at a later date the Board.
69. In some instances, the written decision – generally a one-page document with few details or reasons for the determination – may note a future release date. See Exhibit 17 (Order of Revocation documents for Timothy Gallagher and Amber Wyse). And sometimes, adjudication and disposition of the violation are bifurcated and a parolee may be brought back before one or more Parole Board members for re-release consideration. Id.
70. Regardless, the Parole Board almost always ratifies the decision of the hearing officer and keeps parolees imprisoned for a length of time that can vary from a few additional months to years.
71. Counsel are never appointed to represent the parolee at the preliminary or final revocation hearing, regardless of individual circumstances.
72. Many of the above assertions about Missouri parole hearings are also borne out by data provided by MDOC in response to a Sunshine Law request by undersigned counsel. For the approximately 250 parole hearings conducted by the Parole Board between March 2014 and March 2017, revocation resulted in 237 cases. Attorneys were present for only 3 of the 250 cases. See Exhibit 3.
18 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 18 of 36

3. Failure to Appoint Counsel to Indigent Parolees 73. The absolute lack of appointed counsel at parole revocation hearings reflects the Defendants’ failure to implement any system whatsoever, by which adult indigent parolees may request and obtain counsel at cost to the State. Rather, as is clear from the MDOC Parole Revocation Handbook supplied to some inmates, the constitutional right to counsel is not even a consideration in revocation proceedings before the Missouri Parole Board. See Exhibit 18. 74. Indeed, the Red Book informs parolees that only individuals involved in “Court parole revocation hearings” might have a right to counsel if they are indigent and “the rules of the Court” so provide. See Exhibit 18 at 3. The Red Book continues that “if the offender appears to be incapable of representing himself/herself, legal counsel may be provided” in that circumstance too. Id. However, as written, the Redbook is misleading and suggests that such a right to counsel only applies to specialized court-based parole proceedings.2 75. With regard to proceedings before the Parole Board, the Red Book explains that a parolee may have only one representative of their choice present – “a family member, a friend, an employer or legal counsel.” Id. Thus, as in all other Missouri parole matters, if somehow the parolee was to find an attorney who would come to the final hearing with them, the attorney would be relegated to the role of a mere witness and not allowed to engage in true legal representation. 76. And, of course, almost no parolees are accompanied by counsel to hearings before the Parole Board because the State categorically denies any request for appointed counsel. There is no system or funds are in place to secure such an appointment. As a result, parolees in the State

2

Although the Red Book is not at all clear about what kinds of parole revocation cases would

involve the courts rather the Parole Board, it may be referring to “long-term treatment program”

matters handled under Section 217.362 of the Missouri Revised Statues.

19

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 19 of 36

of Missouri are and continue to be subjected to MDOC parole revocation proceedings without the assistance of counsel to which many are constitutionally entitled.
77. The Defendants’ policies and practices in this regard directly violate the requirements of due process established in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, which held that counsel should be provided in parole revocation cases where, after being informed of his right to request counsel, the parolee makes such a request, “based on a timely and colorable claim (i) that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.” 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973). The Court further held that, in “passing on a request for the appointment of counsel, the responsible agency also should consider, especially in doubtful cases, whether the probationer [or parolee] appears to be capable of speaking effectively for himself.” Id. at 790–91.
78. Thus, Gagnon affirmed that the right to counsel was “presumptive” in these three categories of cases—where there is a colorable claim the parolee did not commit the violation; where there is substantial evidence in mitigation of the violation, making revocation inappropriate; and where the parolee is incapable of speaking effectively for himself.
79. A significant percentage of indigent parolees in Missouri fall within one or more of the Gagnon categories.
80. First, many parolees have, at the very least, a colorable claim that they did not commit the alleged parole violation. Parolees frequently are accused of violating parole merely because they have been arrested on suspicion of committing a new criminal offense. Sometimes the arrests themselves are unlawful. More often, these criminal charges are dismissed in a court of
20 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 20 of 36

law as unfounded. The Defendants’ policies and procedures allow parolees to be violated and reimprisoned based solely on the fact that the parolee was subject to arrest—regardless of the merits of the case against him.
81. Similarly, a high percentage of parolees are accused of violating parole on the basis of their parole agent’s allegations that they committed a non-criminal technical violation, such as failing to check in with their parole officer. However, the evidence supporting these technical violations is often unreliable and open to interpretation. Further, MDOC’s parole files and inmate records are frequently filled with errors. See, e.g., Exhibit 20 (showing how parole officials erroneously attributed a pending assault matter to Timothy Gallagher that, in fact, involved an entirely different defendant).
82. Yet, parolees have no access to any of this information, and no way to challenge its reliability. The Parole Board routinely re-imprisons parolees based solely on parole agents’ statements that parolees have not complied with the terms of parole.
83. Second, even in cases where the alleged violation is uncontested, many parolees have substantial reasons mitigating the violation, which, because of the complexity of developing such evidence, they are incapable of presenting on their own. Parolees are unable to present witnesses who can testify to facts that either justify or mitigate against revocation, or present documentary evidence in their favor.
84. Moreover, parolees have difficulty developing such evidence at the time of their supposed preliminary hearings while they are subject to the strict and inhumane conditions of local jails, such as the St. Louis “Workhouse.” And once delivered to MDOC reception centers – sometimes many hours away from where the parolee lived and where alleged violations occurred – organizing and presenting mitigating evidence becomes even more difficult.
21 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 21 of 36

85. Technical violations in particular can often be remediated by an adjustment of the parolee’s conditions of parole, without full-scale revocation proceedings. Yet, without counsel to aid in the presentation of such mitigation evidence, the hearing officer and Parole Board systematically fail to take it into consideration.
86. Third, many parolees are unable to speak on their own behalf or understand the various layers to the parole revocation process. Parolees who are under the supervision of the MDOC have significantly higher levels of cognitive impairment, educational disabilities, illiteracy, and other impairments than are found in the general public, and which make it difficult for such parolees to speak on their own behalf.
87. Indeed, national data suggests that 36% percent of people held behind bars live with mental illness. And MDOC’s own data indicates that two-thirds of people on parole in Missouri suffer from drug or alcohol addiction. See Exhibit 19 at 106. Unfortunately, both mentally impaired and chemically addicted inmates report that they receive inadequate medical and other supports once they are returned to prison in Missouri to face alleged violations. For these reasons, too, the class members in this case are largely unable to prepare for or effectively defend themselves at their parole hearings without the assistance of counsel.
88. Yet, parolees must defend themselves within this shadowy and complex revocation system without the assistance of counsel, regardless of their limitations or ongoing medical or other challenges and despite the fact that many parolees meet the requirements set forth in Gagnon, which entitle them to such assistance.
89. Because the Defendants do not provide parolees with appointed counsel, Plaintiffs are denied a meaningful opportunity to: (1) consider the charges leveled against them; (2) prepare a defense; (2) present evidence, including witnesses, on their own behalf; (3) confront their
22 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 22 of 36

accusers; (4) make informed decisions regarding hearing waivers, or (5) appeal or seek

reconsideration of revocation decisions.

90. The systematic and on-going violations described in the preceding paragraphs result

in the arbitrary imprisonment of thousands of people in Missouri prisons. People are consistently

subjected to months of unreviewable incarceration without process or remedy. As a result of the

Defendants’ practices and procedures, the members of the Plaintiff class have suffered and continue

to suffer well-established violations of their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment

of the U.S. Constitution.

B.

PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS FOR INDIVIDUAL NAMED PLAINTIFFS:

TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF ARBITRARY AND DISTURBING PRACTICES IN MISSOURI

1. Stephanie Gasca

91. STEPHANIE GASCA is a 30-year old white woman who suffers from a history of

homelessness, substance abuse, and mental health challenges. She was taken into custody by parole

officials in June 2017 and held at the Greene County Jail. She was eight months pregnant at the

time.

92. Upon information and belief,3 although she had no new law violations, a parole

warrant apparently was issued immediately upon Ms. Gasca’s departure from a residential drug

3

Unfortunately, undersigned counsel was prohibited by prison officials from accessing any

of Ms. Gasca’s parole documents during our legal visit on August 12, 2017. Although counsel

drove two hours anticipating that she could review Ms. Gasca’s parole documents in person, such

information sharing and document review is prohibited as a matter of policy at WERDCC. Indeed,

quite shockingly, a sign in the attorney visit room reads: “Per policy offenders are not allowed to

bring anything or take anything from a legal visit. All written correspondence must be done by

mail.” Thus, Ms. Gasca was prohibited from even bringing her parole materials to our legal

meeting, let alone providing them to undersigned counsel for purposes of attaching them as an

exhibit to this Complaint.

Undersigned counsel face other challenges in quickly accessing documents relating to the claims alleged in this Complaint. These include the Missouri Parole Board’s insistence that its files

23 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 23 of 36

treatment program. However, completion of an in-patient drug program was not a specific condition of Ms. Gasca’s parole. In addition, she had voluntarily entered the program on her own.
93. Ms. Gasca’s parole officer came to visit her at the Greene County Jail after Ms. Gasca had been there for several days without appropriate pre-natal or mental health care. The parole officer indicated she was there to interview Ms. Gasca and had not yet completed her Field Violation Report, which she said would likely include a single #8 technical violation for failing to report to her parole officer.
94. During this conversation, although the parole officer did place a red pamphlet on the table, she never directed Ms. Gasca to read it before answering any questions or signing any documents. Rather, the parole officer, who never mentioned anything about a right to counsel, led Ms. Gasca to believe that it was in her best interest to answer all questions and waive all formal proceedings.
95. As a result of this conversation and her misunderstanding that she might be released on house arrest if she signed a preliminary hearing waiver form, Ms. Gasca did so. Thus, she was surprised to learn thereafter that she was being moved to the Women’s Eastern Reception and Diagnostic Correctional Center (“WERDCC”).
96. After several weeks at WERDCC, again without access to mental health care and now nearly nine-months pregnant, Ms. Gasca was called from her cell to meet with Institutional Parole Officer (IPO) Richards. During that meeting, which occurred on or about June 29, 2017,
are confidential, inmates being unable to securely maintain documents when moved, and problems with and costs of inmate mail. However, all factual assertions on behalf of the named plaintiffs are made in good faith and upon information and belief. In addition, the MDOC and Parole Board documents attached as exhibits hereto, and incorporated by references into the Complaint, serve as representative samples for the class.
24 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 24 of 36

Ms. Gasca was presented with her Field Violation Reports for the first time. It described her alleged violation as a #11.5 special conditions allegation – different from what her parole officer had represented during their meeting at the Green County Jail.
97. In addition, Ms. Richards had a Final Hearing Form with her that was already filled out for Ms. Gasca to sign to indicate that she would waive her final hearing.
98. Again, she was not told anything about her right to counsel prior to waiving her final revocation hearing. Rather she was operating on hearsay information in the facility, that led her to believe that if she gave up her right to a preliminary hearing, she would be released home quickly – perhaps in time to have her baby.
99. Unfortunately, that did not occur. Rather, Ms. Gasca gave birth on July 11, 2017 – while still in MDOC custody. Her child is now living with her mother. And Ms. Gasca still awaits a determination from the Parole Board about her alleged violation and her future. She also is in pain, suffers from complications due to her delivery by cesarean section, and lacks sufficient mental health services and care.
100. Ms. Gasca’s parole matter is still pending and she continues to have colorable claims that she did not willfully violate conditions of her parole, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed to ensure that Ms. Gasca was represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
101. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Gasca will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations. This is especially true given his lack of stable housing, difficulty obtaining work, and history of substance use and abuse.
25 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 25 of 36

2. Mildred Curren 102. MILDRED CURREN is a 54-year-old African-American woman who was taken into custody by parole officials in April 2017. She believes a parole warrant was issued based upon her alleged failure to report to her parole officer and possible mistaken information about past minor law violations. 103. But Ms. Curren, who has a 10th grade education and suffers from various medical conditions, was struggling with obtaining stable housing and only learned of her parole warrant during the course of a traffic stop. 104. Once in parole custody at the Boone County jail, she was never provided with a preliminary hearing by parole officials. Instead, she was transported to WERDCC to await a final revocation determination. 105. At the prison she was provided with a confusing form that both suggested that she had an upcoming hearing and that a parole decision had already been made in her case. See Exhibit 14. Either way, she was told she should not ask any questions of parole officials as they would not be answered. Instead, someone by the name of Mr. Houser would come to see her at some point. See Exhibit 14. 106. Apparently, Mr. Houser never came to see Ms. Curren. Instead in June 2017 she found herself in a meeting with IPO Richards. During this time, Ms. Curren was in extreme medical distress and pain due to an apparent blood clot in her leg that required medical attention. 107. But she believes sometime after the meeting with IPO Richards she received a letter from the Board notifying her that she was going to be revoked. Thus, without being provided with a meaningful revocation hearing including legal protections and the right to counsel, Ms. Curren
26 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 26 of 36

was apparently found guilty of some alleged violations and awaits a final determination of the outcome of her case.
108. Given the lack of information and assistance provided, as well as ongoing health issues that have impaired her thinking and abilities, Ms. Curren remains confused about her status and rights in these proceedings.
109. She has a colorable claim that she did not commit the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be further imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Ms. Curren is afforded appropriate process and is represented by counsel during parole revocation proceedings.
110. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Curren will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations. This is particularly true given her vulnerable status as a homeless person and struggles with substance use and abuse.
3. Timothy Gallagher 111. TIMOTHY GALLAGHER is a disabled 54-year-old white man who suffers from Bi-polar Disorder and is currently in the custody of the MDOC. In July 2015, he was arrested on allegations that he stole an item from a store. Thereafter he was released on bond. While out on bond and continuing to report to his parole officer, he was taken into custody in November 2015 for allegedly violating his parole. 112. Initially his parole officer suggested her main concern was some kind of financial disagreement with his mother and discord in the family home more generally – not the July 2015 store theft charge. See Exhibit 11. But no charges were ever filed by Mr. Gallagher’s mother nor was any kind of court case brought on her behalf. Rather, she actually wrote to inform parole
27 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 27 of 36

authorities that the allegations were untrue and that she wanted her son to be released. See Exhibit 20.
113. Nevertheless, parole officials apparently proceeded with revocation proceedings against Mr. Gallagher – not for the incident involving his mother, but for the alleged store theft charges and three past technical violations.
114. But Mr. Gallagher was acquitted of the store theft charges. In addition, he was never provided with a preliminary hearing on the revocation matter by parole officials, even though such a hearing had been scheduled for November 17, 2015.4
115. Rather, Mr. Gallagher was removed from the St. Louis County Justice Center to an MDOC facility pending a final parole revocation determination. Once in the prison system, parole officials pressured Mr. Gallagher until he waived his right to a formal final parole revocation hearing. See Exhibit 15.
116. Indeed, after Mr. Gallagher signed a form requesting such a hearing on December 22, 2015, he was urged to abandon his request. The very next day a different parole official pulled Mr. Gallagher from his cell to press him to reconsider his decision, resulting in Mr. Gallagher becoming confused and having his will overborne. He thus signed a second form on December 23, 2015 that waived his right to a final parole revocation hearing. See Exhibit 15.
117. Throughout this entire process no one informed Mr. Gallagher that he could be provided with an attorney. Indeed, the Waiver of Revocation Hearing Form that he signed makes no reference at all to the right of representation during such a proceeding. See Exhibit 15.

4

Mr. Gallagher’s records reflect that he was presented with a Request for or Waiver of

Preliminary Hearing form that informed him of a Preliminary Hearing date of November, 17, 2015.

His parole officer tried to get Mr. Gallagher to waive that hearing, but he refused to do so. See

Exhibit 13. Yet, it was never held.

28

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 28 of 36

118. Subsequent parole records suggest Mr. Gallagher was both violated based upon the already dismissed theft charge and seven supposed technical violations (that is four more violations than those for which he was given notice) – and that the decision of the Board was based upon incorrect information relating to another inmate. In addition, it appeas he has been held more than eighteen months based on what amounts alleged technical violations and may be held for many more months yet. See Exhibits 17 and 20.
119. Moreover, after learning that Parole Board Member Don Ruzicka resigned from the Board due to his inappropriate handling of parole hearings, Mr. Gallagher has sought further review of his parole determination. On August 2, 2017, Mr. Gallagher wrote to parole officials seeking to learn if Ruzicka was involved in his revocation as he wishes to appeal if this is the case. However, parole officials refuse to disclose such information or provide further review. See Exhibit 20.
120. Mr. Gallagher thus has colorable claims that undermine the alleged violations in his case, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be further imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. He further fears the proceedings against him were tainted by the improprieties of Don Ruzicka and continues to seek review of the matter. Yet, defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Mr. Gallagher is afforded appropriate process and is represented by counsel during parole revocation proceedings.
121. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Mr. Gallagher will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations. This is particularly true given Mr. Gallagher’s mental health diagnosis and history of substance use and abuse.
29 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 29 of 36

4.

Kenneth Hemphill

122. KENNENTH HEMPHILL is a 26-year-old white male parolee who is currently in

the custody of the MDOC. He was taken into custody in May 2017 on a parole warrant issued by

his parole officer for the technical violations of failing to maintain employment, report to his parole

officer, and maintain stable housing.

