IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

______________________________________

J.D., L.E., and R.A., minors by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Damekia Morgan, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated;

COMPLAINT -CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs, v.

CIVIL

ACTION NO.

C. RAY NAGIN, Mayor, City of New Orleans; RICHARD W. WINDER, Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans; MUBAREK A. KAREEM, Social Services Coordinator, Department of Human Services, OZZIE WILLIAMS, Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center; DARYL KILBERT, Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools; and PHYLLIS LANDRIEU, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD in their official capacities.

Defendants. _____________________________________
COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil rights class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of all children who are now or in the future will be confined at the Youth Study Center (“YSC”) in New Orleans, Louisiana. Plaintiffs challenge the conditions of confinement of all children housed at YSC. The illegal conditions of confinement include grossly unsanitary conditions, inadequate medical care, cruel psychological and verbal

harassment and abuse, improper and excessive use of lockdown, inadequate education, and other unconscionable and illegal conditions of confinement. The inadequately trained staff at YSC denies basic needs and services to Plaintiffs, fails to provide adequate programming to Plaintiffs, and denies Plaintiffs meaningful access to the courts and counsel.
2. The conditions of confinement at YSC, and the policies, procedures, and practices established by the Defendants are not rationally related to a legitimate, nonpunitive governmental purpose and they are excessive in relation to any purpose that Defendants claim. Indeed, some of the most harmful and punitive policies, procedures, and practices have been implemented merely because the Defendants have deliberately understaffed YSC and employed inadequately trained and unsupervised staff. Defendants have completely mismanaged YSC.
3. Children at YSC are placed in cells that are oppressively small and dark. The children are regularly forced to wear dirty and worn clothes. YSC is infested with vermin, spiders and rodents, making the facility unsanitary, endangering the Plaintiffs' health and well-being.
4. Built almost 50 years ago, YSC was poorly managed before Hurricane Katrina flooded over 80% of New Orleans in 2005. FEMA declared YSC irreparably damaged. FEMA, in its assessment, determined that the replacement of YSC is more cost effective than repair. As New Orleans rebuilds its juvenile justice system based on best practices, YSC remains an exception to these efforts. YSC was re-opened in the summer of 2006 and operated in the same ineffective, adult-style correctional punitive manner as before the storm. Defendants have failed the children they detain, the staff
2

they employ, and the communities to which the children ultimately return upon their release.
5. According to YSC's 2004 Annual Report, YSC admitted a total of 1,459 African-American children and 29 White children. Currently, all of the children detained at YSC are African-American males.
6. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Plaintiff Class, seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants in their individual and official capacities on the grounds that conditions and treatment of youth confined at YSC deprive Plaintiffs of the rights secured to them by the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq and regulations promulgated thereunder; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133 and regulations promulgated thereunder; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and regulations promulgated thereunder; and various provisions of the Louisiana Constitution, Louisiana's Children Code, and other Louisiana law.
I. JURISDICTION 7. This suit is brought under the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. 1415 (e) (2) and (e) (4); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133. Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a) (3), and 1343(a) (4).
3

8. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
9. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiffs’ state law claims which are so related to the federal claims in this action that they form a part of the same case or controversy under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
II. VENUE 10. The Eastern District of Louisiana is an appropriate venue for this action because a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred” in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (2).
III. PARTIES PLAINTIFFS
11. Plaintiff J.D. is 17 years old and a citizen of the United States. He is currently detained at YSC.
12. Plaintiff L.E.. is 17 years old and a citizen of the United States. He is currently detained at YSC.
13. Plaintiff R.A is 13 years old and a citizen of the United States. He is currently detained at YSC.
DEFENDANTS 14. Defendant C. RAY NAGIN is the Mayor for the City of New Orleans
(“City”). The City is responsible for the secure detention and constitutional treatment of
4

children remanded to detention pending trial and children adjudicated delinquent and held pending placement with the Louisiana Office of Youth Development.
15. Defendant RICHARD W. WINDER, appointed by Mayor C. RAY NAGIN, is the Director of the Department of Human Services for the City. Winder is responsible for the operations and maintenance of YSC. On behalf of the City, Defendant Winder is responsible for the secure detention and constitutional treatment of youth remanded to detention pending trial and youth adjudicated delinquent and held pending placement with the Louisiana Office of Youth Development. Winder has full control of YSC, including but not limited to, its budget, personnel, programs, and the administration and affairs of YSC, and is responsible for the adoption and establishment of all rules and regulations for the placement, care, and treatment of juveniles in the City’s custody. Defendant Winder is responsible for the mental health and medical services provided to all youth committed to YSC. Defendant Winder is required to ensure that YSC meets standards of health and decency. Defendant Winder is responsible for establishing procedures that work to securely detain youth committed to the City and programs that help prevent delinquency. Defendant Winder is responsible for establishing comprehensive training programs for present and prospective employees of YSC and for their supervision. On information and belief, the City receives federal funds.
16. Defendant MUBAREK A. KAREEM is the Social Services Coordinator for the Department of Human Services for the City of New Orleans. Defendant Kareem is responsible for addressing the social services needs of children detained at YSC.
5

Defendant Kareem reports to Defendant Winder in his capacity as Social Services Coordinator.
17. Defendant OZZIE WILLIAMS is the Acting Supervisor of YSC. As such, Defendant Williams oversees daily operations and management of the youth at YSC. It is his duty to properly maintain YSC and care for its residents. Defendant Williams is responsible for the care, custody, security, and treatment of children remanded to detention by juvenile courts in Orleans Parish and children adjudicated delinquent and ordered held in detention pending placement with Louisiana’s Office of Youth Development.
18. Defendant PHYLLIS LANDRIEU is the President of the Orleans Parish School Board (“School Board”), the operating board for the New Orleans Public Schools, which is responsible for the administration of education services for all persons within the parish, including the youth at YSC. The School Board is responsible for providing free appropriate education to every child with an exceptionality at YSC. The School Board is required to maintain a written record of an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") for each child in the format furnished by Louisiana Department Of Education, and these IEPs shall be periodically reviewed and updated. Defendant School Board is a “local education agency” as defined in 20 U.S.C. § 1401(8), and therefore, is bound by the requirements of the IDEA.
19. Defendant DARYL KILBERT is the Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools. As such, he is responsible for implementing policy established by the Orleans Parish School Board, the requirements of the state school laws, and the rules and
6

regulations established by the state board of education, including the requirements, rules and regulations affecting children at YSC.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 20. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons who now are, or in the future will be held in custody at YSC, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). 21. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. According to YSC officials, YSC holds a maximum of twenty (20) boys, and twelve (12) girls; however, the population fluctuates almost daily as youth are detained, committed, transferred, or released. During the course of each year, therefore, hundreds of children are housed at YSC. 22. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. These include the character and constitutionality of the conditions and treatment to which the youth housed at YSC have been subjected. 23. The conditions and treatment challenged in this action apply with equal force to the named Plaintiffs and to all members of the class so that the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class. 24. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. These Plaintiffs possess the requisite personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit. They are represented by counsel experienced in class action litigation involving conditions of confinement and other complex litigation.
7

25. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
V. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING YSC Physical Plant and Employees
26. YSC is located in the city of New Orleans, Louisiana. It was constructed in 1959. Since its initial construction, it has undergone at least one renovation to increase its bed count.
27. Before Hurricane Katrina, youth detained at YSC reported unsanitary and dangerous conditions, frequent flooding, inadequate nutrition and limited programming, educational opportunities, and planned activities, physical abuse from staff and limited access to medical and mental health services.
28. Since the storm, the conditions of YSC are even worse for the children. YSC has been labeled a casualty of the storm with FEMA calling for its replacement. YSC re-opened in July 2006 less than a year after the storm, while nearby buildings remain closed to this day.
29. Since its re-opening, children detained there indicate little progress in the treatment and services provided to them and little improvement in the conditions. Children are not provided with adequate educational services; the medical and mental health services at the facility are substandard; and youth are confined to their cells for at least 20 hours each day. There are still reports of excessive use of restraints, violence, and unsanitary conditions. The totality of conditions and treatment amounts to an unsafe
8

and constitutionally deficient environment that harms children, depriving them of even basic human rights.
30. In addition, YSC does not adequately and safely detain the youth committed to its care. Staff do not protect the children from harm. Physical altercations between children are allowed to continue without intervention by staff.
31. YSC employs insufficient numbers of trained security, program and medical staff. INADEQUATE STAFFING LEVELS AND INADEQUATE TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF STAFF
32. Defendants fail to protect youth at YSC from the constant threat of violence and abuse both by staff and by other youth.
33. The safety and security of youth at YSC are endangered on a daily basis because of the grossly incompetent and inadequate staffing of the facility.
34. Youth at YSC are endangered on a daily basis because of Defendants’ hiring standards, compensation practices, and the lack of training and supervision of its employees. Staff constantly shout, curse, and berate the children at YSC.
ARBITRARY DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES AND IMPROPER USE OF ISOLATION Arbitrary Disciplinary Procedures
35. Defendants subject youth at YSC to a disciplinary system in which punishments are arbitrarily meted out. Punishments given are malicious and without regard to any good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.
9

36. Defendants improperly use isolation, subjecting youth to unduly harsh and oppressive conditions of confinement.
37. Lockdown is the rule rather than the exception at YSC. Defendants regularly and arbitrarily place children in isolation for grossly excessive periods of confinement. Youth, including Plaintiffs, are placed in isolation for 22-23 hours per day for days, and sometimes weeks, at a time. As a result of continuing policies and practices:
a. Defendants regularly place youth at YSC in isolation and lockdown, solely as punishment, for the convenience of staff, or in some instances, as substitute for therapeutic programming.
b. Defendants do not have a procedure by which qualified professionals determine the need for isolation or lockdown or the amount of time necessary or appropriate for isolation.
c. Defendants fail to use isolation only for instances where children pose an immediate threat to the health or safety of themselves or others.
d. Defendants fail to release children from isolation when they have demonstrated that they are in control of themselves.
e. Defendants fail to adequately monitor children in isolation on a regular basis.
f. Defendants fail to provide adequate education, counseling, recreation, or other rehabilitative treatment to children confined in isolation or lockdown.
38. Defendants fail to ensure that prolonged use of isolation does not have adverse psychological consequences on the children. As a result of Defendants’
10