123. After being taken into MDOC custody in late May 2017, undersigned counsel

arranged to visit with him. However, shortly before our scheduled visit, Mr. Hemphill was visited

by a parole official at Eastern Reception and Diagnostic Correctional Center (“ERDCC”) who

interrogated Mr. Hemphill about his alleged technical violations. The official then recommended

that Mr. Hemphill waive any further formal processes since Mr. Hemphill supposedly already

admitted his wrongdoing to him – which was not quite the case as Mr. Hemphill did not admit that

he had engaged in a willful violation. He further suggested it was in Mr. Hemphill’s interest to

forgo any formal proceedings.

124. During this time, Mr. Hemphill was being forced to sleep at night on a “boat” mat

placed in a common hallway at ERDCC due to facility overcrowding and was deprived hot water

for showing and hygiene. Thus, during this hurried conversation with the parole official, which

occurred without any assistance of counsel or offer to access counsel, and while he lacked sufficient

rest, Mr. Hemphill signed whatever document the parole official presented.

125. Mr. Hemphill’s April 12, 2017 Field Violation Report indicates that his parole

officer planned to work with him informally over the next 90 days to address his alleged technical

violations. Yet, the same day he sought a parole warrant. See Exhibit 11.

126. The Field Violation Report also confirms that Mr. Hemphill was never given

MDOC’s Handbook to explain his parole revocation rights. And while Mr. Hemphill does recall

30 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 30 of 36

seeing some kind of pamphlet when parole officials came to see him once he was incarcerated on the parole warrant, he believes that was provided to him after he had already signed the forms presented by the parole official.
127. Thus, Mr. Hemphill did not know about the protections to which he was entitled or understand of his rights at the time he signed a hearing waiver, including his right to counsel. He was also led to believe there was no use in having a hearing and he would likely be released more quickly by waiving his rights. Without full appreciation of where he is in the parole revocation process, Mr. Hemphill still awaits a determination relating to allegations that he failed to report to his parole officer as scheduled.
128. He has a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed to ensure that Mr. Hemphill was represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
129. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Mr. Hemphill will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations. This is especially true given his lack of stable housing, difficulty obtaining work, and history of substance use and abuse.
5. Jesse Neely 130. JESSE NEELY is a 33-year-old Black male parolee who is currently in the custody of the MDOC. He was taken into custody based on allegations relating to new criminal charges stemming from his allegedly being found in a vacant building. 131. While he was awaiting trial on his new criminal charges, he was visited at the St. Louis “Justice Center” by his parole officer who provided him with her Field Violation Report and
31 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 31 of 36

indicated that she would be recommending revocation – even though the charges against him had not been resolved.
132. He does not recall any preliminary hearing being conducted by the parole officer or being informed of any rights relating to the parole revocation process. Instead she simply drilled him about the facts of his alleged crime in a small visit cell without concern for his representation on the underlying pending case or offering appointed counsel for the parole revocation matter. Thereafter she provided him with a red pamphlet.
133. Days later, when he tried to inquire into posting bail on his new charges he was told he could not because his parole warrant had been fully executed and revocation proceedings had already begun.
134. Several of the original charges against Mr. Neely were dismissed. He was thereafter delivered to ERDCC on or about May 24, 2017. He was subjected to deplorable conditions, including being made to sleep in “boats” in the hallway due to prison overcrowding, lack of blankets or clean clothes, and no hot water for showers.
135. While enduring these conditions, Mr. Neely was visited by a parole official who provided confusing information. Mr. Neely was informed that any parolee readmitted based on a new crime was required to see the Parole Board, but that it was also in his best interest to waive a formal hearing before the Parole Board. As a result, we would be given a general “open date” with the Board in November. Mr. Neely thus signed whatever documents he was asked to sign by the parole official.
136. Mr. Neely remains utterly befuddled about the procedural posture of his parole revocation matter, does not know if he waived his right to a formal hearing, and does not have a
32 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 32 of 36

clear sense of what to expect at the November hearing. He further fears he is not being properly credited for the time he is serving,
137. Mr. Neely has colorable claims relating to the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants have failed to ensure that Mr. Neely is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
138. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Mr. Neely will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
6. Amber Wyse 139. AMBER WYSE is a 31-year-old white woman who is currently in the custody of MDOC. She was arrested in April 2017 following a traffic stop where all car occupants were taken into custody based upon drugs and a weapon found in the vehicle. This incident forms the basis of the parole revocation proceedings against her. 140. While she was incarcerated, parole staff presented her with paperwork she did not fully understand. See Exhibit 14. And she signed documents without the assistance or advice of counsel. See, Exhibit 15. All charges stemming from her April 2017 arrest have been dropped. Yet Ms. Wyse still awaits a final determination of her parole violation case. 141. Although she does not fully appreciate what it means or what rights she possesses, she has been informed she has an “open date” in November where she will be presented to the Parole Board. See Exhibit 17. But she also has a reconsideration appeal pending given that she believes she should not remain in prison because all of the matters against her have been dismissed. 142. Ms. Wyse has colorable claims relating to the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence.
33 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 33 of 36

Defendants have failed to ensure that Ms. Wyse is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
143. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Wyse will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations. She is particularly at risk of future revocation given her history of narcotics involvement.
LEGAL CLAIMS COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Right to Due Process 144. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth in this Count. 145. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief against all Defendants to prevent the continued violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the class they represent. 146. As a matter of policy, practice, and custom, the Defendants systematically fail to screen parolees to determine whether they are eligible for counsel, at cost to the State, as required under Gagnon v. Scarpelli. They fail to appoint counsel to those parolees who do qualify. 147. The Defendants also fail to ensure that parolees receive adequate notice of the rights to which they are entitled in the parole revocation process. As a result of the Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs, parolees are unable to speak on their own behalf, present evidence, and cross-examine adverse witnesses. 148. Consequently, the Defendants are in continuous violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of the members of the class under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
34 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 34 of 36

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class they represent respectfully pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in the following manner: 1. Enter an Order certifying a class of all adult parolees in the State of Missouri who currently or will in the future face parole revocation proceedings. 2. Adjudge and declare that the policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint are in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the class they represent under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 3. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons under their control from subjecting Plaintiffs and the class they represent from the unlawful policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint. 4. Retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as the Defendants have fully complied with all orders of the Court, and there is reasonable assurance that the Defendants will continue to comply in the future with these orders. 5. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 6. Award Plaintiffs and the class they represent such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
35 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 35 of 36

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Mae C. Quinn Mae C. Quinn, MO61584 /s/ Amy E. Breihan Amy E. Breihan, MO65499 RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER AT ST. LOUIS 3115 South Grand Blvd., Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 Telephone: (314) 254-8540 Facsimile: (314) 254-8547 mae.quinn@macarthurjustice.org amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org
36 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 36 of 36

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXuHmIeBnIt T1-11 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 12

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 12

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 12

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 12

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5 of 12

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6 of 12

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 7 of 12

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 8 of 12

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 9 of 12

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 10 of 12

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 11 of 12

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 12 of 12

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-33 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-33 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 10

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-33 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 10

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-33 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 10

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-33 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5 of 10

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-33 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6 of 10

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-33 Filed 08/14/17 Page 7 of 10

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-33 Filed 08/14/17 Page 8 of 10

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-33 Filed 08/14/17 Page 9 of 10

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-33 Filed 08/14/17 Page 10 of 10

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 7 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 8 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 9 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 10 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 11 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 12 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 13 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 14 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 15 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-44 Filed 08/14/17 Page 16 of 16

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 7 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 8 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 9 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 10 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 11 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 12 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 13 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 14 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 15 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 16 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 17 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 18 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 19 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 20 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 21 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 22 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 23 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 24 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 25 of 26

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-55 Filed 08/14/17 Page 26 of 26

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 7 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 8 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 9 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 10 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 11 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 12 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 13 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 14 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 15 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 16 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 17 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 18 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 19 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 20 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 21 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 22 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 23 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 24 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 25 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 26 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 27 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 28 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 29 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 30 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 31 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 32 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 33 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 34 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 35 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 36 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 37 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 38 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 39 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 40 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 41 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 42 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 43 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 44 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 45 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 46 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 47 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 48 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 49 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 50 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 51 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 52 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 53 of 54

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 1-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 54 of 54

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 7 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 8 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeInBtI1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 9 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 10 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 11 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 12 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 13 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DocEuXmHeInBt I1T-77 Filed 08/14/17 Page 14 of 14

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXuHmIeBnIt T1-88 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXuHmIeBnIt T1-88 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXuHmIeBnIt T1-88 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXuHmIeBnIt T1-88 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXuHmIeBnIt T1-99 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXuHmIeBnIt T1-99 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXuHmIeBnIt T1-99 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXuHmIeBnIt T1-99 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXuHmIeBnIt T1-99 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5 of 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXuHmIeBnIt T1-99 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6 of 6

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-100 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1RoEfD1A3 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2RoEfD1A3 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3RoEfD1A3 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4RoEfD1A3 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5RoEfD1A3 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6RoEfD1A3 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 7RoEfD1A3 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 8RoEfD1A3 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 9RoEfD1A3 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1R0EoDf 1A3CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1R1EoDf 1A3CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1R2EoDf 1A3CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-111 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1R3EoDf 1A3CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-122 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-133 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-144 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-144 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-144 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-155 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-155 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-155 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-166 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-177 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-177 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-177 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-177 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-188 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-188 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 9

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-188 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 9

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-188 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 9

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-188 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5 of 9

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-188 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6 of 9

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-188 Filed 08/14/17 Page 7 of 9

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-188 Filed 08/14/17 Page 8 of 9

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-188 Filed 08/14/17 Page 9 of 9

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 7 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 8 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 9 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 10 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 11 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 12 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 13 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 14 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 15 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 16 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 17 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 18 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 19 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 20 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 21 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 22 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 23 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 24 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 25 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 26 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 27 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 28 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 29 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 30 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 31 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 32 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 33 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 34 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 35 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 36 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 37 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 38 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 39 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 40 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 41 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 42 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 43 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 44 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-1199 Filed 08/14/17 Page 45 of 45

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1RoEfD1A5 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2RoEfD1A5 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3RoEfD1A5 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 4RoEfD1A5 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 5RoEfD1A5 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 6RoEfD1A5 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 7RoEfD1A5 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 8RoEfD1A5 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcXumHeIBntI1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 9RoEfD1A5 CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1R0EoDf 1A5CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1R1EoDf 1A5CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1R2EoDf 1A5CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1R3EoDf 1A5CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1R4EoDf 1A5CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DoEcuXmHeInBt I1T-2200 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1R5EoDf 1A5CTED

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-211 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB DEocXuHmIeBnItT1-211 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

STEPHANIE GASGA, MILDRED CURREN,

)

TIMOTHY GALLAGHER, KENNETH HEMPHILL, )

JESSE NEELY, AMBER WYSE and

)

SOLOMON WARREN,

)

)

on behalf of themselves and all similarly

)

situated individuals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ANNE PRECYTHE, in her official capacity as Director )

of the Missouri Department of Corrections;

)

KENNETH JONES, in his official capacity as

)

Chairman of the Missouri Division of Probation

)

and Parole; JENNIFER ZAMKUS, in her official

)

capacity as Vice Chair of the Missouri Board of

)

Probation and Parole; and JIM WELLS,

)

MARTIN RUCKER, ELLIS MCSWAIN, JR.,

)

DON RUZICKA, and GARY DUSENBERG, in

)

their official capacities as Members of the Missouri )

Board of Probation and Parole.

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 17-cv-04149

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs STEPHANIE GASCA, MILDRED CURREN, TIMOTHY GALLAGHER, KENNENTH HEMPHILL, JESSE NEELY, AMBER WYSE, and SOLOMON WARREN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, file this complaint against ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, KENNETH JONES, Chairman of the Missouri Division of Probation and Parole, and Missouri Parole Board Members JENNIFER ZAMKUS, JIM WELLS, MARTIN RUCKER, ELLIS MCSWAIN, JR., DON RUZICKA, and GARY DUSENBERG, and allege as follows:

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 1 of 38

INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil rights class action complaint filed on behalf of men and women in custody, or under supervision, of the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), and who are at risk of imprisonment without adequate due process as a result of unconstitutional practices, procedures, and customs of both the MDOC and its Division of Probation and Parole (“Parole Board”) with respect to parole revocation proceedings. 2. The Defendants have developed fundamentally unfair and procedurally flawed parole revocation processes that violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as set forth in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), and related cases. This Court should declare such procedures unlawful and enjoin them from being used now and in the future. 3. In blatant disregard of the United States and Missouri Constitutions, the Parole Board consistently detains individuals accused of parole violations and renders findings against them by way of faux-proceedings that have few of the trappings of due process required before an individual can be imprisoned or otherwise deprived of their liberty. 4. Pursuant to policies, practices, and customs of the Parole Board and MDOC, parole officers issue and execute their own parole violation warrants, taking parolees into custody without sufficient cause or independent review, and then re-incarcerate them within the prison system. 5. Thereafter, meaningful probable cause preliminary hearings or final hearings are almost never held. Instead, parolees are denied adequate notice and information about the specific allegations against them and their rights during such proceedings, including the right to counsel. 6. In the end, Parole Board members merely rubber stamp parole violation allegations made by such parole officers, who themselves almost never appear to testify. Proceedings are also
2 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 2 of 38

frequently bifurcated as between violation adjudications and dispositions without adequate notice to parolees about this unique process or their rights during such prolonged proceedings.
7. Finally, the Defendants uniformly refuse to provide attorneys to parolees at any point in the parole revocation process. This is true even if a parolee is both indigent and (1) has a colorable claim that he did not commit an alleged violation, (2) has mitigating evidence explaining why revocation is inappropriate and/or (3) would have difficulty advocating for themselves given the complexity of the process or their own mental health, medical, educational, or other challenges.
8. Given these shockingly deficient processes that have been in place for years, parole revocation hearings in Missouri have been and continue to be a sham.
9. The Defendants conduct thousands of these proceedings each year and, in effect, have created a procedural vortex from which people on parole cannot escape and are at continual risk of being rearrested and reentered into the prison system in violation of their rights. As a result of Defendants’ policies, procedures, and customs, the Plaintiffs are constantly rotated in and out of the prison system—often as a result of non-criminal technical parole violations, and often based upon unsubstantiated accusations that the parolee committed a new criminal offense.
10. The vast majority of parolees in the State of Missouri need and are entitled to appointed counsel to help them navigate these arcane proceedings. Yet, as a matter of practice, procedure, and custom, the Defendants systematically deny indigent parolees their right to counsel. Indeed, they absolutely fail to consider whether indigent parolees qualify for the appointment of counsel, at cost to the State, and they fail to appoint counsel to those parolees who do qualify, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
11. As a result of Defendants’ failure to appoint counsel, parolees find themselves without anyone to help ensure adherence with other procedural protections—including the right to
3 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 3 of 38

speak on their own behalf, present evidence, and cross-examine adverse witnesses during parole revocation proceedings—to which they are also constitutionally entitled.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of the Plaintiffs rights as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 13. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this complaint occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 14. Plaintiff STEPHANIE GASCA is a parolee currently in the custody of MDOC. She was taken into custody by parole officials in June 2017 for allegedly violating the terms of her parole. Her parole revocation proceedings are not yet final. She has a colorable claim that she did not willfully commit the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be further imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Ms. Gasca is afforded appropriate process and is represented by counsel during parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Gasca will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations. 15. Plaintiff MILDRED CURREN is a parolee currently in the custody of MDOC. She was taken into custody by parole officials in April 2017 for allegedly violating the terms of her parole. Her parole revocation proceedings are not yet final. She has a colorable claim that she did not willfully commit the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be
4 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 4 of 38

further imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Ms. Curren is afforded appropriate process and is represented by counsel during parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Curren will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
16. Plaintiff TIMOTHY GALLAGHER is a parolee currently in the custody of the MDOC. He was taken into custody by parole officials in November 2015 for allegedly violating the terms of his parole. He continues to have a colorable claim that he did not willfully commit at least some of the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be further imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. He further fears his parole proceedings may have been tainted by misconduct and has been seeking further review. Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Mr. Gallagher is afforded appropriate process and is represented by counsel during parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately rereleased on parole in the days ahead Mr. Gallagher will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
17. Plaintiff KENNENTH HEMPHILL is a parolee who is currently in the custody of the MDOC. He was taken into custody by parole officials in May 2017 for allegedly violating the terms of his parole. His parole revocation proceedings are not yet final. He has a colorable claim that he did not willfully commit the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed to ensure that Mr. Hemphill was represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Mr. Hemphill will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
5 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 5 of 38

18. Plaintiff JESSE NEELY is a parolee who is currently in the custody of the MDOC. He was taken into custody by parole officials in January 2017 for allegedly violating the terms of his parole. His parole revocation proceedings are not yet final. Mr. Neely has colorable claims relating to the willful violation of parole, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants have failed to ensure that Mr. Neely is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Mr. Neely will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
19. Plaintiff AMBER WYSE is a parolee who is currently in the custody of MDOC. She was taken into custody by parole officials in April 2017 for allegedly violating the terms of her parole. Her parole revocation proceedings are not yet final. Ms. Wyse has colorable claims relating to willfully committing the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants have failed to ensure that Ms. Wyse is represented by counsel during her parole revocation proceedings. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Wyse will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
20. Plaintiff SOLOMON WARREN is a parolee who is current in the custody of MDOC. He was taken into custody by parole officials in August 2017 for allegedly violating the terms of his parole. His parole revocation proceedings are not yet final. Mr. Warren has colorable claims relating to willfully committing the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants have failed to ensure that Mr. Warren is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
6 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 6 of 38

In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead, Mr. Warren will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
21. Defendant ANNE PRECYTHE is the Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). She is responsible for the operations of MDOC, including adopting, approving and implementing and/or modifying the policies, practices and customs applicable to prisons that MDOC operates throughout the State of Missouri, the Division of Probation and Parole, and the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole (the “Board” or “Parole Board”). The Parole Board is responsible for determining whether a person confined in the Department of Corrections shall be paroled or conditionally released, and for supervising all persons on probation and parole. As part of that supervision, the Board’s staff issue parole violation reports and warrants based on such reports. Individuals facing alleged parole violations are frequently re-imprisoned by MDOC pending resolution of the alleged parole violations. Upon information and belief, Director Precythe is the final policymaker for MDOC, including the Board. She is sued in her official capacity.
22. Defendant KENNETH JONES is the chairman of the Parole Board. In this capacity, he supervises and directs all of the Division’s staff and operations as reflected in the organizational chart attached hereto as Exhibit 1.1 This includes serving overseeing the Parole Board’s staff and members in the course of parole revocation proceedings. Chairman Jones is further responsible for developing and implementing the rules, regulations, procedures, standards and customs governing the Parole Board, parole supervision, and revocation processes in the State of Missouri. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jones also personally participates in, leads, or directs parole

1

This exhibit, and all others attached to this Complaint, is incorporated herein by reference

and should be read as facts pled in this case.

7

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 7 of 38

hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing possible revocation. He is sued in his official capacity
23. Defendant JIM WELLS is a member of the Parole Board. In that capacity, Defendant Wells personally participates in, leads, or directs parole hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. He is sued in his official capacity.
24. Defendant MARTIN RUCKER is a member of the Parole Board. In that capacity, Defendant Rucker personally participates in, leads, or directs parole hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. He is sued in his official capacity.
25. Defendant ELLIS MCSWAIN, JR., is a member of the Parole Board and the former Chairman of the Board. As Chairman, McSwain was responsible for, among other things, the operations of the Board, including the policies, practices and customs governing the parole hearings for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. In his current capacity, Defendant McSwain personally participates in, leads, or directs parole hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. He is sued in his official capacity.
26. Defendant DON RUZICKA was a member of the Parole Board until his resignation on or about June 12, 2017. In that capacity, Defendant Ruzicka personally participated in, led, or directed parole hearings, and contributed to or made decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. As further described below, he was the subject of MDOC internal investigation, has a confirmed history of abusing his position on the Board, and yet—until recently, after Plaintiffs’ counsel brought his misconduct to light—he
8 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 8 of 38

remained on the Board participated in countless proceedings each week. He is sued in his official capacity, with the understanding and expectation that if and when his position on the Board is filled, the new member of the Board will automatically be substituted in as a party pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d).
27. Defendant JENNIFER ZAMKUS is the Vice Chair and a member of the Parole Board. Upon information and belief, in her capacity as Vice Chair, Defendant Zamkus is responsible for, among other things, the operations of the Board, including the policies, practices, and customs governing parole hearings for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings, and the Board’s funds and expenditures. In her capacity as a member of the Board, Defendant Zamkus personally participates in, leads, or directs parole hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. She is sued in her official capacity.
28. Defendant GARY DUSENBERG is a member of the Parole Board. In that capacity, Defendant Dusenberg personally participates in, leads, or directs parole hearings, and contributes to or makes decisions regarding parole determinations, including for individuals facing parole revocation proceedings. He is sued in his official capacity.
29. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants Precythe, Jones, Wells, Rucker, McSwain, Ruzicka, Zamkus, and Dusenberg (collectively, “Defendants”) all acted under color of law.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 30. Plaintiffs bring this suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all men and women in the custody, or under supervision, of MDOC, and who are at risk of imprisonment without adequate due process as a result of unconstitutional practices, procedures, and customs of MDOC and its
9 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 9 of 38

Division of Probation and Parole, including parolees in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections who currently or will in the future face parole revocation proceedings.
31. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. Clear and accurate statistics about parole violations in Missouri are hard to come by given the arbitrary practices of MDOC and its lack of transparency.
32. However, in 2015 it appears that more than 15,000 persons were under MDOC parole supervision. See Exhibit 2 at 8. According to records provided in response to a Sunshine Law request from undersigned counsel, between March 2014 and March 2017, fewer than 250 parole revocation hearings were held by MDOC and the Parole Board. See Exhibit 3.
33. But in supplementing these materials, MDOC also conceded that many more parole revocation proceedings take place than reflected in parole revocation hearing statistics. See Exhibit 4. This is because the vast majority of individuals facing parole violations are never given any kind of formal hearing, but instead supposedly waive such rights without being provided with access to counsel or knowingly and intelligently assessing the risks involved with such waivers.
34. Indeed, between March 20, 2017 and June 2, 2017 alone, approximately 600 parole revocation proceedings occurred in Missouri. See Exhibit 4. Using these figures as a base-line, it appears that approximately 3,000 individuals face violation of parole violations each year. See id.
35. However, statistics from the United States Department of Justice suggest that in 2015, nearly 7,000 persons on parole in Missouri found themselves re-incarcerated based upon alleged parole violations, new sentences, or other reasons unknown. See Exhibit 5 at 24.
36. The class also includes many future members whose names are not known, since new people are released from prison and placed on parole each day and Defendants initiate the parole revocation proceedings many times each week.
10 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 10 of 38

37. There are questions of law and fact common to all class members. This includes, but is not limited to, the question of whether the Defendants’ policy and practice of systematically denying appointed counsel to parolees under the supervision of the MDOC and failing to inform parolees of such a right violates the United States and Missouri Constitutions.
38. The questions of law and fact common to all class members further includes, but is not limited to, the question of whether the Defendants’ parole revocation procedures, under which parolees are denied basic information about the allegations against them, are pressured into waiving hearing and other rights without understanding what these things mean, and are violated without meaningful preliminary or final hearings, all fail to provide parolees with adequate due process.
39. Because the practices and procedures challenged in this Complaint apply with equal force to the named Plaintiffs and the other members of the class, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class in general.
40. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. They each possess a strong personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and are represented by experienced local counsel with the MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, who are part of an even larger team of civil rights attorneys at MacArthur Justice Center offices across the country. Counsel have the legal knowledge and resources to fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members in this action.
41. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class: their policies, procedures, practices, acts, and omissions have affected all class members. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
11 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 11 of 38

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT A. PAROLE REVOCATION IN MISSOURI: THOUSANDS OF PERSONS ARE DEPRIVED OF
LIBERTY EACH YEAR WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OR LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN A SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN CALLED ARBITRARY, “DISTURBING,” AND “DISGUSTING” 1. National Spectacle Marred by Massive Re-Incarceration Rates 42. According to a Council of State Government’s Justice Center Report presented to Governor Eric Greitens’ Justice Reinvestment Task Force on July 11, 2017, Missouri’s current incarceration rate is the eighth highest in the nation. See Exhibit 6 at 3. Although prison incarceration rates have dropped across the country, Missouri is one of only a small handful of states where the incarceration rate has risen. Id. Indeed, Missouri has the “fastest-growing female prison population in the United States.” Id. 43. In addition, in recent years, Missouri’s Parole Board has come under intense scrutiny. From the Washington Post to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, investigative journalists have reported that Missouri’s parole processes are arbitrary and lack of transparency. See Exhibit 7. 44. Most recently Missouri’s parole system became a national spectacle when one of its Board Members was forced to resign for literally turning parole proceedings into games for his own enjoyment. That Board Member, Don Ruzicka, and staff working with him, visited irrelevant, ridiculous words and phrases into hearings – such as “platapus” and “armadillo” – to see if inmates might repeat them. See Exhibit 8. Ruzicka and the staff kept score to see who could make the most persons – desperate for their liberty – repeat these idiotic phrases. Id. 45. Concerns about the competency, professionalism, and reliability of Missouri’s parole system based on these and other problems have resulted in legislators and even Governor Eric Greitens calling out Missouri Parole Board abuses as “disgusting” and “disturbing.” See Exhibits 9.
12 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 12 of 38

46. More conservative assessments, such as from the Council of State Governments, call our parole system “lackluster” at best. See Exhibit 6 at 3. Yet a large proportion of prison growth in Missouri stems from readmission based upon alleged parole violations being processed within this system. Indeed, recent estimates suggest that nearly half of Missouri’s current prison admissions are attributable to probation or parole violation proceedings. Id.
47. Regarding parole specifically, approximately 15,000 people were under supervision in Missouri in 2015. See Exhibit 2 at 8. As noted above, conservative estimates provided by MDOC in response to a recent Sunshine Law request by undersigned counsel, suggest that about 3,000 such persons faced parole revocation that year. See Exhibit 5. However, statistics from the United States Department of Justice claim that in 2015, nearly 7,000 persons on parole in Missouri found themselves re-incarcerated based upon alleged parole violations, new sentences, or other reasons unknown. See Exhibit 5 at 24. As a result, Missouri was sixth in the nation for parolee returns to prison. See Exhibit 5 at 34.
2. Failure to Provide Constitutionally-Required Protections 48. Such alarming re-incarceration rates are in no small part due to Defendants’ failure to provide parolees with procedural rights under controlling Supreme Court precedent, as set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer 408 U.S. 471, to protect against questionable parole violation claims. Such constitutional protections include but are not limited to:
• The right and opportunity to receive adequate written notice of allegations and accurate information about rights during revocation proceedings;
• The right to a formal preliminary and final hearing on the alleged violations; • The right and opportunity to present written evidence and witnesses at both the
preliminary and final hearing;
13 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 13 of 38

• The right and opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses at both the preliminary and final hearing; and
• The right to be protected from involuntary waivers that are not knowingly and intelligently entered.
49. Instead, from beginning to end Missouri’s parole revocation process is inscrutable and byzantine. First, in many instances parolees are not at all certain of the terms of their parole. As a matter of policy, practice, and custom, inmates are released under a Parole Order that sets forth the general terms of their parole. See Exhibit 10 (sample Order of Release on Parole provided to undersigned counsel in response to a Missouri Sunshine Law request).
50. But that Order is sometimes in conflict with the Release Decision Form completed by the Parole Board, which may list various special conditions. See, e.g., Exhibit 20 (reflecting competing release conditions for Mr. Gallagher).
51. What is more, local parole officers are empowered to add any additional directives they wish. As a result, parole officers often unilaterally modify these terms with directives that also may be in conflict with original terms or confusing to parolees. See Exhibit 10 (noting “I will abide by any directions given me by my Probation and Parole Officer”); see also Exhibit 11 (reflecting unilateral directive by Mr. Gallagher’s parole officer that he no longer live with his mother, thus rendering him homeless).
52. From there, parolees may find themselves involved in parole revocation proceedings that lack regularity and fail to comply with state and constitutional law. For instance, in some instances, parole revocation proceedings are initiated when an MDOC employees serves a parolee with a copy of a Field Violation Report. See Exhibit 11. In other cases, parole officers unilaterally issue a warrant for the parolee’s arrest without any prior notice of the allegations or review of
14 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 14 of 38

warrant request. See Exhibit 12 (sample Parole Warrant document provided to undersigned counsel in response to a Missouri Sunshine Law request).
53. One way or another, parolees facing violation proceedings are uniformly taken into custody rather than being permitted to post bail or seek release pending resolution of the allegations. Some parolees, when facing new criminal charges, may be confined at local jails for weeks prior to being removed to the prison system to have their revocation matter resolved. Others are moved near immediately from local jails back to prison, sometimes without ever seeing a parole officer or having a preliminary hearing relating to their alleged violations.
54. Some parolees are informed that a preliminary hearing can be held prior to a final revocation determination. But many do not understand what such a process entails or what their rights are during such a process. The MDOC Parole Revocation Handbook entitled “Rights of Offender to Preliminary and Revocation Hearing,” purports to inform parolees of their rights relating to parole revocation proceedings. See generally Exhibit 18.
55. However, frequently parolees are not provided with this Handbook, otherwise known as the “Red Book,” until after proceedings have taken place. Some parolees my receive the wrong Handbook or none at all. See, e.g., Exhibit 11 (one of Mr. Gallagher’s forms notes that no booklet was given, the other claims that he was given a booklet entitled “Right of Alleged Violator” – not “Rights of Offender to Preliminary and Revocation Hearing”). Moreover, as further described below, the information in MDOC’s Handbook is confusing and fails to correctly set forth constitutional standards. See generally Exhibit 18.
56. The forms provided to parolees to give notice of alleged violations are in many instances dense and incomprehensible. The complex language and confusing design of these forms, as reflected in a sampling of Field Violation Reports in Mr. Gallagher’s case that are provided here
15 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 15 of 38

as representative for the class, far exceed the comprehension of the average parolee. See, e.g., Exhibit 11.
57. Other forms fail to provide parolees with important information about their rights or what to expect at final revocation hearings. For instance, the “Board Decision” memorandum in Plaintiff Timothy Gallagher’s case informed him that “revocation proceedings” will be held, but provided no details about what to expect or the right to counsel. See Exhibit 16.
58. The Parole Board Inter-Office Communication Memoranda provided in cases of parolees like Plaintiffs Mildred Curren and Amber Wyse are not only confusing, but actually dissuade the women from even asking any questions of parole staff. See Exhibit 14.
59. And Notice of Revocation Hearing Forms, like those provided to Plaintiffs Amber Wyse and Timothy Gallgher, contain almost no explanations or detail. Indeed, they include no facts at all to support the findings of the Board. See Exhibit 16. For instance, while in both of their cases the Board supposedly determined that they had committed law violations – there is no indication what law was supposedly violated and based upon what conduct. They also provide no information about the next stage of the process where disposition or the length of parole “hit” is determined, or how an appeal might be taken regarding the revocation decision. See generally id.
60. Most frequently, sometimes after being provided with incorrect information or being pressured by parole staff who repeatedly return to urge informal resolution, parolees sign waiver forms giving up their rights to preliminary hearings and/or final parole revocation hearings.
61. This waiver process generally happens in just a matter of minutes, while the parolee is in a secure facility, in a small visit space, before a parole officer, without any prior access to a law library, and without access to counsel. It is also accomplished by way of waiver forms, samples
16 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 16 of 38

of which are attached hereto, that are confusing and lack sufficient information about their implications. See Exhibits 13 and 15.
62. All of the above is borne out from data collected from a random sampling of twentyfive Missouri parole revocation cases handled by the Parole Board from December 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017, provided to undersigned counsel in response to a Sunshine Law request. In all twenty-five matters, no preliminary hearing was held, even though formal waivers appear to have been executed in only ten cases. Not a single revocation hearing was held, although final hearing waivers appear to have been executed in only eight cases. And in each case no witnesses were called and no evidence was presented to substantiate the allegations. See Exhibit 3.
63. MDOC records over an extended period of time shed further shocking light on the extensive waiver process employed by Missouri parole officials. In approximately 600 parole revocation proceedings conducted by the Parole Board between March 20, 2017 through June 2, 2017, it appears violation hearings were provided in only six cases. See Exhibit 4.
64. Even when preliminary hearings occur, parolees generally are not provided with a meaningful opportunity to present evidence or live witnesses on their behalf. For instance, some hearings are held in jails and security issues prevent witnesses from attending such hearings.
65. Some preliminary hearings are conducted by supervisory parole officers – others are apparently conducted by the very parole officer assigned to the case and who may be the only witness to the underlying technical allegation.
66. Sometimes police or parole reports are admitted as evidence. Sometimes they are not. Parole staff may also consider information that was not presented at the hearing, such as information contained in the parolee’s computerized parole file and to which the parolee has no access.
17 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 17 of 38

67. When preliminary hearings are conducted they are very brief—sometimes less than five minutes—and they are generally routine affairs during which probable cause is almost always found.
68. Thereafter, parolees proceed to final revocation. How this occurs also appears to fluctuate. Sometimes parolees may be seen by a member of the Parole Board along with other parole staff. Other times they may not. The final revocation hearing is often held only after the parolee has been imprisoned for weeks or months following a preliminary hearing or preliminary hearing waiver.
69. Final hearing dates frequently change with little notice to the parolee, regardless of whether travel arrangements need to be made for witnesses or evidence. When final revocations hearings do occur, generally they are a retread of what occurs at the preliminary hearing—cursory proceedings during which no witnesses are called and no evidence is presented beyond the written parole violation report. Decisions relating to violation findings are not made at the hearing. Instead, a written decision or Order of Revocation is issued at a later date the Board.
70. In some instances, the written decision – generally a one-page document with few details or reasons for the determination – may note a future release date. See Exhibit 17 (Order of Revocation documents for Timothy Gallagher and Amber Wyse). And sometimes, adjudication and disposition of the violation are bifurcated and a parolee may be brought back before one or more Parole Board members for re-release consideration. Id.
71. Regardless, the Parole Board almost always ratifies the decision of the hearing officer and keeps parolees imprisoned for a length of time that can vary from a few additional months to years.
18 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 18 of 38

72. Counsel are never appointed to represent the parolee at the preliminary or final revocation hearing, regardless of individual circumstances.
73. Many of the above assertions about Missouri parole hearings are also borne out by data provided by MDOC in response to a Sunshine Law request by undersigned counsel. For the approximately 250 parole hearings conducted by the Parole Board between March 2014 and March 2017, revocation resulted in 237 cases. Attorneys were present for only 3 of the 250 cases. See Exhibit 3.
3. Failure to Appoint Counsel to Indigent Parolees 74. The absolute lack of appointed counsel at parole revocation hearings reflects the Defendants’ failure to implement any system whatsoever, by which adult indigent parolees may request and obtain counsel at cost to the State. Rather, as is clear from the MDOC Parole Revocation Handbook supplied to some inmates, the constitutional right to counsel is not even a consideration in revocation proceedings before the Missouri Parole Board. See Exhibit 18. 75. First, not only are no appointed lawyers provided to indigent parolees for purposes of representation at preliminary hearings on parole violations, but attorneys are actually precluded from being present during such proceedings. The Parole Board’s Red Book indicates that “attorneys do not have a role to play” at the preliminary hearing process because it is merely an “informal review.” See Exhibit 18 at 6. Indeed, it continues that even in a matter where private counsel might be retained, “[g]enerally any request to have an attorney present shall be denied.” Id. 76. Further, the Red Book informs parolees that only individuals involved in “Court parole revocation hearings” might have a right to counsel if they are indigent and “the rules of the Court” so provide. See Exhibit 18 at 3. The Red Book continues that “if the offender appears to
19 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 19 of 38

be incapable of representing himself/herself, legal counsel may be provided” in that circumstance too. Id. However, as written, the Redbook is misleading and suggests that such a right to counsel only applies to specialized court-based parole proceedings.2
77. With regard to final hearings before the Parole Board, the Red Book explains that a parolee may have only one representative of their choice present – “a family member, a friend, an employer or legal counsel.” Id. Thus, as in all other Missouri parole matters, if somehow the parolee was to find an attorney who would come to the final hearing with them, the attorney would be relegated to the role of a mere witness and not allowed to engage in true legal representation.
78. And, of course, almost no parolees are accompanied by counsel to hearings before the Parole Board because the State categorically denies any request for appointed counsel. There is no system or funds are in place to secure such an appointment. As a result, parolees in the State of Missouri are and continue to be subjected to MDOC parole revocation proceedings without the assistance of counsel to which many are constitutionally entitled.
79. The Defendants’ policies and practices in this regard directly violate the requirements of due process established in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, which held that counsel should be provided in parole revocation cases where, after being informed of his right to request counsel, the parolee makes such a request, “based on a timely and colorable claim (i) that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.” 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973). The Court further held that,

2

Although the Red Book is not at all clear about what kinds of parole revocation cases would

involve the courts rather the Parole Board, it may be referring to “long-term treatment program”

matters handled under Section 217.362 of the Missouri Revised Statues.