continuing policies and practices of prolonged isolation, children are unconstitutionally confined.
39. Children with mental disabilities are less capable of responding to YSC's disciplinary practices and policies, such as use of isolation.
40. Defendants fail to exclude children with mental illness and other disorders from the prolonged use of isolation. These isolation practices as employed YSC staff constitute cruel and unusual punishment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH CARE
41. Defendants are deliberately indifferent to the serious mental health needs of youth confined at YSC.
42. Defendants fail to assure adequate psychological assessments of children upon admission to YSC. The result is that children with serious psychological illnesses, children who are mentally retarded, or children who are otherwise handicapped or developmentally disabled are detained at YSC with inadequate mental health care.
43. Defendants deny access to medical practitioners qualified to address the mental health problems of youth at YSC by not making available or employing a sufficient number of qualified psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers to counsel and to treat youth.
44. YSC fails to provide a psychiatrist to monitor medications. There is no formal, on-going psychiatric care provided to youth in need of such services.
45. Defendants’ actions and omissions set forth in paragraphs 41 through 44 demonstrate an official policy or custom that manifests a deliberate indifference to the serious mental health care needs of children confined at YSC.
11

INADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE 46. Defendants are deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of youth
confined at YSC. One Plaintiff's treatment for a possible staph infection was delayed for two weeks. After finally receiving medical attention, the Plaintiff was denied proper follow-up treatment at YSC, endangering his health and well-being.
47. Defendants fail to provide youth at YSC with prompt medical care due to significant delays in treatment and insufficient medical staff.
48. Medications are not distributed as prescribed. 49. Staff are not adequately trained to recognize or to respond to health problems, including: situations requiring first aid, mental illness, substance abuse, and suicidal tendencies. Plaintiffs have suffered physical and psychological harm as a result of the inability of such officials to recognize and respond promptly and appropriately to their health problems. 50. Defendants’ actions and omissions set forth in paragraphs 46 through 49 demonstrate an official policy or custom that manifests a deliberate indifference to the serious medical care needs of children detained at YSC. INADEQUATE NUTRITION 51. Defendants fail to ensure that youth receive a nutritionally adequate diet. The lack of nutritional meals is particularly devastating for the physical and mental development of adolescents.
12

52. Youth are provided no fresh fruit or fresh vegetables on a regular basis. They are given only one portion of milk a day. Sometimes youth are provided spoiled milk and disciplined if they refuse to drink it.
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT DEFICIENCIES 53. Defendants fail to provide sanitary facilities. Toilets, showers, and sinks
are not adequately cleaned or disinfected on a regular basis. 54. Youth at YSC are placed in cells that are oppressively small and stark.
Youth sleep on thin mattresses over a metal slab and are provided with inadequate sheets. Ventilation is poor during both summer and winter months.
55. Defendants do not provide youth with adequate personal hygiene items. As a result, children have been required to share certain personal items, endangering their health.
56. Defendants fail to provide adequate clothing and shoes. Youth are regularly forced to wear dirty and worn clothes. Youth are often forced to wear the same outer garments for more than a week.
57. YSC is infested with vermin. Spiders, rodents, and other vermin make the facility unsanitary, endangering Plaintiffs’ health and well-being.
REGULAR EDUCATION INADEQUACIES 58. Defendants do not provide youth with adequate and appropriate,
individualized academic education.
13

59. Defendants fail to adequately test and classify educational needs of youth at YSC. As a result, all youth receive the same “education” by a single teacher who has no access to youths’ prior education records.
60. Defendants fail to provide appropriate learning environments and force teachers to teach and youth to study in overcrowded classrooms.
61. Defendants exceed the state-required student teacher ratio minimum. 62. Defendants fail to ensure that the YSC educational curriculum meets minimum state standards for curriculum development. The quality of instruction is substandard. Reading and writing materials are scarce. Youth complain of not being academically challenged. 63. Defendants fail to provide teachers adequate training and supervision in working with special populations, such as incarcerated youth. There is no comprehensive behavior management program addressing specific needs of children in correctional facilities. Defendants fail to meet state requirements for the minimum minutes of daily instruction. 64. Defendants fail to ensure the minimum minutes of daily instruction for youth isolated from the general population. When youth are disciplined and are on “lockdown,” they are segregated from the rest of the facility and fail to receive educational services. SPECIAL EDUCATION INADEQUACIES 65. Defendants fail to develop and implement policies and procedures to assure that all youth up to twenty-one years of age have access to a free and appropriate public education, including related and transition services.
14