20

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 20 of 38

in “passing on a request for the appointment of counsel, the responsible agency also should consider, especially in doubtful cases, whether the probationer [or parolee] appears to be capable of speaking effectively for himself.” Id. at 790–91.
80. Thus, Gagnon affirmed that the right to counsel was “presumptive” in these three categories of cases—where there is a colorable claim the parolee did not commit the violation; where there is substantial evidence in mitigation of the violation, making revocation inappropriate; and where the parolee is incapable of speaking effectively for himself.
81. A significant percentage of indigent parolees in Missouri fall within one or more of the Gagnon categories.
82. First, many parolees have, at the very least, a colorable claim that they did not commit the alleged parole violation. Parolees frequently are accused of violating parole merely because they have been arrested on suspicion of committing a new criminal offense. Sometimes the arrests themselves are unlawful. More often, these criminal charges are dismissed in a court of law as unfounded. The Defendants’ policies and procedures allow parolees to be violated and reimprisoned based solely on the fact that the parolee was subject to arrest—regardless of the merits of the case against him.
83. Similarly, a high percentage of parolees are accused of violating parole on the basis of their parole agent’s allegations that they committed a non-criminal technical violation, such as failing to check in with their parole officer. However, the evidence supporting these technical violations is often unreliable and open to interpretation. Further, MDOC’s parole files and inmate records are frequently filled with errors. See, e.g., Exhibit 20 (showing how parole officials erroneously attributed a pending assault matter to Timothy Gallagher that, in fact, involved an entirely different defendant).
21 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 21 of 38

84. Yet, parolees have no access to any of this information, and no way to challenge its reliability. The Parole Board routinely re-imprisons parolees based solely on parole agents’ statements that parolees have not complied with the terms of parole.
85. Second, even in cases where the alleged violation is uncontested, many parolees have substantial reasons mitigating the violation, which, because of the complexity of developing such evidence, they are incapable of presenting on their own. Parolees are unable to present witnesses who can testify to facts that either justify or mitigate against revocation, or present documentary evidence in their favor.
86. Moreover, parolees have difficulty developing such evidence at the time of their supposed preliminary hearings while they are subject to the strict and inhumane conditions of local jails, such as the St. Louis “Workhouse.” And once delivered to MDOC reception centers – sometimes many hours away from where the parolee lived and where alleged violations occurred – organizing and presenting mitigating evidence becomes even more difficult.
87. Technical violations in particular can often be remediated by an adjustment of the parolee’s conditions of parole, without full-scale revocation proceedings. Yet, without counsel to aid in the presentation of such mitigation evidence, the hearing officer and Parole Board systematically fail to take it into consideration.
88. Third, many parolees are unable to speak on their own behalf or understand the various layers to the parole revocation process. Parolees who are under the supervision of the MDOC have significantly higher levels of cognitive impairment, educational disabilities, illiteracy, and other impairments than are found in the general public, and which make it difficult for such parolees to speak on their own behalf.
22 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 22 of 38

89. Indeed, national data suggests that 36% percent of people held behind bars live with mental illness. And MDOC’s own data indicates that two-thirds of people on parole in Missouri suffer from drug or alcohol addiction. See Exhibit 19 at 106. Unfortunately, both mentally impaired and chemically addicted inmates report that they receive inadequate medical and other supports once they are returned to prison in Missouri to face alleged violations. For these reasons, too, the class members in this case are largely unable to prepare for or effectively defend themselves at their parole hearings without the assistance of counsel.
90. Yet, parolees must defend themselves within this shadowy and complex revocation system without the assistance of counsel, regardless of their limitations or ongoing medical or other challenges and despite the fact that many parolees meet the requirements set forth in Gagnon, which entitle them to such assistance.
91. Because the Defendants do not provide parolees with appointed counsel, Plaintiffs are denied a meaningful opportunity to: (1) consider the charges leveled against them; (2) prepare a defense; (2) present evidence, including witnesses, on their own behalf; (3) confront their accusers; (4) make informed decisions regarding hearing waivers, or (5) appeal or seek reconsideration of revocation decisions.
92. The systematic and on-going violations described in the preceding paragraphs result in the arbitrary imprisonment of thousands of people in Missouri prisons. People are consistently subjected to months of unreviewable incarceration without process or remedy. As a result of the Defendants’ practices and procedures, the members of the Plaintiff class have suffered and continue to suffer well-established violations of their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
23 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 23 of 38

B.

PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS FOR INDIVIDUAL NAMED PLAINTIFFS:

TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF ARBITRARY AND DISTURBING PRACTICES IN MISSOURI

1. Stephanie Gasca

93. STEPHANIE GASCA is a 30-year old white woman who suffers from a history of

homelessness, substance abuse, and mental health challenges. She was taken into custody by parole

officials in June 2017 and held at the Greene County Jail. She was eight months pregnant at the

time.

94. Upon information and belief,3 although she had no new law violations, a parole

warrant apparently was issued immediately upon Ms. Gasca’s departure from a residential drug

treatment program. However, completion of an in-patient drug program was not a specific condition

of Ms. Gasca’s parole. In addition, she had voluntarily entered the program on her own.

95. Ms. Gasca’s parole officer came to visit her at the Greene County Jail after Ms.

Gasca had been there for several days without appropriate pre-natal or mental health care. The

3

Unfortunately, undersigned counsel was prohibited by prison officials from accessing any

of Ms. Gasca’s parole documents during our legal visit on August 12, 2017. Although counsel

drove two hours anticipating that she could review Ms. Gasca’s parole documents in person, such

information sharing and document review is prohibited as a matter of policy at WERDCC. Indeed,

quite shockingly, a sign in the attorney visit room reads: “Per policy offenders are not allowed to

bring anything or take anything from a legal visit. All written correspondence must be done by

mail.” Thus, Ms. Gasca was prohibited from even bringing her parole materials to our legal

meeting, let alone providing them to undersigned counsel for purposes of attaching them as an

exhibit to this Complaint.

Undersigned counsel face other challenges in quickly accessing documents relating to the claims alleged in this Complaint. These include the Missouri Parole Board’s insistence that its files are confidential, inmates being unable to securely maintain documents when moved, and problems with and costs of inmate mail. However, all factual assertions on behalf of the named plaintiffs are made in good faith and upon information and belief. In addition, the MDOC and Parole Board documents attached as exhibits hereto, and incorporated by references into the Complaint, serve as representative samples for the class.

24 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 24 of 38

parole officer indicated she was there to interview Ms. Gasca and had not yet completed her Field Violation Report, which she said would likely include a single #8 technical violation for failing to report to her parole officer.
96. During this conversation, although the parole officer did place a red pamphlet on the table, she never directed Ms. Gasca to read it before answering any questions or signing any documents. Rather, the parole officer, who never mentioned anything about a right to counsel, led Ms. Gasca to believe that it was in her best interest to answer all questions and waive all formal proceedings.
97. As a result of this conversation and her misunderstanding that she might be released on house arrest if she signed a preliminary hearing waiver form, Ms. Gasca did so. Thus, she was surprised to learn thereafter that she was being moved to the Women’s Eastern Reception and Diagnostic Correctional Center (“WERDCC”).
98. After several weeks at WERDCC, again without access to mental health care and now nearly nine-months pregnant, Ms. Gasca was called from her cell to meet with Institutional Parole Officer (IPO) Richards. During that meeting, which occurred on or about June 29, 2017, Ms. Gasca was presented with her Field Violation Reports for the first time. It described her alleged violation as a #11.5 special conditions allegation – different from what her parole officer had represented during their meeting at the Green County Jail.
99. In addition, Ms. Richards had a Final Hearing Form with her that was already filled out for Ms. Gasca to sign to indicate that she would waive her final hearing.
100. Again, she was not told anything about her right to counsel prior to waiving her final revocation hearing. Rather she was operating on hearsay information in the facility, that led her to
25 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 25 of 38

believe that if she gave up her right to a preliminary hearing, she would be released home quickly – perhaps in time to have her baby.
101. Unfortunately, that did not occur. Rather, Ms. Gasca gave birth on July 11, 2017 – while still in MDOC custody. Her child is now living with her mother. And Ms. Gasca still awaits a determination from the Parole Board about her alleged violation and her future. She also is in pain, suffers from complications due to her delivery by cesarean section, and lacks sufficient mental health services and care.
102. Ms. Gasca’s parole matter is still pending and she continues to have colorable claims that she did not willfully violate conditions of her parole, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed to ensure that Ms. Gasca was represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
103. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Gasca will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations. This is especially true given his lack of stable housing, difficulty obtaining work, and history of substance use and abuse.
2. Mildred Curren 104. MILDRED CURREN is a 54-year-old African-American woman who was taken into custody by parole officials in April 2017. She believes a parole warrant was issued based upon her alleged failure to report to her parole officer and possible mistaken information about past minor law violations.
26 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 26 of 38

105. But Ms. Curren, who has a 10th grade education and suffers from various medical conditions, was struggling with obtaining stable housing and only learned of her parole warrant during the course of a traffic stop.
106. Once in parole custody at the Boone County jail, she was never provided with a preliminary hearing by parole officials. Instead, she was transported to WERDCC to await a final revocation determination.
107. At the prison she was provided with a confusing form that both suggested that she had an upcoming hearing and that a parole decision had already been made in her case. See Exhibit 14. Either way, she was told she should not ask any questions of parole officials as they would not be answered. Instead, someone by the name of Mr. Houser would come to see her at some point. See Exhibit 14.
108. Apparently, Mr. Houser never came to see Ms. Curren. Instead in June 2017 she found herself in a meeting with IPO Richards. During this time, Ms. Curren was in extreme medical distress and pain due to an apparent blood clot in her leg that required medical attention.
109. But she believes sometime after the meeting with IPO Richards she received a letter from the Board notifying her that she was going to be revoked. Thus, without being provided with a meaningful revocation hearing including legal protections and the right to counsel, Ms. Curren was apparently found guilty of some alleged violations and awaits a final determination of the outcome of her case.
110. Given the lack of information and assistance provided, as well as ongoing health issues that have impaired her thinking and abilities, Ms. Curren remains confused about her status and rights in these proceedings.
27 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 27 of 38

111. She has a colorable claim that she did not commit the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be further imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed and will continue to fail to ensure that Ms. Curren is afforded appropriate process and is represented by counsel during parole revocation proceedings.
112. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Curren will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations. This is particularly true given her vulnerable status as a homeless person and struggles with substance use and abuse.
3. Timothy Gallagher 113. TIMOTHY GALLAGHER is a disabled 54-year-old white man who suffers from Bi-polar Disorder and is currently in the custody of the MDOC. In July 2015, he was arrested on allegations that he stole an item from a store. Thereafter he was released on bond. While out on bond and continuing to report to his parole officer, he was taken into custody in November 2015 for allegedly violating his parole. 114. Initially his parole officer suggested her main concern was some kind of financial disagreement with his mother and discord in the family home more generally – not the July 2015 store theft charge. See Exhibit 11. But no charges were ever filed by Mr. Gallagher’s mother nor was any kind of court case brought on her behalf. Rather, she actually wrote to inform parole authorities that the allegations were untrue and that she wanted her son to be released. See Exhibit 20. 115. Nevertheless, parole officials apparently proceeded with revocation proceedings against Mr. Gallagher – not for the incident involving his mother, but for the alleged store theft charges and three past technical violations.
28 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 28 of 38

116. But Mr. Gallagher was acquitted of the store theft charges. In addition, he was never provided with a preliminary hearing on the revocation matter by parole officials, even though such a hearing had been scheduled for November 17, 2015.4
117. Rather, Mr. Gallagher was removed from the St. Louis County Justice Center to an MDOC facility pending a final parole revocation determination. Once in the prison system, parole officials pressured Mr. Gallagher until he waived his right to a formal final parole revocation hearing. See Exhibit 15.
118. Indeed, after Mr. Gallagher signed a form requesting such a hearing on December 22, 2015, he was urged to abandon his request. The very next day a different parole official pulled Mr. Gallagher from his cell to press him to reconsider his decision, resulting in Mr. Gallagher becoming confused and having his will overborne. He thus signed a second form on December 23, 2015 that waived his right to a final parole revocation hearing. See Exhibit 15.
119. Throughout this entire process no one informed Mr. Gallagher that he could be provided with an attorney. Indeed, the Waiver of Revocation Hearing Form that he signed makes no reference at all to the right of representation during such a proceeding. See Exhibit 15.
120. Subsequent parole records suggest Mr. Gallagher was both violated based upon the already dismissed theft charge and seven supposed technical violations (that is four more violations than those for which he was given notice) – and that the decision of the Board was based upon incorrect information relating to another inmate. In addition, it appeas he has been held more than

4

Mr. Gallagher’s records reflect that he was presented with a Request for or Waiver of

Preliminary Hearing form that informed him of a Preliminary Hearing date of November, 17, 2015.

His parole officer tried to get Mr. Gallagher to waive that hearing, but he refused to do so. See

Exhibit 13. Yet, it was never held.

29

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 29 of 38

eighteen months based on what amounts alleged technical violations and may be held for many

more months yet. See Exhibits 17 and 20.

121. Moreover, after learning that Parole Board Member Don Ruzicka resigned from the

Board due to his inappropriate handling of parole hearings, Mr. Gallagher has sought further review

of his parole determination. On August 2, 2017, Mr. Gallagher wrote to parole officials seeking to

learn if Ruzicka was involved in his revocation as he wishes to appeal if this is the case. However,

parole officials refuse to disclose such information or provide further review. See Exhibit 20.

122. Mr. Gallagher thus has colorable claims that undermine the alleged violations in his

case, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be further imprisoned, and needs assistance

to meaningfully present evidence. He further fears the proceedings against him were tainted by the

improprieties of Don Ruzicka and continues to seek review of the matter. Yet, defendants failed

and will continue to fail to ensure that Mr. Gallagher is afforded appropriate process and is

represented by counsel during parole revocation proceedings.

123. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Mr. Gallagher

will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.

This is particularly true given Mr. Gallagher’s mental health diagnosis and history of substance use

and abuse.

4.

Kenneth Hemphill

124. KENNENTH HEMPHILL is a 26-year-old white male parolee who is currently in

the custody of the MDOC. He was taken into custody in May 2017 on a parole warrant issued by

his parole officer for the technical violations of failing to maintain employment, report to his parole

officer, and maintain stable housing.