66. Defendants fail to assess youth adequately to determine whether they have special needs and how such special needs can be met. Screening and identification of children to determine eligibility for special education are inadequate and nonexistent.
67. Defendants have failed to develop and implement an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") for children eligible for special education services.
68. Defendants have failed to provide a sufficient number of qualified special education, related services, and transition services personnel at YSC to guarantee that all children in custody eligible for special education receive a free and appropriate public education.
69. Defendants have failed to assure parental involvement or to appoint surrogate parents in the development of IEPs.
70. Defendants deny children at YSC all of the appropriate special education, related services, and transition services for which they are both eligible and in need.
71. Defendants discriminate against qualified disabled children by denying them adequate education, special education and related services, and transition services, thereby punishing them solely by reason of their disabilities.
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMMING INADEQUACIES 72. Defendants fail to provide adequate rehabilitative treatment and
intervention to children confined at YSC. Specifically, as a result of continuing practices and policies:
a. Counseling services are not individualized to meet the rehabilitative goals and needs of the youth.
15

b. Counseling fails to provide adequate child and adolescent developmental treatment to facilitate a child’s maturation and rehabilitation process.
c. Despite serious needs for transitional services, defendants fail to develop adequate aftercare programs to follow-up on a child to assist in his reintegration into his community and to counter potential recidivism.
73. Defendants fail to provide staff with adequate training and supervision to effectively handle youth who are mentally disabled, which discriminates against such youth and diminishes their chances for successful rehabilitation and places them at risk of inappropriate disciplinary measures.
74. Recreation is inadequate. Many youth sit or lie idle in rooms for extended periods of time. Youth confined in this manner suffer deteriorating physical and mental health. This harm is magnified considerably for youths forced to stay in isolation for prolonged periods of time.
FAMILY UNIFICATION & COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION 75. Defendants’ continuing practices and policies place unreasonable and
unnecessary burdens on youth and their ability to maintain contact with their families. 76. Defendants deprive children of their right to communicate and associate
with their families and friends outside of the facility by interfering with and restricting mail, telephone, and visitation communication. This communication is necessary for children’s treatment and rehabilitation and for their eventual reintegration into the community.
16

77. Defendants unnecessarily restrict children’s opportunities for visitation with family and friends.
ACCESS TO COURTS 78. Defendants deny children meaningful access to courts and to counsel. 79. Defendants’ policy and procedure regarding attorney telephone calls
unconstitutionally restricts the ability of children to communicate with attorneys. 80. Defendants further restrict attorney access by restricting the times children
may visit with counsel. One (1) room is available for legal visits, yet if the room is utilized for any other purpose, children may not visit with counsel. As a result, children are unable to initiate contact with counsel and handle legal matters or effectively pursue administrative remedies.
YSC’s GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE DENIES PLAINTIFFS' ACCESS TO COURTS
81. YSC’s grievance procedure creates an unconstitutional barrier to exhaustion of administrative remedies, which is a mandatory prerequisite to suit.
82. The grievance procedure is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite. 83. Defendants have refused to accept grievances when children attempt to submit them. 84. Some grievances have been physically destroyed in the presence of the children. Children have been advised that grievances will be ignored.
17

85. On the claims presented in this Complaint, Plaintiffs have exhausted the administrative remedies provided by the facility, despite its inadequacies.
NECESSITY FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW 86. Defendants have acted and continue to act in violation of the law as
explained above. Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law. As a proximate result of the policies, practices, acts, and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer serious and irreparable physical, psychological, mental, and emotional injuries. KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANTS
87. Defendants are aware of the unconstitutional conditions and the risks of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs enumerated above. Despite Defendants’ knowledge, they are deliberately indifferent to those unconstitutional conditions and the risk of irreparable harm.
88. The conditions of confinement at YSC, and the policies, procedures, and practices established by the Defendants are not rationally related to a legitimate, nonpunitive governmental purpose, and they are excessive in relation to any legitimate purpose that Defendants claim. The actions and inactions are so egregious that they constitute punishment for YSC's pre-trial detainees.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION 89. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all of the above factual allegations to support the following claims:
18

Count I 90. The conditions of confinement at YSC and Defendants’ deliberate indifference to those conditions and their policies and practices in administering and overseeing YSC, considered both individually and in their totality, constitute punishment and a denial of due process in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Count II 91. The conditions of confinement at YSC and Defendants’ deliberate indifference to those conditions and their policies and practices in administering and overseeing YSC, considered both individually and in their totality, constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Count III 92. Defendants’ practice of arbitrarily punishing juveniles at YSC violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Count IV 93. Defendants’ refusal to protect children from harm and otherwise keep them physically safe and secure, violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Eighth
19

Amendment and due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Count V 94. Defendants’ refusal to allow meaningful access to the courts for children at YSC violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the First, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Count VI 95. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the children's serious mental health and medical needs violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Count VII 96. Defendants' failure to provide adequate special education and related services deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and their rights guaranteed by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 29, U.S.C. §794 and regulations promulgated thereunder, of their rights guaranteed them by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133 and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Count VIII
20

97. Defendants' failure to provide adequate psychological assessments, care, and treatment to children with mental disabilities discriminates against them and punishes them solely by reason of their disability in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and regulations promulgated thereunder, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133 and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Count IX 98. Defendants’ failure to provide programming that educates, treats, rehabilitates, and provides aftercare and family reunification violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 99. Defendants’ failure to provide an environment that focuses on rehabilitation and treatment violates Plaintiffs’ state constitutional right to treatment, the denial of such violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:

1.

Assume jurisdiction over this action.

2. Order that this case may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rules

23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

21

3. Declare unconstitutional and unlawful the conditions of confinement and

treatment of children at YSC, as set forth in paragraphs 20 - 99.

4. Declare that the complained actions, omissions, policies, and practices of

Defendants named in paragraphs 20 - 99 violate rights guaranteed to members of

the Plaintiff Class by: i) the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. and its implementing

regulations; ii) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and its

implementing regulations; iii) the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133 and its

implementing regulations; and iv) the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution, and various provisions of the

Louisiana Constitution, Louisiana's Children Code, and other Louisiana law.

5.

Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the continuation of

unconstitutional conditions of confinement and requiring the Defendants, their

successors, agents and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them to

take immediate steps to improve the conditions of confinement and treatment for

youth at YSC and to bring such treatment and conditions to a constitutionally and

statutorily adequate level by ordering the following changes, including but not

limited to: providing youth confined therein with a safe and secure environment;

providing programming and counseling that educates, treats, rehabilitates;

providing adequate medical treatment; providing adequate counseling and mental

health care; providing adequate education and special education as required by the

IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title II of the ADA; providing

adequate visitation and access to materials for maintaining stable family and

community relationships; providing adequate recreation and exercise; providing

22

adequate, nutritious, and sanitary food service; prohibiting illegal and inhumane

isolation practices; prohibiting arbitrary disciplinary practices; ensuring

meaningful access to counsel and legal materials; providing adequate staffing

levels, and staff training and supervision; providing adequate monitoring,

investigation and documentation of alleged abuses; and, improving physical

safety measures and conditions (sanitation and ventilation) which would be in

compliance with acceptable norms and constitutional principles applicable to the

housing of youth in state and city facilities; and implementing a constitutionally

adequate grievance procedure.

6.

Award Plaintiffs the costs of this lawsuit and reasonable attorneys' fees.

7. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief that the Court shall deem

just and proper.

Respectf

ully submitted,

______________________________
Louisiana Juvenile 1600 New
Telephone:

CAROL KOLINCHAK (TA) Bar No.22495
Justice Project of Louisiana Oretha Castle Haley Blvd. Orleans, Louisiana 70113 ckolinchak@jjpl.org
504-522-5437

____ Stephen Sharon
2099 Washington,
Telephone:
si

____________________________ F. Hanlon* Y. Eubanks*
LaKeytria W. Felder* Holland & Knight LLP
Penn. Ave., N.W. Suite 100 D.C. 20005
Stephen.Hanlon@hklaw.com Sharon.Eubanks@hklaw.com
Lakeytria.Felder@hklaw.com 202-955-3000
*Pro Hac Vice motions filed multaneously with Complaint

23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the Complaint was served by United States Mail, by pre-paid postage, on this ___ day of December, 2007, addressed as follows: Penya Moses-Fields City Attorney Law Department, City of New Orleans 1300 Perdido Street Suite 5E03 New Orleans, LA 70112 Office of Legal Counsel Orleans Parish School Board 3510 General DeGaulle Drive New Orleans, LA 70114
____________________________ CAROL KOLINCHAK (TA)
24

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

J.D., L.E., and R.A., minors by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Damefaa Morgan, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated;
Plaintiffs,
v.

CLASS ACTION CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-9755

C. RAYNAGIN, Mayor, City of New Orleans; RICHARD A. WINDER, Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans; MUBARAK A. KAREEM, Social Serviues Coordinator, Department of Human Services, OZZIE WILLIAMS, Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center; DARRYL KILBERT, Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools; and WOODY KOPPEL, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD in their official capacities.
Defendants,

(PROPOSED) FFFCONSENT DECREE CONDITIONS OF CONFP1EMENT CLAIMS
INTRODUCTION

1. Parties. Plaintiff's are members of a certified class of pretrial detainees at the Youth Study Center ("YSC") in New Orleans, Louisiana. On February 6, 2009, the Court certified a Plaintiff Class comprised of all children who are now, or in the future will be, confined at the YSC. The "City Defendants1' arc Defendants C. Ray Nagin, Mayor, City of New Orleans; Richard A. Winder, Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans; Mubarak A. Kareem, Social Services Coordinator, Department of Human Services; and Ozzie Williams, Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center. The "School Board Defendants" arc Defendants Darryl Kilbert, Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools; Woody Koppcl, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and the Orleans Parish School Board ("OPSB"). This Consent Decree is entered into by and between Plaintiffs, the City Defendants, and the School Board Defendants (collectively, the "Parties").