30 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 30 of 38

125. After being taken into MDOC custody in late May 2017, undersigned counsel arranged to visit with him. However, shortly before our scheduled visit, Mr. Hemphill was visited by a parole official at Eastern Reception and Diagnostic Correctional Center (“ERDCC”) who interrogated Mr. Hemphill about his alleged technical violations. The official then recommended that Mr. Hemphill waive any further formal processes since Mr. Hemphill supposedly already admitted his wrongdoing to him – which was not quite the case as Mr. Hemphill did not admit that he had engaged in a willful violation. He further suggested it was in Mr. Hemphill’s interest to forgo any formal proceedings.
126. During this time, Mr. Hemphill was being forced to sleep at night on a “boat” mat placed in a common hallway at ERDCC due to facility overcrowding and was deprived hot water for showing and hygiene. Thus, during this hurried conversation with the parole official, which occurred without any assistance of counsel or offer to access counsel, and while he lacked sufficient rest, Mr. Hemphill signed whatever document the parole official presented.
127. Mr. Hemphill’s April 12, 2017 Field Violation Report indicates that his parole officer planned to work with him informally over the next 90 days to address his alleged technical violations. Yet, the same day he sought a parole warrant. See Exhibit 11.
128. The Field Violation Report also confirms that Mr. Hemphill was never given MDOC’s Handbook to explain his parole revocation rights. And while Mr. Hemphill does recall seeing some kind of pamphlet when parole officials came to see him once he was incarcerated on the parole warrant, he believes that was provided to him after he had already signed the forms presented by the parole official.
129. Thus, Mr. Hemphill did not know about the protections to which he was entitled or understand of his rights at the time he signed a hearing waiver, including his right to counsel. He
31 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 31 of 38

was also led to believe there was no use in having a hearing and he would likely be released more quickly by waiving his rights. Without full appreciation of where he is in the parole revocation process, Mr. Hemphill still awaits a determination relating to allegations that he failed to report to his parole officer as scheduled.
130. He has a colorable claim that he did not commit the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants failed to ensure that Mr. Hemphill was represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
131. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Mr. Hemphill will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations. This is especially true given his lack of stable housing, difficulty obtaining work, and history of substance use and abuse.
5. Jesse Neely 132. JESSE NEELY is a 33-year-old Black male parolee who is currently in the custody of the MDOC. He was taken into custody based on allegations relating to new criminal charges stemming from his allegedly being found in a vacant building. 133. While he was awaiting trial on his new criminal charges, he was visited at the St. Louis “Justice Center” by his parole officer who provided him with her Field Violation Report and indicated that she would be recommending revocation – even though the charges against him had not been resolved. 134. He does not recall any preliminary hearing being conducted by the parole officer or being informed of any rights relating to the parole revocation process. Instead she simply drilled him about the facts of his alleged crime in a small visit cell without concern for his representation
32 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 32 of 38

on the underlying pending case or offering appointed counsel for the parole revocation matter. Thereafter she provided him with a red pamphlet.
135. Days later, when he tried to inquire into posting bail on his new charges he was told he could not because his parole warrant had been fully executed and revocation proceedings had already begun.
136. Several of the original charges against Mr. Neely were dismissed. He was thereafter delivered to ERDCC on or about May 24, 2017. He was subjected to deplorable conditions, including being made to sleep in “boats” in the hallway due to prison overcrowding, lack of blankets or clean clothes, and no hot water for showers.
137. While enduring these conditions, Mr. Neely was visited by a parole official who provided confusing information. Mr. Neely was informed that any parolee readmitted based on a new crime was required to see the Parole Board, but that it was also in his best interest to waive a formal hearing before the Parole Board. As a result, we would be given a general “open date” with the Board in November. Mr. Neely thus signed whatever documents he was asked to sign by the parole official.
138. Mr. Neely remains utterly befuddled about the procedural posture of his parole revocation matter, does not know if he waived his right to a formal hearing, and does not have a clear sense of what to expect at the November hearing. He further fears he is not being properly credited for the time he is serving,
139. Mr. Neely has colorable claims relating to the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants have failed to ensure that Mr. Neely is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings.
33 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 33 of 38

140. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Mr. Neely will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations.
6. Amber Wyse 141. AMBER WYSE is a 31-year-old white woman who is currently in the custody of MDOC. She was arrested in April 2017 following a traffic stop where all car occupants were taken into custody based upon drugs and a weapon found in the vehicle. This incident forms the basis of the parole revocation proceedings against her. 142. While she was incarcerated, parole staff presented her with paperwork she did not fully understand. See Exhibit 14. And she signed documents without the assistance or advice of counsel. See, Exhibit 15. All charges stemming from her April 2017 arrest have been dropped. Yet Ms. Wyse still awaits a final determination of her parole violation case. 143. Although she does not fully appreciate what it means or what rights she possesses, she has been informed she has an “open date” in November where she will be presented to the Parole Board. See Exhibit 17. But she also has a reconsideration appeal pending given that she believes she should not remain in prison because all of the matters against her have been dismissed. 144. Ms. Wyse has colorable claims relating to the alleged violations, mitigating evidence to justify why he should not be imprisoned, and needs assistance to meaningfully present evidence. Defendants have failed to ensure that Ms. Wyse is represented by counsel during his parole revocation proceedings. 145. In addition, when ultimately re-released on parole in the days ahead Ms. Wyse will continue to be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to alleged parole violations. She is particularly at risk of future revocation given her history of narcotics involvement.
34 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 34 of 38

7. Solomon Warren 146. SOLOMON WARREN is a 37-year-old African-American man currently in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections based upon alleged parole violations. Released on parole in January, 2017, Mr. Warren was assigned to a parole supervision office in St. Louis City. 147. Mr. Warren’s parole supervision was handled by female officers who made Mr. Warren uncomfortable with what seemed to be special requests and romantic advances. 148. After Mr. Warren complained about this conduct on the part of parole staff, he was taken into custody based on a parole violation warrant for various alleged technical violations including, among other things, arriving late to his out-patient drug treatment program classes. However, Mr. Warren was never provided with written notice of all of his alleged violations with facts supporting such assertions. See Exhibit 22. 149. Although parole staff suggested he should waive his right to preliminary hearing on the alleged violations, Mr. Warren was ultimately allowed such review. However, he was not provided with clear information about his rights at such a hearing, was not offered counsel, and was actually warned that he should not ask questions about the process during the preliminary hearing, else the hearing would be terminated. 150. A few days after his preliminary hearing, Mr. Warren was moved to ERDCC. Mr. Warren then attempted to communicate with the MacArthur Justice Center about his situation. However, his ability to communicate confidentially with the MacArthur Justice Center by telephone was impeded by the actions of prison staff, who also threatened Mr. Warren when he sought to assert his right to access counsel.
35 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 35 of 38

151. Before the MacArthur Justice Center was able to speak with Mr. Warren about his situation, institutional parole staff visited with him and urged him to waive any further formal process relating to his alleged parole violation. In doing so they suggested that Mr. Warren had already been violated and there was no need for a further hearing.
152. Nevertheless, Mr. Warren has demanded a formal final hearing. See Exhibit 22. That hearing has been set for October 17, 2017. Institutional parole staff have not explained the formal hearing process to Mr. Warren. Nor has Mr. Warren has not been informed of any right to appointed counsel. Instead, he was told he may bring only one personal delegate to the hearing to provide to show he has support in the community and that a decision will thereafter be rendered in six to eight weeks.
153. Thus, at his final parole hearing, Mr. Warren will not be provided with representation or legal assistance to defend against the claims against him, present mitigating evidence on his behalf, or otherwise advocate for Mr. Warren’s release. He will also be precluded from reviewing all of documentary or other evidence relied upon by the Board, or compelling witnesses to attend the hearing. Indeed, the Missouri Parole Board’s discretion at the hearing is so broad that cross-examination of adverse witnesses by Mr. Warren may also be precluded.
LEGAL CLAIMS COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Right to Due Process 154. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth in this Count. 155. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief against all Defendants to prevent the continued violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the class they represent.
36 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 36 of 38

156. As a matter of policy, practice, and custom, the Defendants systematically fail to screen parolees to determine whether they are eligible for counsel, at cost to the State, as required under Gagnon v. Scarpelli. They fail to appoint counsel to those parolees who do qualify.
157. The Defendants also fail to ensure that parolees receive adequate notice of the rights to which they are entitled in the parole revocation process. As a result of the Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs, parolees are unable to speak on their own behalf, present evidence, and cross-examine adverse witnesses.
158. Consequently, the Defendants are in continuous violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of the members of the class under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class they represent respectfully pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Defendants in the following manner: 1. Enter an Order certifying a class of all adult parolees in the State of Missouri who currently or will in the future face parole revocation proceedings. 2. Adjudge and declare that the policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint are in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the class they represent under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 3. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons under their control from subjecting Plaintiffs and the class they represent from the unlawful policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint.
37 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 37 of 38

4. Retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as the Defendants have fully complied with all orders of the Court, and there is reasonable assurance that the Defendants will continue to comply in the future with these orders.
5. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
6. Award Plaintiffs and the class they represent such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Mae C. Quinn Mae C. Quinn, MO61584 /s/ Amy E. Breihan Amy E. Breihan, MO65499 RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER AT ST. LOUIS 3115 South Grand Blvd., Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 Telephone: (314) 254-8540 Facsimile: (314) 254-8547 mae.quinn@macarthurjustice.org amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org
38 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 23 Filed 10/12/17 Page 38 of 38

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE GASCA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Case No. 17-cv-04149-SRB

)

ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri, )

Department of Corrections, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to FRCP 23. (Doc. #6).

For the following reasons the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

I. Background

This lawsuit challenges the parole revocation policies and procedures of the Missouri

Department of Correction (“MDOC”) and its Division of Probation and Parole (“Parole Board”).

Plaintiffs allege the revocation policies and procedures violate their rights “under the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to consider whether parolees qualify for

the appointment of free counsel as required by Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), failing

to appoint counsel to those parolees who so qualify, and otherwise [failing to] provid[e] []

constitutionally adequate parole revocation processes as required by Morissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) and its progeny.”1 (Doc. #6-1, p. 1). Plaintiffs seek “a wholesale reform of the

1 The Supreme Court, in Gagnon, held that parolees receive appointed counsel when the parolee “makes such a request, based on a timely and colorable claim (i) that he has not committed the alleged violation,” or “(ii) that . . . there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation . . . and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.” 411 U.S. at 790. In Morrisey, the Supreme Court outlined the minimum requirements of due process in parole revocations:
(a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses . . .; (e) a ‘neutral and
Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 42 Filed 12/05/17 Page 1 of 7

Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, practices, and procedures.” (Doc. #6-1, p. 2). Plaintiffs request certification of the following class: “all adult parolees in the state of Missouri who currently face, or who in the future will face, parole revocation proceedings.” (Doc. #6-1, p. 2).
II. Legal Standard Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”). Rule
23 requires that the proposed class satisfy all four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the provisions of Rule 23(b) to be certified. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 32 (2013). Rule 23(a) contains four requirements applicable to all proposed classes: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity); (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class (commonality); (3) the claims or defenses of the representative party are typical of the claims or defenses of the class (typicality); and (4) the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the absent class members (adequacy). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). These requirements exist to ensure that any class claims are limited “to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff's claims.” Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156 (1982) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Rule 23(b)(2), under which Plaintiffs seek certification, requires that “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.”
“Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard.” Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Instead, a plaintiff “must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.” Id. (emphasis in original). “The propriety of
detached’ hearing body such as a traditional parole board . . .; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole. 408 U.S. at 489.
2 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 42 Filed 12/05/17 Page 2 of 7

class action status can seldom be determined on the basis of the pleadings alone.” Walker v. World Tire Corp., 563 F.2d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 1977). Instead, “[t]he District Court must have before it sufficient material to determine the nature of the allegations, and rule on compliance with the Rule's requirements.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). “Where, however, the pleadings themselves do not conclusively show whether the Rule 23 requirements are met, the parties must be afforded the opportunity to discover and present documentary evidence on the issue.” Id.
The preponderance of the evidence standard applies to evidence proffered to establish the requirements of Rule 23. Teamsters Local 445 Freight Div. Pension Fund v. Bombardier Inc., 546 F.3d 196, 202 (2d Cir. 2008). A district court must undertake a “rigorous analysis” to ensure that the requirements of Rule 23 are met. Bennett v. Nucor Corp., 656 F.3d 802, 814 (8th Cir. 2011). Although the court’s analysis will frequently entail some overlap with the merits of the underlying claims, “[this] cannot be helped.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 351.
III. Discussion On the current record, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the Rule 23 requirements, namely
commonality and typicality. Because Plaintiffs cannot affirmatively establish commonality and typicality, this Court need not address the other requirements at this time. Commonality requires a plaintiff to show that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). “Merely advancing a question stated broadly enough to cover all class members is not sufficient under Rule 23(a)(2).” Id.; Parko v. Shell Oil Co., 739 F.3d 1083, 1085 (7th Cir. 2014). Instead, commonality requires that “the claims of all class members depend upon a common contention . . . capable of class-wide resolution, meaning that the contention is of such a nature . .
3 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 42 Filed 12/05/17 Page 3 of 7

. that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of
each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350.
Typicality requires the “claims or defenses of the representatives and the members of the
class stem from a single event or [be] based on the same legal or remedial theory.” Chorosevic
v. Metlife Choices, No. 4:05-CV-2394-CAS, 2007 WL 2159475, at *8 (E.D. Mo. July 26, 2007)
(citing Paxton v. Union Natl Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 561-62 (8th Cir. 1982)). “Typicality requires a
demonstration that the members of the class have the same or similar grievances as the named
plaintiff.” Id. (citing Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525, 1540 (8th Cir. 1996)).
Plaintiffs put forth the following evidence to support their motion:
 Correspondence between Plaintiffs’ counsel and MDOC requesting documentation from MDOC pursuant to Missouri’s Sunshine laws (Docs. ##1-3, 1-4);
 MDOC’s “Redbook,” which lays out policies governing parole revocation (Doc. #1-18);  An organizational chart of MDOC’s Division of Parole (Doc. #1-1);  Several public reports (including MDOC’s Annual Report 2015 (Doc. #1-2), Department
of Justice’s 2015 Report on Probation and Parole in the U.S. (Doc. #1-5), a third-party report on Justice Reinvestment (Doc. #1-6), and another MDOC report (Doc. #1-19));  Several newspaper articles regarding the state of parole in the U.S. and Missouri (Docs. ##1-7, 1-8, 1-9);  Sample forms used by MDOC in the parole revocation process (Docs. ##1-10, 1-12, 115, 1-16);  Field violation reports (Doc. #1-11), a preliminary hearing waiver (Doc. #1-13), an order of revocation (Doc. #1-17), and correspondence with MDOC (Doc. #1-20) of one named Plaintiff; and  Communications regarding revocation between MDOC and several named Plaintiffs (Doc. #1-14). Plaintiffs argue that this evidence, in conjunction with the nearly thirty-six pages of allegations
included in their Amended Complaint, are sufficient to establish that the requirements of Rule 23
are met for the proposed class definition. At this point, on this record, the Court disagrees.
4
Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 42 Filed 12/05/17 Page 4 of 7

Throughout their complaint and briefing on this motion, Plaintiffs allege numerous constitutional violations committed by MDOC. According to their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege:
As a matter of policy, practice, and custom, the Defendants systematically fail to screen parolees to determine whether they are eligible for counsel, at cost to state, as required under Gagnon v. Scarpelli. They fail to appoint counsel to those parolees who do qualify. . . . As a result of the Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs, parolees are unable to speak on their own behalf, present evidence, and cross-examine adverse witnesses. (Doc. #23, ¶ 156-57). In addition, Plaintiffs allege parolees are: given uncertain parole terms (¶¶ 49-51); not properly served with their violations, field reports, or warrants (¶ 52); not informed of their rights during proceedings (i.e. not given the Redbook) (¶ 55); forced to involuntarily waive their right to a preliminary and/or final hearing (¶¶ 59-60); and provided little notice of hearings (¶ 69). (Doc. #23). As currently defined, the class includes all adult parolees in the state who face, or who in the future will face, parole revocation proceedings. This definition inherently assumes that all adult parolees in the state who face or will face parole revocation proceedings will be subjected to the alleged constitutional violations. It therefore follows that, in order to certify this class under its current definition, Plaintiffs need to affirmatively demonstrate that each member of the class is subject to a policy that may result in such harm. On this record, Plaintiffs have not done so. Plaintiffs argue the evidence shows “almost no preliminary or final parole hearings are held in this state.” (Doc. #6-1, p. 8). However, the evidence does not show that MDOC has a policy to universally deny the right to a preliminary or final parole hearing. Rather, the evidence, as it stands now, shows most parolees waived their right to preliminary or final parole hearings. While Plaintiffs allege that the waiver was involuntary, no evidence is provided to
5 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 42 Filed 12/05/17 Page 5 of 7

affirmatively demonstrate that all waivers were involuntary or that the waivers were taken pursuant to a department-wide policy encouraging involuntary waivers.
Plaintiffs also argue that “[t]he vast majority of parolees in the State of Missouri need and are entitled to appointed counsel . . . ,” but Defendants fail to screen parolees for a right to counsel due to MDOC’s uniform policies. (Doc. #23, ¶ 10). To support their argument, Plaintiffs point to the Redbook, which states that “[g]enerally, any request to have an attorney present [at the preliminary hearing] shall be denied.” (Doc. #1-18, p. 6). Again, Plaintiffs, at this stage, do not put forth sufficient evidence to support a finding that all parolees who currently face or will face parole revocation in Missouri are subject to a policy to deny counsel. In fact, the evidence shows that some parolees were represented by counsel. (Doc. #1-3). Even though it is unclear whether this counsel was provided by the state or otherwise, such representation may undermine the claim that Defendants universally fail to screen all Missouri parole violators for a right to counsel. As such, class certification is not appropriate on this record because Plaintiffs have not met their burden to affirmatively establish the existence of a policy or a number of policies that affect all parolees who now, or in the future, will face parole revocation proceedings.
Plaintiffs themselves admit more evidence may exist that is relevant to class certification. (Doc. #1-4, p. 1) (“[I]t is clear that additional responsive materials exist.”). Plaintiffs have not yet received “all responsive memos, directives, or other documents relating to processes, procedures[,] and practices,” which would likely be relevant to the present issue. (Doc. #1-4, p. 2). As of now, only formal policies were produced by MDOC. As alluded to above, such policies do not indicate a wholesale violation of constitutional standards as may be required to certify this class as currently defined.
6 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 42 Filed 12/05/17 Page 6 of 7

With respect to commonality, Plaintiffs argue the common question is “whether Defendants’ ongoing policies and practices relating to alleged violations of parole fail to satisfy the constitutional due process mandates of Gagnon and Morissey.” (Doc. #38, p. 6). That question, Plaintiffs argue, gives rise to a “common answer and outcome desired . . .[:] a declaration and injunction establishing a constitutionally-compliant parole revocation system that comports with the dictates of Morissey and Gagnon.” (Doc. #38, p. 8). For the reasons stated above, the current record is not sufficient to support a finding of commonality on these facts.
In an attempt to establish typicality, Plaintiffs argue the same alleged course of conduct binds the named Plaintiffs and the putative class members—“Defendants’ failure to comply with dictates of Morissey and Gagnon.” (Doc. #38, p. 11). For the evidentiary deficiencies described above, the named Plaintiffs have not affirmatively established that their claims arise from the same event or course of conduct as the proposed class members.
IV. Conclusion Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to FRCP 23 (Doc. #6) is
DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Stephen R. Bough JUDGE STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: December 4, 2017
7 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 42 Filed 12/05/17 Page 7 of 7

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE GASCA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Case No. 17-cv-04149-SRB

)

ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri, )

Department of Corrections, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class Certification. (Doc. #111). For

the following reasons the motion is GRANTED.