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 16
2. Counsel. Class Counsel for Plaintiffs is comprised of a team of lawyers from the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (JJPL), which is a juvenile justice advocacy organization, and from Holland & Knight LLP, an international private law firm with a long-standing reputation of providing pro bono services to the poor and with decades of experience in civil rights and class action litigation across the United States. The City Defendants are represented by the City Attorneys from the City of New Orleans Law Department, The School Board Defendants are represented by the law firm Bryan & Jupiter, APLC,
3. Lawsuit. More than four years ago, in August 2005, Hurricane Katrina ripped through New Orleans, Louisiana andfloodedover 80% ofthe city. In the aftermath df Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declared the YSC irreparably damaged. On December 21, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the City Defendants and the School Board Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for federal constitutional and statutory violations arising out of the conditions of confinement and educational services provided at the YSC, The City Defendants and the School Board Defendants answered the Complaint, denying that they violated Plaintiffs' federal constitutional and statutory rights, and asserting various affirmative defenses.
4. Settlement Negotiations. Settlement Negotiations. Pursuant to the Court's August 22, 2008 order, the Parties underwent discovery with a target completion date of June 5,2009. While actively pursuing discovery, in May 2009, the City Defendants, the School Board Defendants and Class Counsel began negotiations regarding the implementation of policies and procedures designed to address and remedy the federal constitutional and statutory claims alleged in the Complaint. After a status conference with the Court, the Parties filed, on June 4, 2009, Proposed Settlement Procedures and Proposed Class Notices that outlined the Parties' agreed upon plan to pursue settlement negotiations.
According to the Settlement Procedures, which the Court approved after notice and hearing on June 8,2009, the Parties agreed to mutually retain consultants with expertise in the operation of juvenile detention facilities and in the provision of educational services for detained youth. The Parties further agreed to consult in good faith with the consultants to develop and implement mutually agreed upon remedial plans that include policies and procedures for providing detention services and educational programs to youth detained at the YSC that are in accordance with all applicable constitutional and federal and state statutory standards, noting specifically that the City Defendants deny (hat any constitutional, federal or state, standards have been violated. The Parties agreed that should settlement negotiations prove successful, they would present to the Court a Consent Decree that encompasses the terms of the mutually agreed upon remedial plans relating to the Plaintiffs' conditions of confinement and educational claims.
On August 20, 2009, the Parties were pleased to report that after extensive negotiations that included exceptional work by the Parties' mutually agreed upon expert, Paul DcMuro, the City Defendants proposed major changes to the operations of the YSC that are acceptable to the Plaintiffs. The Parties further reported that the School Board Defendants had implemented some, and stood ready to implement most, of the recommendations proposed by Carol Cramer Brooks,

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 16
the mutually retained Education Consultant, jn a comprehensive plan to overhaul the education program at the YSC. While the City Defendants and the School Board Defendants have denied and continue to deny liability for any and all claims alleged by the Plaintiffs in their Complaint, the settlement negotiations among the Parlies and with the mutually retained experts have resulted in this Consent Decree.
5, Purpose of this Consent Decree. The Parties and Class Counsel now wish to effect a fall, final and complete resolution and settlement of all claims, disputes and controversies relating to the allegations made by the Plaintiffs and to resolve their differences and disputes by settling their controversy in such manner as to: (1) promulgate and implement policies and procedures that improve the operation of the YSC and provide appropriate services to youth detained at the YSC; (2) promulgate and implement policies and procedures that improve educational programming to youth detained at the YSC; (3) achieve improvements in both the conditions of confinement at the YSC and in the educational programming at the YSC in a manner that satisfies all applicable constitutional and federal and state statutory standards; and (4) avoid the uncertainties and costs of further or future litigation.
6. Successors and Assigns. This Consent Decree is binding on all successors, assigns, heirs, administrators and personal representatives of the Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, the City Defendants, and the School Board Defendants.
II. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT OF THIS CONSENT DECREE
This Consent Decree is conditioned upon, and will be effective only upon, the occurrence of all of the following events specified below:
1. Joint Motion. The Parties move for an order granting preliminary approval of this Consent Decree and Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement.
2. Notice and Opportunity to Object. Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, as approved by the Court, is provided to the Plaintiff Class, and class members will have a sufficient opportunity to object to the Court's approval of this Consent Decree by submitting memoranda in opposition within thetimeprescribed by the Court.
3. Fairness Hearing. After reviewing any and all objections that are timely filed, the Court will hold a hearing on a predetermined date and time to decide whether or not to approve this Consent Decree.
4. Court Approval. Final Approval of the Consent Decree and entry of Final Judgment by the Court in accordance with the terms set forth herein, as modified, if necessary, by the Parties in response to any objections raised and addressed during the Fairness Hearing,
5. Waiver of Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees. In the event that the Court approves this Consent Decree, Class Counsel waives any entitlement to claim attorneys' fees and costs