I. Background

This lawsuit challenges the parole revocation policies and procedures of the Missouri

Department of Corrections and its Division of Probation and Parole. Plaintiffs allege the

revocation policies and procedures violate their rights “under the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment . . . as articulated in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) and

Morissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).” (Doc. #113, p. 5). Plaintiffs seek prospective relief

and request certification of the following class: “all adult parolees in the state of Missouri who

currently face, or who in the future will face, parole revocation proceedings.” (Doc. #113, p. 6).

Defendants consent to certification of the proposed class.

II. Legal Standard

Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”). Rule

23 requires that the proposed class satisfy all four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and at least one of

the provisions of Rule 23(b) to be certified. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 32 (2013);

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 132 Filed 01/04/19 Page 1 of 3

Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562, 568–69 (8th Cir. 2005). Rule 23(a) contains four requirements applicable to all proposed classes: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity); (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class (commonality); (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class (typicality); and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the absent class members (adequacy). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). District courts must engage in a rigorous analysis to determine whether the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982).
Plaintiffs seek certification under Rules 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2). A class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) if “prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class[.]” Rule 23(b)(2) requires that “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[.]”
III. Discussion The Court has conducted a rigorous analysis and finds that the proposed class satisfies the
Rule 23(a) requirements of numeorsity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The Court further finds that litigating class members’ claims individually would “create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications . . . that would establish incompatible standards of conduct” for Defendants’ parole revocation proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). Moreover, Defendants’ parole revocation policies and procedures “apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a
2 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 132 Filed 01/04/19 Page 2 of 3

whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). The Court also notes that Defendants filed no opposition to Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class Certification, and Defendants consent to class certification.
IV. Conclusion Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class Certification (Doc. #111) is
GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1)(A), and
(b)(2), the Court certifies this matter as a class action. The class is defined as follows: All adult parolees in the state of Missouri who currently face, or who in the future will face, parole revocation proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mildred Curren, Timothy Gallagher, Stephanie
Gasca, Kenneth Hemphill, Jesse Neely, Soloman Warren, and Amber Wyse are designated as the Class Representatives.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Locke E. Bowman, Sheila A. Bedi, and Amy E. Breihan will serve as Class Counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties meet and confer within fourteen (14) days to arrange a court hearing on how to proceed with the timing of class notifications.
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Stephen R. Bough JUDGE STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: January 4, 2019
3 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 132 Filed 01/04/19 Page 3 of 3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE GASCA, et al.,

)

)

on behalf of themselves and all similarly

)

situated individuals

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri, )

Department of Corrections, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 17-cv-04149-SRB

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. #129). The

motion is GRANTED.

This lawsuit challenges the parole revocation policies and procedures of the Missouri

Department of Corrections and its Division of Probation and Parole. Plaintiffs argue there is no

genuine dispute as to the material facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’ revocation

policies and procedures violate their rights “under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment . . . as articulated in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) and Morissey v.

Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).” (Doc. #113, p. 5). Plaintiffs seek prospective relief on behalf of

a class of “all adult parolees in the state of Missouri who currently face, or who in the future

will face, parole revocation proceedings.” (Doc. #113, p. 6). Defendants concede that “the

policies that existed at the time Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action complaint did not

satisfy [Due Process requirements]” and that Defendants have taken “substantial corrective

measures to remedy these shortcomings.” (Doc. #140, p. 1).

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 146 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 2

The Court finds no genuine dispute of material fact and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #129) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 27, 2019

/s/ Stephen R. Bough JUDGE STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 146 Filed 02/27/19 Page 2 of 2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE GASCA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri, )

Department of Corrections, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 17-cv-04149-SRB

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint.

(Doc. #25). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

I. Background

This suit challenges the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) and its Division

of Probation and Parole (“Parole Board”) parole revocation practices. The named Plaintiffs are

six parolees currently in the custody of MDOC. Each was taken into custody by parole officials

for allegedly violating the terms of their parole, and their parole was revoked.

The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of the proposed class, allege “Defendants systematically

fail to screen parolees to determine whether they are eligible for counsel [during the parole

revocation proceedings,] at cost to the State, as required under Gagnon v. Scarpelli,” 411 U.S. 778 (1973).1 (Doc. #23, p. 37). Plaintiffs allege Defendants “fail to appoint counsel to those

1 While judges have great discretion when deciding whether to appoint counsel in parole revocation hearings, fundamental fairness requires the appointment of counsel when: (1) a parolee has requested counsel, (2) makes a timely and colorable claim that either she has not violated her parole or that substantial reasons justify or mitigate the violation of parole, and (3) the reasons underlying such a claim are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present. If it is a close call, the judge should consider whether the parolee can effectively speak for herself. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786-90 (1973). While Gagnon dealt with revocation of probation, the Supreme Court expressly said there was no “difference relevant to the guarantee of due process between the revocation of parole and the revocation of probation.” Id. at 782.

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 14

parolees who do qualify.” (Doc. #23, p. 37). Additionally, Plaintiffs allege, “Defendants . . . fail to ensure that parolees receive adequate notice of the rights to which they are entitled in the parole revocation process. As a result of Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs, parolees are unable to speak on their own behalf, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses.” (Doc. #23, p. 37). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendants regularly commit, inter alia, the following constitutional violations: failure to inform parolees of their rights (Doc. #23, ¶ 57) or next steps (Doc. #23, ¶ 59); failure to protect parolees’ rights to be protected from an involuntary waiver of a preliminary or final hearing (Doc. #23, ¶¶ 57-60); failure to allow parolees to present witnesses and/or evidence at their hearing (Doc. #23, ¶¶ 64-66); failure to provide adequate notice of hearings to parolees (Doc. #23, ¶ 69); and failure to screen and subsequently provide counsel for those parolees who qualify under Gagnon (Doc. #23, ¶¶ 7292).
Plaintiffs sue eight Defendants in their official capacity, including the Director of MDOC, the Chairman of the Parole Board, and Parole Board members. Two named Defendants are no longer members of the Parole Board. Plaintiffs request: (1) declaratory relief, “declaring that the policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint are in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and the class they represent under the Fourteenth Amendment . . . ,” and (2) injunctive relief, “enjoin[ing] Defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons under their control from subjecting Plaintiffs and the class they represent from the unlawful policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint.” (Doc. #23, p. 37). Plaintiffs also request attorney’s fees and any other relief this Court deems appropriate. Defendants filed this motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
2 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 14

II. Legal Standard Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper where the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Cook v. ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc., 663 F.3d 989, 992 (8th Cir. 2011). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the “court accepts as true all factual allegations but is not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id. (quotations omitted). The Court also construes all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Palmer v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 666 F.3d 1081, 1083 (8th Cir. 2012). “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). A complaint with “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” will not survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 678. Both parties agree that the standards for assessing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the face of the complaint are the same as those applied to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
III. Discussion Defendants make eight arguments: (1) Plaintiffs’ claims are mere speculation; (2)
Plaintiffs lack standing with regard to their claim of failure to provide counsel; (3) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by judicial immunity; (4) Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief fail because Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law; (5) Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine; (6) the Eleventh Amendment bars any of Plaintiffs’ claims for damages; (7) quasi-judicial immunity bars any of Plaintiffs’ claims for damages; and (8) two Defendants are no longer state officials so Plaintiffs’ claims against them should be dismissed.
3 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 3 of 14

a. Mere Speculation Defendants argue, “Plaintiffs’ allegations that [D]efendants will fail to ensure [P]laintiffs are afforded appropriate process and that [P]laintiffs will be at risk for arbitrary and capricious processes relating to any future alleged parole violations . . . are nothing more than speculative accusations without a factual basis.” (Doc. #25, p. 3). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint should be dismissed because “Plaintiffs offer no evidence that violations or revocation proceedings will occur in the future” and “more than ‘bare accusations’ must be made to escape a Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. #25, pp. 3-4). In response, Plaintiffs argue there is nothing speculative about the assertions in this suit because “for each named Plaintiff[,] the Amended Complaint carefully sets forth the ways in which they personally are being negatively impacted by the standing policies and practices of MDOC’s Parole Board . . . .” (Doc. #33, p. 6). Plaintiffs argue that Defendants “try to frame Plaintiffs’ single-count civil rights complaint as focusing merely on potential future proceedings or revocation proceedings that will occur in the future.” (Doc. #33, p. 7) (internal quotations omitted). This Court agrees with Plaintiffs. Defendants’ position overlooks “at least 150 additional paragraphs of detailed factual allegations – and the hundreds of pages of attached exhibits – relating to the named Plaintiffs . . . and the real and material harms they now suffer and will suffer into the future . . . .” (Doc. #33, p. 6). Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint includes numerous factual allegations regarding past harms that undermine Defendants’ contention that Plaintiffs’ claims are “nothing more than speculative accusations without a factual basis.” (Doc. #25, p. 3).
4 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 4 of 14

Even if the Amended Complaint did not include these past factual allegations, allegations of future harm do not necessarily deem an otherwise factually-sufficient complaint merely “bare accusations,” unable to withstand a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court has stated that future injury may satisfy the “injury-in-fact” requirement for Article III standing “if the threatened injury is certainly impending, or there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2341 (2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted). This same principle surely must apply to the sufficiency of the factual pleadings. Otherwise, the Supreme Court’s declaration that future injury may satisfy Article III in certain circumstances would never be realized. Once the individual Plaintiffs are on parole, this Court finds there is a substantial risk that future injury may occur, as required by Susan B. Anthony List, given Plaintiffs’ histories of revocation and MDOC’s past treatment of Plaintiffs. Therefore, this Court finds that both the past and future alleged harms put forth by Plaintiffs are more than “mere speculation.”
Defendants also attack Plaintiffs’ lack of evidence showing “that violations or revocation proceedings will occur in the future, much less [that those] proceedings [] would qualify as ‘arbitrary and capricious processes.’” (Doc. #25, pp. 3-4). Evidence is neither required nor expected at the pleading stage. It has been long-settled that allegations as written are assumed to be true so long as they are plausible. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Plaintiffs have met this threshold requirement. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims are not dismissed as mere speculation.
b. Standing Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a claim of failure to provide counsel. To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) injury-in-fact; (2) a causal connection between the alleged injury and the
5 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 5 of 14

conduct complained of (in other words, “the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court”); and (3) a likelihood that the alleged injury will not be redressed by a decision in plaintiff’s favor. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 56061 (1992) (internal quotations and citations omitted). This Court will address each of these requirements.
Defendants do not contend a lack of injury-in-fact at this stage. With respect to the second (fairly traceable injury) and third (redressability) elements, Defendants argue, “Plaintiffs have not asserted what legal authority Defendants possess that would permit them to provide counsel to alleged parole violators.” (Doc. #25, p. 4). Thus, Defendants argue, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the requisite “showing of the legal basis for [their] claim[s].” (Doc. #49, pp. 2-3). Defendants further argue, “In the absence of such authority, the injury alleged here is not ‘fairly . . . trace[able]’ to any action of the [D]efendants and there is no likelihood that the alleged injury can be redressed by a decision in [P]laintiffs’ favor.” (Doc. #25, p. 5). This Court disagrees that the alleged injury is not fairly traceable to any action of the Defendants.
To support their position, Defendants cite Balogh v. Lombardi, 816 F.3d 536, 542 (8th Cir. 2016). Balogh, relying on Digital Recognition Network, Inc. v. Hutchinson, 803 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2015), found the plaintiff’s injury not fairly traceable to the defendant because he did not possess any statutory authority to enforce the law at issue. Id. These cases are inapplicable. In Digital Recognition Network the plaintiffs (companies in the automatic license plate reader technology industry) brought suit against the Arkansas attorney general and governor, contending that the Arkansas Automatic License Plate Reader System Act (“Act”) violated their First Amendment speech rights. 803 F.3d at 954-55. The Eighth Circuit found no Article III
6 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 6 of 14

case or controversy, reasoning that because the Act provides for enforcement only through
private actions for damages, the attorney general and governor had no authority to enforce the
Act and therefore did not cause injury to the plaintiffs. Id. at 958.
Such is not the case here. First, no statute or Parole Board practice limits the
enforcement of these allegedly violated constitutional rights to a specific group or entity by, for
example, providing exclusively for a private cause of action for damages. Second, in Digital
Recognition Network, the Eighth Circuit noted it had previously found Article III standing where the state official had “some connection with the enforcement” of a state law or practice.2
Id. at 957. Plaintiffs argue three connections between the Defendants in this case and the
enforcement of a parolee’s constitutional rights as guaranteed by Supreme Court precedent.
Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 217.035 (Director’s Powers and Duties); 217.040 (Rulemaking Authority); 217.655 (Probation and Parole Board; General Duties).3 Under Eighth Circuit precedent these
connections are strong enough to satisfy the second element for Article III standing. See 281
Care Cmte. v. Arneson, 638 F.3d 621, 632-33 (8th Cir. 2011) (collecting Eighth Circuit cases).
Plaintiffs have also satisfied the third element (redressability) required to establish
Article III standing. Defendants argue that because Plaintiffs do not point to any statute
granting the MDOC and members of the Parole Board the direct authority to appoint counsel,
there can be no redressability. This Court disagrees. Plaintiffs asks this Court to, inter alia:
Adjudge and declare that the policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint are in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the class they represent under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; [p]reliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants, their agents, employees,
2 “This court concluded in one case that where state officials had ‘some connection with the enforcement’ of a state law for purposes of the Ex Parte Young doctrine, then the case or controversy requirement of Article III was satisfied.” Digital Recognition Network, Inc. v. Hutchinson, 803 F.3d 952, 957 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing Citizens for Equal Prot. v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, 864 (8th Cir. 2006)). 3 Plaintiffs erroneously cite to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.255 (Probation and Parole Board; General Duties). However, this section title is associated with § 217.655.
7
Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 7 of 14

and all persons under their control from subjecting Plaintiffs and the class they represent from the unlawful policies, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint . . . . (Doc. #23, pp. 37-38). Plaintiffs need not identify a single statute granting Defendants authority to appoint counsel to establish redressability. In fact, “Plaintiffs need not show that a favorable decision will ensure redress; it is enough that a decision is likely to result in redress.” Church v. Missouri, No. 17-cv-04057-NKL, 2017 WL 3383301, at *19 (W.D. Mo. July 24, 2017) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added). Because Plaintiffs have identified several provisions of Missouri law granting Defendants discretion to set policy and procedure related to parole revocation, it is likely that a judgment from this Court will result in redress. Even assuming Defendants do not have any authority to provide counsel, there are numerous possible paths of equitable relief that this Court could impose which would redress Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, including, but not limited to, those proposed by Plaintiffs in their response.4 (Doc. #33, p. 11). Thus, Plaintiffs have established redressability as required by Article III. Because Plaintiffs have met all requirements for Article III standing, Plaintiffs have standing to bring this suit.
c. Judicial Immunity Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by quasi-judicial immunity, a subdoctrine of judicial immunity, because the “parole decision making process is a quasi-judicial process that brings those who make these decisions as part of their official duties within protections available to judges.” (Doc. #25, p. 6). To support their position Defendants cite
4 “Relatedly, possible paths of equitable relief here include this Court declaring that continued parole revocation proceedings without access to or presence of counsel for indigent defendants violate the constitution. Or, the Court could enjoin Missouri parole proceedings from moving forward where a right to appointed counsel is shown and none has been provided. This Court can also, as part of an equitable remedy scheme, order the Parole Board to stop affirmatively misinforming parolees about the right to counsel, banning attorney presence from preliminary hearings, and precluding lawyers from behaving as lawyers at final hearings.” (Doc. #33, p. 11).
8 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 8 of 14

Evans v. Dillahunty, 711 F.2d 828, 830-31 (8th Cir. 1983), but that case is distinguishable from the present case. In Evans the plaintiff alleged that erroneous statements caused the parole board official to reject the parole panel’s recommendation, which resulted in an extended sentence for plaintiff. Id. The Eighth Circuit noted that “in determining the type of immunity to be accorded to a particular official, courts should compare the officials[’] functions with those of judges.” Id. at 830. The Court blanketed the parole board official with immunity for review of the parole panel’s recommendation and decision to deny parole because “[p]arole officials in deciding to grant, deny, or revoke parole, perform functions comparable to those of judges.” Id. at 831. Here, however, the conduct challenged by Plaintiffs does not involve the “deci[sion] to grant, deny, or revoke parole.” Id. Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ failure to provide counsel as required by the Supreme Court. This function is not comparable to that of a judge. Defendants did not provide any case law in their opening motion or reply supporting their assertion that parole board officials are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity when they allegedly deny constitutionally-guaranteed procedural rights. Accordingly, Defendants are not protected by quasi-judicial immunity.
d. Adequate Remedy at Law Defendants argue, “Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief fail because they cannot show an inadequate legal remedy.” (Doc. #25, p. 6). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should bring an appellate remedy under Mo. Stat. Rev. § 217.670.3, which provides for review of Parole Board orders “as to compliance with the terms of sections 217.650 to 217.810 or any rules promulgated pursuant to each section.” (Doc. #25, p. 7) (citing Mo. Stat. Rev. § 217.670.3). Specifically, Defendants argue that “[t]he types of violations asserted in this case here – parolee’s rights to speak in her own behalf, present evidence, and cross-examine adverse
9 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 9 of 14

witnesses – are the procedural due process matters that can be reviewed under this standard.” (Doc. #25, p. 7). Plaintiffs argue that Mo. Stat. Rev. § 217.670.3—by its terms—only allows for a limited review. Mo. Stat. Rev. § 217.670.3 (“The orders of the [Parole] Board shall not be reviewable except as to compliance with the terms of sections 217.650 to 217.810 or any rules promulgated pursuant to such section.”) (emphasis added).
Lack of an adequate legal remedy is an indispensable prerequisite to equitable relief. Birch v. Mazander, 678 F.2d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1989). Here, Plaintiffs demonstrate a lack of an adequate legal remedy. Contrary to Defendants’ implication that Plaintiffs could seek appellate remedies under Missouri law for all their violations, Plaintiffs allege more than just a violation of “a parolee’s rights to speak in her own behalf, present evidence, and cross-examine adverse witnesses.” (Doc. #25, p. 7). Instead, Plaintiffs complain of federal constitutional deficiencies and violations, namely the refusal to provide counsel when required by Supreme Court precedent. Because such violations are not fit for review under the Missouri statute, this Court finds no adequate remedy at law for Plaintiffs’ allegations.
Defendants also argue Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief fails. While declaratory relief is discretionary, “an important factor in exercising that discretion is whether the declaratory judgment plaintiff has another, more appropriate remedy.” Glover v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 984 F.2d 259, 261 (8th Cir. 1993). Defendants assert, “[a]n appeal [under § 217.670.3] by parolees who claim they were denied rights during the revocation process would allow the court in each such appeal to assess the unique circumstances of the particular process followed in the particular revocation at issue.” (Doc. #25, p. 7). Because Plaintiffs cannot bring their right to counsel claim under the Missouri statute, this Court finds Plaintiffs do not have another, more appropriate remedy.
10 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 10 of 14

e. Younger Abstention Defendants argue this Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction under Younger abstention doctrine. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Younger abstention doctrine applies “only if state proceedings: (1) are pending at the time of the federal action; (2) implicate important state interests; and (3) provide an adequate opportunity for raising federal constitutional questions.” Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). All three factors must be present for this Court to abstain. Defendants argue abstention is appropriate here because: (1) “the parole proceedings plaintiffs allege in their complaint are pending;” (2) “this case implicates an important state interest – ensuring prisoners released from incarceration subject to certain terms of release abide by those terms;” and (3) “plaintiffs here have an adequate opportunity to raise their federal procedural due process issues by review under § 217.670.3.” (Doc. #25, pp. 8-9). Plaintiffs do not challenge the presence of the second factor in this case. Plaintiffs argue that the other two Younger factors are “entirely absent here.” (Doc. #33, p. 16). This Court begins with the third factor. “[T]he plaintiff has the burden to show that the state proceeding will not provide him an adequate remedy for his federal claim.” Hale v. Pate, 694 Fed. Appx. 682, 684 (11th Cir. 2017). “A plaintiff has an adequate remedy for his constitutional claim . . . if he can raise his constitutional claim during the state court’s review of an administrative proceeding.” Id. (internal citations omitted). This Court finds Plaintiffs satisfied their burden. Simply put, § 217.670.3 does not allow for adequate review of Plaintiffs’ complaints regarding failure to provide counsel because such a practice is not permitted to be reviewed under § 217.670.3, as explained above. Because all three factors must be present to
11 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 11 of 14

apply Younger abstention, this Court does not find it necessary to address whether the first factor is present in the instant case.
To support its position, Defendants cite to Hale v. Pate, 694 Fed. Appx. 682 (11th Cir. 2017), which is not binding on this Court. Regardless, the case is also inapposite to the present case. Critically, plaintiff Hale brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging both a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during his revocation hearing and the imposition of an illegal sentence on him upon revocation of his conditional release. Id. at 683. In the present case Plaintiffs do not collaterally attack their sentences; rather, their § 1983 claims are limited to certain procedural and substantive violations committed during their parole revocation hearings. This distinction is important because “a § 1983 action will not lie when a state prisoner challenges ‘the fact or duration of his confinement,’ and seeks either ‘immediate release from prison,’ or the ‘shortening’ of his term of confinement.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79 (2005) (internal citations omitted). For this reason this Court is persuaded that the analysis in Hale, even though framed in abstention doctrine, is inapplicable to the present case. Additionally, unlike here, plaintiff Hale did “not claim[] that he would be unable to vindicate his claims that he is improperly incarcerated or that he did not receive the counsel that he merited in a state court forum.” Hale, 694 Fed. Appx. at 684. Plaintiffs have demonstrated why the limited review provided under § 217.670.3 is insufficient. For the reasons stated above, the Court declines to exercise Younger abstention.
f. Eleventh Amendment and Damages Defendants argue that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages against state officials in their official capacities. This Court agrees. However, here, Plaintiffs do not ask for damages. Instead, they request injunctive and declaratory relief. While Plaintiffs seek any
12 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 12 of 14

other relief the Court deems proper, they have confirmed in their response that they are not seeking any money damages. (Doc. #33, p. 20). Therefore, the Court disposes of Defendants’ argument as moot.
g. Quasi-Judicial Immunity and Damages Because Plaintiffs are not seeking any damages in this case, as stated in § f, Defendants’ argument that quasi-judicial immunity bars any claims for damages is moot.
h. Defendants No Longer Serving as State Officials Defendants argue that because Plaintiffs sue two Defendants (Mr. Ruzucka and Mr. McSwain) only in their official capacity and these Defendants “are no longer members of the Parole Board[,] the claims against them should be dismissed.” (Doc. #25, p. 10). This argument misunderstands the operation of Rule 25(d), which states: An action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party. Later proceedings should be in the substituted party's name, but any misnomer not affecting the parties’ substantial rights must be disregarded. The court may order substitution at any time, but the absence of such an order does not affect the substitution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Because substitution is automatic, Mr. Paul Fitzwater, Mr. Ruzucka’s successor, is substituted for Mr. Ruzicka. When a replacement is appointed for Mr. McSwain, the successor’s name will be substituted automatically as well.
13 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 13 of 14

IV. Conclusion Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc.
#25) is DENIED. Further, the Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Mr. Paul Fitzwater for Mr. Ruzicka.
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Stephen R. Bough JUDGE STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: December 15, 2017
14 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 50 Filed 12/15/17 Page 14 of 14

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE GASCA, et al.,

)

)

on behalf of themselves and all similarly

)

situated individuals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Case No. 17-cv-04149-SRB

)

ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri

)

Department of Corrections, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as Moot and for Failure to Join an

Indispensable Party. (Doc. #194). The Court has considered the parties’ arguments set forth in

the briefing on the Motion and asserted at oral argument. For the following reasons, the motion

is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

This class-action lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the parole revocation

policies and procedures of the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) and its Division

of Probation and Parole (“Parole Board”). Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief. Defendants have

conceded that “the policies that existed at the time Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action

complaint did not satisfy [Due Process requirements]” and that Defendants have taken

“substantial corrective measures to remedy these shortcomings.” (Doc. #140, p. 1). Defendants

consented to entry of summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor and, the Court granted Plaintiffs’

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 217 Filed 12/19/19 Page 1 of 5

motion for summary judgment. Defendants now argue the claims against them should be dismissed as moot and for failure to join an indispensable party.
II. DISCUSSION AND LEGAL STANDARDS A. Mootness
On a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a defendant may assert a “facial attack” or a “factual attack.” Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 n.6 (8th Cir. 1990). In this instance, Defendants assert a factual attack. Accordingly, “the trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case.” Id. at 730. “Article III, § 2, of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71 (2013) (internal citation omitted). “[A]n actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Id. at 71–72. “A case might become moot [by a defendant’s voluntary conduct] if subsequent events ma[k]e it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). “Defendants who argue mootness due to changed circumstances based on their own behavior face a heavy burden.” Charleston Hous. Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t. of Agric., 419 F.3d 729, 740 (8th Cir. 2005).
Defendants argue dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is appropriate because they have completed their revisions of policies and procedures governing parole revocation proceedings and brought them into compliance with constitutional mandates. Defendants argue their voluntary conduct renders the case moot. Plaintiffs argue Defendants’ policy changes do not warrant dismissal because they fail to address or cure all constitutional deficiencies.
2 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 217 Filed 12/19/19 Page 2 of 5

Defendants have failed to meet their heavy burden to establish it is “absolutely clear” that Defendants’ current revised policies, procedures, and forms pass constitutional muster under Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480–90 (1972) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790–92 (1973). The record supports Plaintiffs’ assertion, as detailed in their suggestions in opposition to the instant motion to dismiss and in oral argument, that Defendants’ revisions do not address or remedy all constitutional deficiencies in the parole revocation process. The Court also notes that Defendants themselves implicitly acknowledge a live controversy exists regarding the right to state-funded counsel when constitutionally required, as discussed in more detail below. The Court finds a controversy as to the adequacy of remedy remains extant. The Court looks forward to the parties’ presentation of evidence related to Defendants’ voluntary revisions of their parole revocation polices and procedures at the upcoming evidentiary hearing regarding remedy.
B. Failure to Join Rule 12(b)(7) permits dismissal for failure to join a party under Rule 19. Under Rule 19(a)(1)(A), “[a] person . . . must be joined as a party if in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties.” Defendants argue dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) is appropriate because Plaintiffs failed to join the Missouri Public Defender Commission (the “Commission”) under Rule 19. Defendants argue the Commission is an indispensable party because the authority to provide state-funded counsel for indigent probationers and parolees rests with the Commission. Plaintiffs argue the Commission is not an indispensable party because Defendants have the authority and are legally required to appoint counsel when alleged parole or probation violators are deemed eligible for state-funded counsel.
3 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 217 Filed 12/19/19 Page 3 of 5

“This is a civil rights class action [lawsuit] filed on behalf of men and women in custody, or under supervision, of the [MDOC] and who are at risk of imprisonment without adequate due process as a result of unconstitutional practices, procedures, and customs of both the MDOC and its [Parole Board] with respect to parole revocation proceedings.” (Doc. #23, ¶ 1). In the Amended Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs detailed various allegations of due process violations against Defendants, including that “Defendants systematically fail to screen parolees to determine whether they are eligible for counsel, at cost to the State, as required under Gagnon v. Scarpelli. They fail to appoint counsel to those parolees who do qualify.” (Doc. #23, ¶ 156). In their motion for summary judgment, which Defendants did not oppose, Plaintiffs alleged Defendants were not screening for or providing State-funded counsel in compliance with Gagnon. (Doc. #130, ¶¶ 32–40). In response to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Defendants conceded liability for the alleged constitutional violations, stating that “the policies that existed at the time Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action complaint did not satisfy the requirements of Gagnon v. Scarpelli . . . and Morrissey v. Brewer . . . .” (Doc. #140, p. 1). Now, Defendants seem to argue they are not in fact liable for all the unconstitutional policy violations for which they formerly admitted liability.
Notwithstanding Defendants’ apparent effort to withdraw their concession on liability, under Gagnon, “the decision as to the need for counsel must be made on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of a sound discretion by the state authority charged with responsibility for administering the probation and parole system.” 411 U.S. at 790 (emphasis added). “[C]ertain cases . . . will require that the State provide at its expense counsel for indigent probationers or parolees.” Id. Defendants cite no authority demonstrating that appointment of state-funded counsel is within the exclusive purview of the Commission.
4 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 217 Filed 12/19/19 Page 4 of 5

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds under Gagnon that the Commission is not a necessary party to this lawsuit. Gagnon entrusts Defendants, as “the state authority charged with responsibility for administering the probation and parole system,” with ensuring alleged parole violators obtain state-appointed counsel when due process so requires. Id. Should Defendants fail to fulfill their constitutional obligation of ensuring alleged probation or parole violators are represented by counsel when deemed constitutionally necessary according to the framework set forth in Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 790–97, the Court envisions various legal alternatives to illegally permitting alleged parole violators to proceed unrepresented. The Court can “accord complete relief among existing parties,” Rule 19(a)(1)(A), by, for example, enjoining Defendants from proceeding with revocation hearings and reincarcerating indigent alleged parole or probation violators if such parolees or probationers are not represented by state-funded counsel when due process so requires. Accordingly, the Commission is not an indispensable party to this lawsuit.
III. CONCLUSION It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as Moot and for Failure to
Join an Indispensable Party (Doc. #194) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 19, 2019

/s/ Stephen R. Bough STEPHEN R. BOUGH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 217 Filed 12/19/19 Page 5 of 5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

STEPHANIE GASCA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ANNE PRECYTHE, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Case No. 17-cv-04149 ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO ALL WRITS ACT
Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully request emergency relief

from the court pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, in the face of the unprecedented

and deadly threat presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. In support of this motion, Plaintiffs state

as follows:

1. We are living in the midst of an unprecedented, world-wide health emergency

caused by the rapid spread of the deadly coronavirus, COVID-19. COVID-19 is highly

transmissible, even by those who are asymptomatic. The number of known infections increases

daily and exponentially. As of March 25, 2020, the new strain of coronavirus which causes

COVID-19 has infected over 459,800 people, leading to at least 20,846 deaths worldwide.1 As of

the filing of this motion, 372 Missourians have been infected with COVID-19 and eight have died.2

On March 23, Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) confirmed the first positive

COVID-19 case among inmates in its custody.3

1 Coronavirus Map: Tracking the Spread of the Outbreak, The New York Times (Mar. 25, 2020), at https://nyti.ms/2U4kmud (updating regularly). 2 Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count, The New York Times (Mar. 25, 2020), at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html (updating regularly). 3 See Missouri Department of Corrections Offender Tests Positive for COVID-19 (Mar. 23, 2020), at
1
Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 250 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 4

2. For a variety of reasons, prisons and jails create the ideal environment for the transmission of contagious disease, including COVID-19. Unavoidable conditions inherent to all prisons, including but not limited to close quarters and limited access to sanitation products, make prisons a prime target for a viral outbreak. The risk is not only to the prison population. As corrections staff, contractors, and new inmates come into and out of facilities, they threaten the spread of the disease within detention facilities and are at risk of contracting the virus themselves, in turn spreading the virus to others with whom they come in contact in their homes, neighborhoods, and communities.
3. The class members in the case are processed in and out of Missouri jails and prisons at a rate of hundreds every month, most for mere technical violations, subject to policies and practices this Court has already deemed unconstitutional. These class members will now have to wait until at least mid-June for a final judgment in this case.
4. In the meantime, and in the face of the deadly pandemic, this Court should take swift action to order Defendants to halt all parole revocation proceedings, except to withdraw or cancel any pending parole warrants and parole board holds, and to release on parole supervision (either continuing their parole or “delaying action”): (a) all class members with conditions or characteristics which, according to the CDC, categorize them as high-risk for severe illness from COVID-19; (b) all persons held in custody and still awaiting a parole revocation decision; (c) all class members whose parole has been revoked on the basis of technical violations; (d) all class members whose parole was revoked and who have less than one year left before their release date; and (e) all class members whose parole was revoked on the basis of a laws violation based on conduct which did not result in a criminal conviction.
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MODOC/bulletins/282c94f.
2
Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 250 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 4

5. To fail to act would amplify the rate at which COVID-19 is spreading in our jails,

prisons, and communities. To fail to act could result in the death of class members. Such an

outcome is unconscionable. A parole revocation should not be a death sentence.

6. Pursuant to L.R. 7.0(a), Plaintiffs have filed suggestions in support of this motion

contemporaneously herewith, and incorporate the same by reference.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court

grant this motion, enter a writ of mandamus or injunctive order as further described in the

suggestions in support filed contemporaneously herewith, and grant such further relief as is just

and appropriate under the circumstances. Plaintiffs also ask for an expedited briefing schedule and

expedited telephonic hearing on the motion in light of its emergency nature.

Dated: March 25, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER

By: /s/ Amy E. Breihan Amy E. Breihan, #65499 Megan G. Crane, #71624 3115 South Grand Blvd., Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 Phone: (314) 254-8540 Fax: (314) 254-8547 amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org megan.crane@macarthurjustice.org

Locke E. Bowman* Sheila A. Bedi* Northwestern Pritzker School of Law 375 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 503-1271 l-bowman@law.northwestern.edu sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs

3
Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 250 Filed 03/25/20 Page 3 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 25th day of March, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed using the Court’s online case filing system, which will send notice to all counsel of record.
By: /s/ Amy E. Breihan One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys
4
Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 250 Filed 03/25/20 Page 4 of 4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE GASCA, et al.,

)

on behalf of themselves and all similarly

)

situated individuals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Case No. 17-cv-04149-SRB

)

ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri

)

Department of Corrections, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Relief Pursuant to All Writs Act.

(Doc. #250). The Court has considered the parties’ arguments set forth in the briefing and

asserted at oral argument. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

This class-action lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the parole revocation

policies and procedures of the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) and its Division

of Probation and Parole (“Parole Board”). Plaintiffs represent a class of adult parolees in the

state of Missouri who currently face, or who in the future will face, parole revocation

proceedings. Defendants consented to entry of summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor, and the

Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The parties disagree about whether

Defendants have sufficiently remedied their parole revocation policies and procedures, and an

evidentiary hearing on remedy was scheduled for April 9 and 10, 2020. Given the Court’s

inability to conduct in-person hearings due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, the evidentiary

hearing has been rescheduled for June 10 and 11, 2020. Plaintiffs now request that, in the midst

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 261 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 4

of this unprecedented pandemic, the Court enter a writ of mandamus or injunction “order[ing] Defendants to halt all parole revocation proceedings, except to withdraw or cancel any pending parole warrants and parole board holds,” and to release certain categories of class members on parole supervision. (Doc. #250, ¶ 4).
II. LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION Plaintiffs seek emergency relief pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which
gives the Court authority to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Plaintiffs argue that given the postponement of the evidentiary hearing on remedy, this Court should, in the meantime, issue a writ or injunction ordering Defendants to halt parole revocation proceedings and release certain categories of class members1 on parole supervision. Plaintiffs argue such action is necessary to protect the Plaintiff class and the public from the spread of COVID-19, to protect the class’s constitutional rights, and to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction and ability to grant the class relief. Defendants argue the Court does not have authority to extend its jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to order the relief Plaintiffs seek, and that issuing a writ or injunction would be improper here because the proposed relief does not relate to the claim at issue in this case. Defendants also argue that issuing a writ would interfere with matters of traditional state control and that class members may pursue release on an individual basis pursuant to Missouri statute.
While the Court is sensitive to the extraordinary magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic and the serious health concerns it presents, the Court finds that issuing a writ or injunction in
1 Plaintiffs request the Court order release on parole supervision of the following categories of class members: “(a) all class members with conditions or characteristics which, according to the CDC, categorize them as high-risk for severe illness from COVID-19; (b) all persons held in custody and still awaiting a parole revocation decision; (c) all class members whose parole has been revoked on the basis of technical violations; (d) all class members whose parole was revoked and who have less than one year left before their release date; and (e) all class members whose parole was revoked on the basis of a laws violation based on conduct which did not result in a criminal conviction.” (Doc. #250, ¶ 4).
2 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 261 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 4

this case would amount to an improper exercise of authority under the All Writs Act. Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedent clearly dictates that the All Writs Act is intended for the issuance of extraordinary writs for the sole purpose of protecting a court’s jurisdiction. See Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 542 U.S. 1305, 1306 (The All Writs Act “is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Bank of America, N.A. v. UMB Fin. Servs., Inc., 618 F.3d 906, 914– 15 (8th Cir. 2010) (Under the All Writs Act, “the district court has the inherent ability to protect its own jurisdiction over the dispute pending before it.”) (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 172 (1977) (finding the All Writs Act authorized a district court to compel the assistance of a telephone company to implement a court order where the company’s assistance was necessary in order to effectuate the order); United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 722, 727 (8th Cir. 2011) (finding the All Writs Act authorized a temporary restraining order issued to enforce a restitution order where an asset was “at risk of disappearing absent judicial intervention”).
A delay in the evidentiary hearing on remedy, while certainly unfortunate, does not deprive this Court of its jurisdiction to enforce its summary judgment order or grant relief in this case. Further, issuing a writ or injunction for the purpose of mitigating the transmission and spread of COVID-19 among class members falls outside the scope of this case. Class members remain free to move for release individually based on their individual circumstances using Missouri’s established statutory procedures. See Pa. Bureau of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985) (“Although [the All Writs Act] empowers federal courts to fashion extraordinary remedies when the need arises, it does not authorize them to issue ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory procedures appears inconvenient or less appropriate.”).
3 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 261 Filed 04/15/20 Page 3 of 4

For these reasons, the Court is unauthorized to issue a writ or injunction granting the relief Plaintiffs seek.
III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Relief
Pursuant to All Writs Act (Doc. #250) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 15, 2020

/s/ Stephen R. Bough STEPHEN R. BOUGH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 261 Filed 04/15/20 Page 4 of 4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE GASCA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Case No. 17-cv-04149-SRB

)

ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri, )

Department of Corrections, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Decertify the Class. (Doc. #293). For the

following reasons the motion is DENIED.

I. Background

This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the parole revocation policies, procedures,

and practices of the Missouri Department of Corrections and its Division of Probation and

Parole. After the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ initial motion for class certification,

Plaintiffs conducted comprehensive discovery and filed a renewed motion for class certification.

Defendants did not object to the renewed motion, and after conducting a rigorous analysis, the

Court certified this matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2). (Doc. #132, pp. 2–3). The Plaintiff class, defined as “all adult parolees

in the state of Missouri who currently face, or who in the future will face, parole revocation

proceedings,” seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. (Doc. #132, p. 3).

Defendants have conceded that “the policies that existed at the time Plaintiffs filed their

Amended Class Action complaint did not satisfy [Due Process requirements]” and that

Defendants have taken “substantial corrective measures to remedy these shortcomings.” (Doc.

Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 320 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 8

#140, p. 1). Defendants consented to entry of summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on the amended class action complaint, and the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #146). Since entry of summary judgment, the parties have been unable to agree on remedy.1 Ahead of the evidentiary hearing regarding remedy conducted on June 10–11, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion to decertify the class. The motion is now ripe for ruling.
II. Legal Standard Rule 23 requires that a proposed class satisfy all four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and at
least one of the provisions of Rule 23(b) to be certified. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 32 (2013); Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562, 568–69 (8th Cir. 2005). Relevant to the instant motion, Rule 23(a) contains four requirements applicable to all proposed classes: “(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 (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). District courts must engage in a rigorous analysis to determine whether the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982).
“The Court has an ongoing duty to assure that the class claims in this action are certifiable under Federal Rule 23.” E. Maine Baptist Church v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 244 F.R.D. 538, 540 (E.D. Mo. 2007) (citing Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140, 1145 (8th Cir. 1999); Briggs v. Anderson, 796 F.2d 1009, 1017 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing Gen. Tel. Co., 457 U.S. at 160)). “Even after a certification order is entered, the judge remains free to modify it in
1 Relevant not to this motion but to the issue of remedy, Defendants argue they have corrected the constitutional shortcomings of their policies and procedures, while Plaintiffs disagree.
2 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 320 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 8

the light of subsequent developments in the litigation.” Day v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 827 F.3d 817, 830 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co., 457 U.S. at 160 (footnote omitted)).
III. Discussion The Court notes as a preliminary matter that Defendants did not object to class
certification and consented to entry of summary judgment on the amended class action complaint. Now, at the final stage of the proceedings (determination of remedy), Defendants argue the class should be decertified because the class and its representatives lack commonality, standing, typicality, adequacy, and cohesiveness. As discussed below, Defendants offer no new facts or changes in circumstance that warrant decertification of the class.2 Additionally, Defendants cite no case in which a court granted a motion for decertification after Defendants did not oppose class certification, agreed to class notice and dissemination thereof, consented to entry of summary judgment on the class action complaint, and failed to offer any changes in circumstance supporting their motion for decertification.
At the class certification stage, this Court conducted a rigorous analysis and found that the proposed class satisfies the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The Court further found that litigating class members’ claims individually would “create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications . . . that would establish incompatible standards of conduct” for Defendants’ parole revocation proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). The Court found that Defendants’ parole revocation policies and procedures “apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). As Plaintiffs aver, “the
2 Many of the arguments in Defendants’ reply brief relate to evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing on remedy and do not apply to the class certification analysis.
3 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 320 Filed 08/05/20 Page 3 of 8

same facts and rationale on which the Court based its order granting class certification remain today.” (Doc. #315, p. 1).
A. Commonality Defendants argue that the class lacks commonality because Plaintiffs raise concerns with multiple parole revocation policies and procedures as opposed to a single policy or practice. Plaintiffs stress that “[i]n this case, the common question of fact and law linking all class members is and has always been whether Defendants’ policies, procedures, and customs ensure a constitutionally-adequate parole revocation process for all who are or will be considered for parole revocation,” which aligns with the “single-count Complaint [that] raised at least one common question capable of class-wide resolution.” (Doc. #315, pp. 6–7). The Court finds no basis for decertifying the class on commonality grounds. As an initial matter, there has been no change in common question(s), i.e., the constitutionality of Defendants’ parole revocation policies and procedures, since the class was certified without objection by Defendants and since the entry of summary judgment, to which Defendants consented. Even so, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ brief filed ahead of the evidentiary hearing on remedy contains “commonality concerns in this case [that] are more numerous than ever.” (Doc. #294, p. 10). Defendants go on to enumerate the “concerns” raised by Plaintiffs in their brief, yet each of the enumerated “concerns” was set forth in Plaintiffs’ amended class action complaint and renewed motion for class certification, to which Defendants offered no objection. Defendants then argue that they “expected the issues to narrow after motion practice,” despite the fact that Defendants consented to entry of summary judgment on the class action complaint and made no objection to dissemination of class certification notice. Defendants claim Plaintiffs’ numerous complaints about due process violations prevent commonality, although these are the same issues raised in
4 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 320 Filed 08/05/20 Page 4 of 8

the Supreme Court cases of Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli,
411 U.S. 778 (1973).
Defendants’ attempt to now portray the common issue(s) in this case as uncommon in
this very late stage of the proceedings, particularly considering their consent to class treatment
and summary judgment, is unmeritorious.3 Finding no new facts or changes in circumstance that
did not exist at the time of class certification, the Court finds decertification is unwarranted. See
Day, 827 F.3d at 830 (quoting Gen. Tel. Co., 457 U.S. at 160) (“Even after a certification order is
entered, the judge remains free to modify it in the light of subsequent developments in the
litigation.”) (emphasis added).
B. Breadth of Class
Defendants argue the class is overbroad because “it contains numerous members who
have no cognizable injury and lack standing.” (Doc. #294, p. 12). Defendants argue that, for
example, this case involves, “the availability of counsel for parole hearings, but not every
parolee wants counsel to be provided, . . . so the class would contain many members who have
no cognizable injury and no standing to sue.” (Doc. #294, p. 13). Plaintiffs correctly note that
3 The Court also notes that, as Plaintiffs assert, Defendants do not deny “that all Class members are subject to the same parole revocation process governed by Defendants’ written policies and procedures and unwritten customs.” (Doc. #315, p. 5). Instead, Defendants argue “commonality is lacking because the constitutional violations are too numerous.” (Doc. #315, p. 5). However, Plaintiffs are not required to cap their number of common questions at one. The Eighth Circuit has stated that “a single common question ‘will do’ for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2),” Ebert v. General Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472, 478 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011)), not that more than a single common question precludes a finding of commonality. Moreover, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ assertion that “[a]lthough the overarching question [of whether Defendants’ policies, procedures, and customs ensure a constitutionally-adequate parole revocation process for all who are or will be considered for parole revocation] necessarily entails sub-questions, [] Plaintiffs’ claims have ‘a common answer capable of resolution in one stroke[.]’” (Doc. #315, pp. 6–7) (quoting Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 705 F.3d 370, 377 (8th Cir. 2013)). This is so because an order crafting injunctive relief as it relates to the constitutionality of Defendants’ policies and procedures will resolve the single claim for the entire class. See Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350 (quotation marks and citation omitted) (Class claims must “depend upon a common contention” that “is capable of class wide resolution,” such that “determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.”) (“The key to the (b)(2) class is ‘the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.’”).
5
Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 320 Filed 08/05/20 Page 5 of 8

while Defendants now argue that the class is overbroad, Defendants previously consented to class certification, submitted a joint proposed class notice to the Court, and agreed with Plaintiffs on the process for distributing notice to all class members. Plaintiffs also argue that they “do not have to establish that each class member has standing to bring a due process claim in order to satisfy Rule 23’s requirements.” (Doc. #315, p. 8).
As Plaintiffs correctly assert, Defendants have already conceded that their “policies and practices expose all parolees to an injury, i.e., violation of their due process rights.” (Doc. #315, p. 8). Indeed, “‘federal courts do not require that each member of a class submit evidence of personal standing,’ so long as each member may allege injury.” Cope v. Let’s Eat Out, Inc., 319 F.R.D. 544, 552 (W.D. Mo. 2017) (quoting Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 593 Fed. Appx. 578, 585 (8th Cir. 2014)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) advisory committee’s note to 1966 amendment (“Action or inaction is directed to a class within the meaning of this subdivision even if it has taken effect or is threatened only as to one or a few members of the class, provided it is based on grounds which have general application to the class.”); Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132, 157 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“While results of exposure may vary . . . each inmate suffers the same constitutional or statutory injury when exposed to [the same] polic[ies] or practice[s].”).4 The class definition has remained the same since it was defined in the class certification order. Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures remain applicable to the entire class. For these reasons, decertification for lack of standing is unwarranted.
4 Defendants’ argument that members of the class lack standing because some of the policies, procedures, or practices did or do not affect them goes more to the commonality prerequisite. The Court notes that the commonality requirement “imposes a light burden on the plaintiff seeking class certification and does not require commonality on every single question raised in a class action.” In re Aquila ERISA Litig., 237 F.R.D. 202, 207 (W.D. Mo. 2006) (citing DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co., 64 F.3d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 1995)); Paxton v. Union Nat. Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 561 (8th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted) (“The rule does not require that every question of law or fact be common to every member of the class.”).
6 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 320 Filed 08/05/20 Page 6 of 8

C. Typicality and Adequacy Defendants argue the class should be decertified because the “class representatives have different claims [from those of the class members] and will be absent at trial [on remedy].” (Doc. #294, p. 14). Plaintiffs argue that the typicality and adequacy requirements were satisfied at the class certification stage and continue to be met. The Court reemphasizes that while Defendants argue “[t]his case has had typicality and adequacy concerns from the outset,” (Doc. #294, p. 15), Defendants did not oppose Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification, agreed to class notice and dissemination thereof, and consented to entry of summary judgment on the amended class action complaint. Nonetheless, the named Plaintiffs need not have suffered the same exact injuries as class members. As the Court noted above, the question of the constitutionality of Defendants’ policies and procedures is common to the entire class, and potential injunctive relief will remedy the constitutional violations that apply to the class. See DeBoer, 64 F.3d at 1174 (citation omitted) (finding named plaintiff’s claims “typical of the remainder of the class given the nature of the injunctive relief sought” and noting “[t]he burden of demonstrating typicality is fairly easily met so long as other class members have claims similar to the named plaintiff”); Donaldson v. Pillsbury Co., 554 F.2d 825, 831 (8th Cir. 1977) (“When the claim arises out of the same legal or remedial theory, the presence of factual variations is normally not sufficient to preclude class action treatment.”). Defendants’ argument that there is no typicality or adequacy because Plaintiffs did not call the named plaintiffs at “trial” is equally unconvincing. Defendants fail to recognize that a trial on the merits never occurred in this case because Defendants consented to summary judgment. The “trial” to which Defendants refer was an evidentiary hearing on remedy. Defendants cite no case in which a court found a lack of typicality or adequacy because Plaintiffs
7 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 320 Filed 08/05/20 Page 7 of 8

did not call the named plaintiffs as witnesses after the merits had been decided at a hearing on remedy. For these reasons, decertification for lack of typicality and adequacy is unwarranted.
D. Cohesiveness Defendants argue that for all the reasons already discussed, there is no cohesiveness among class members as required for certification under Rule 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs argue that the class was cohesive when the class was certified and remains cohesive now. Defendants offer the Court no new facts that did not exist at the time of class certification to warrant decertification on the basis of cohesiveness. See Day, 827 F.3d at 830. Nevertheless, the class remains cohesive. Injunctive relief concerning Defendants’ policies and procedures governing parole revocation proceedings will “provide relief to each member of the class,” Ebert, 823 F.3d at 480 (quoting Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360), all of whom are or will be subjected to the policies and procedures. See 7AA Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 7AA Federal Practice & Procedure Civil § 1776.1 (3d ed. 2020) (“[A] common use of Rule 23(b)(2) is in actions brought to challenge various practices or rules in the prisons on the ground that they violate the Constitution.”). For these reasons, decertification based on a lack of cohesiveness is unwarranted. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Decertify the Class (Doc. #293) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Stephen R. Bough JUDGE STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATED: August 5, 2020
8 Case 2:17-cv-04149-SRB Document 320 Filed 08/05/20 Page 8 of 8