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 4 of 16
incurred in bringing and maintaining Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit up to and including the date of the Court's entry of Final Judgment in this lawsuit.
6. Implementation of Terms of Consent Decree. The City Defendants and the School Board Defendants agree to exercise good faith to implement the terms of this Consent Decree as soon as practicable, and pursuant to the specific dates set forth below, and, in any event, no later than two (2) years from the date of entry of Final Judgment.
HI. TERMS OF CONSENT DECREE (CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CLAIMS)
1. Actions to Address Immediate Concerns. Pursuant to the recommendations proposed by the Parties' mutually agreed-upon expert, Paul DcMuro, who has expertise in the operation of juvenile detention facilities, the City Defendants have agreed to take the following action to address immediate concerns about the conditions of confinement at the YSC:
A- Fire Safety and Prevention
The New Orleans Fire Department inspected plans for the current and projected configuration of the Youth Study Center in July 2009. As part of the inspection of the plans, a senior member of the Fire Department reviewed the entire system offiresafety at the YSC to make recommendations for improvement to the entire fire safety system at the YSC.
The City Defendants agree to:
i. implement all of the recommendations made by the New Orleans Fire Department on or before November 15,2009.
ii. conduct quarterly fire drills during each shift for a rninimum of twelve (12) fire drills per year.
iii. schedule routine inspections of the YSC premises by the State Fire Marshall, as per their regulations, to ensure that the fire equipment is in proper condition.
iv. ensure that the YSC staff receives training in the use of fire extinguishers by the New Orleans Fire Department
v. ensure that the YSC staff is equipped with Tier 2 radio equipment

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 5 of 16
B. Building Safety During construction of the new juvenile detention facility, the City Defendants agree to take (he following immediate actions to safeguard the youth:
i. immediately cordon off construction areas; ii. immediately implement a plan of daily "walk-throughs" with the
construction foreman and a representative of the YSC to note hazards and potentially dangerous conditions; and iii. conduct daily "walk-throughs" during construction of the new juvenile detention facility.
C. Youth Security hi Detention The Parties acknowledge that the ongoing construction of the new detention facility, presents additional security concerns for the youth detained in YSC. Consequently, the use of shackles will be limited to only circumstances where the security and safety of youth is compromised, and the City Defendants agree to take the following immediate actions:
i. Youth will NOT be shackled while being transported within the building unless there is a security reason.
it. When youth are shackled within the building for security reasons, this will be logged and must be approved by the superintendent
iii. Until the perimeter is secured, youth will be shackled when taken to the trailer for visits or sick calls.
iv. When transferring youth outside of the facility or if security in the facility is breached, the City retains therightto use restraints.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 6 of 16
D. Food Service The City Defendants agrees
i. to allow the Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals to routinely inspect the YSC food service area on an annual basis as per its regulations.
ii. That the modular construction will include a separate eating area, as submitted to FEMA, if approved by FEMA.
iii. to comply with ALL state health and licensing standards. iv. to acquire additional refrigeration and freezer capacity.
E. Intake/Admissions Process The City Defendants agree that:
i. new admissions will not be put on lockdown for the first twenty-four (24) hours unless there is a specific security xeason. This reason must be documented and approved.
ii. admissions will be done by only 1 of 2 staff members who will be retrained on the admissions process, including administration of the MAYSI-2 screening form. Such staff members shall also: 1. be retrained on general orientation procedures; 2. be retrained on proper completion of all intake and admission forms; and 3. be retrained on proper administration of the MAYSI-2.
iii. completed MAYSI-2 will be properly filed and, where appropriate, flagged for follow-up.
iY. all new admissions will receive a medical examination within 24 hours of admission, with the exception of youth who are admitted during a weekend.
v. any youth admitted on a weekend will be given a medical examination on the following workday.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 7 of 16
F. Health/Medical Care The City Defendants agree',
i. to inform all staff that they cannot screen a request for medical and/or dental care, but that all requests will be forwarded to Medical Staff.
ii. to retain a Medical Records Clerk who shall assist the medical staff in providing medical care and record keeping.
iii. that staff shall not deny a youth who has requested medical care access to appropriate medical care.
G. Room Confinement The City Defendants agree that.
i. staff shall not order a youth to room confinement for more than eight (8) hours within a 24 hour period.
ii. any room confinement in excess of eight (8) hours within a 24 hour period must be approved by the Supervisor.
iii. in the event that, upon Supervisor approval, a youth is ordered to room confinement for more than eight (8) hours within a 24 hour period, a member of the Medical Staff and/or Counselors must evaluate that youth daily.
H. Air Conditioning/Temperature Control The City Defendants agree that:
i, air conditioning units and the temperature in the school areas will be adequately maintained,
ii. if an air conditioner breaks, the staff shall monitor and document the temperature in the school area and the sleeping areas; fans shall be made available to the youth.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 8 of 16
I, Grievance Policy The Cily Defendants have produced a copy of a new grievance policy to Plaintiffs and such policy has been reviewed and approved by Paul DeMuro. The City Defendants agree:
i. to implement the new grievance policy. ii. to make the new grievance policy part of the Policies and Procedures
Manual for the Youth Study Center.
J, Housing of Girls at Youth Study Center The City Defendants agree that:
i. prior to the delivery and implementation of the modular units, the girls shall be housed in one of the newly renovated class rooms, with appropriate bedding, daytime space and space to store personal items.
ii, the rooms to which the girls shall be moved shall contain window coverings installed for privacy.
iii, when girls are showering on one of the boys' units, all males will be removedfromthe unit to ensure privacy.
K. Administration The City Defendants agree that;
i. Administrative Staff shall be movedfromthe trailer currently being used to a renovated area in the facility itself on or before the completion of the renovations.
L, Outdoor Space The Youth Study Center currently has a seating space for outdoor and fresh air time for youth. The City Defendants agree tot
i. complete the repairs on the outdoor space that is now available on or before January 15,2010.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 9 of 16
2. Actions to Address Short and Mid Term Concerns. The City Defendants agree that in developing policies and procedures to address short and mid-term concerns, the overall goal is reliance on programming andrecreation,and not on lockdown. This emphasis on programming and recreation shall be reflected in the policies and procedures promulgated and implemented by the City Defendants. Pursuant to the recommendations proposed by the Parties' mutually agreed-upon expert, Paul DeMuro, the City Defendants have agreed to take the following action to address the short and mid-term concerns about the conditions of confinement at the YSC:
A. Policies and Procedures
The City Defendants agree to use, as aframework,the policy submitted to the Parties by Paul DeMuro. Youth Study Centex Administration and Staff have reviewed the policies and procedures and made appropriate annotations to same so that it is tailored to the Youth Study Center's needs. The City has contracted with Anne Nelsen, an expert in the field, to assist the City in this endeavor. The first of these annotations were given to Anne Nelsen on July 31, 2009. Ms. Nelsen will assist the City in producing a working draft on or before November 15, 2009.
The City Defendants agree:
I. to contract Anne Nelsen to assist with development of a comprehensive' policies and procedures manual.
ii. that these policies and procedures will be Standard Operating Procedure for the Youth Study Center.
iii. that the Policies and Procedures Manual for the Youth Study Center will be Complete on or before December 31,2009.
iv. to provide Plaintiffs with a copy of the official Policies and Procedures Manual for the Youth Study Center on or before December 31,2009.
v, that the provisions of the official Policies and Procedures Manual for the Youth Study Center shall remain in force for two years, and that the City Defendants may amend such provisionsfromtime lo time only with the Plaintiffs' prior written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
vi. that in the event of a dispute about amendments to the official Policies and Procedures Manual for the Youth Study Center, such dispute shall be submitted to the Court for resolution.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 10 of 16
B. Training The City Defendants agree to obtain a "Needs Assessment"froma nationally recognized association acceptable to Paul DeMuro. Once an assessment is performed, the City Defendants shall have the training performed pursuant to the conclusions of the assessment. This training shall be phased in with the City agreeing to an initial forty (40) hour pre-service training for present and newly hired Counselors and a fifteen (15) hour in-service.training in subsequent years for its Counselors.
The City Defendants agree: i. to implement a training program.
ii. to obtain a Needs Assessmentfrom,a nationally recognized expert in best practices in Juvenile Detention that shall: 1. identify current training needs; and 2. be completed on or before December 31,2009.
iii. that all current staff and new hires shall receive an initial forty (40) hour pre/in-service training as developed through the Needs Assessment.
C, Governance Structure The City Defendants agree to maintain a full-time Superintendent with juvenile justice experience, a fuUtime Assistant Superintendent, and a Social Services Specialist. The Assistant Superintendent shall handle, in addition to other duties, the grievance procedures, as well as supervise the intake and admissions process and daily operations of the facility. The Social Services Specialist shall supervise the counselors' training.
The City Defendants agree: i. to work with me City's Civil Service Commission to develop an action plan on or before the target date of December 31,2009, for the advertisement, recruitment, and hiring of qualified candidates to fill the positions of Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and Social Services Specialist, subject to the conditions of III below. ii. to hire a full time Superintendent on or before the target date of October 1, 2010, subject to the conditions of III below. iii, to hire a full time Assistant Superintendent on or before the target date of October 1, 2010, subject to the conditions of HI below.
10

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 11 of 16
iv. to hire a full time Social Services Specialist on or before the target date of October 1,2010, subject to the conditions of HI below.
v. that the full time Superintendent shall have a background in juvenile justice. vi. that the Assistant Superintendent shall handle such administrative
responsibilities as set out in the Policy and Procedure Manual. vii. to designate one person for each shift as who shall:
1. be responsible for supervising the overall operation of the facility during that shift;
2. conduct walk-throughs of the facility and handle any large scale problem or emergency; and
3. handle intake, grievances and problems on units without any disruption to the operation of the unit.
viii. to designate one person in each unit who shall; 1. monitor adherence to schedule on that unit; 2. supervise all other staff on the unit; 3. be responsible for ensuring that all policies and procedures are adhered to on the unit; 4. be responsible for ensuring that all paperwork, including shift paperwork, is properly completed on the unit; and 5. beresponsiblefor completing the shift paperwork.
D. Professional Services 1. Clinical Director and Social Workers
The City Defendants agree to hire one social worker per unit on or before January 1, 2010. Currently, there are only two units operating, but only one social worker. The City Defendants agree that the first social worker hired shall have a Master's degree in Social Work, and that this social worker shall also officially serve as the "Clinical Director" at the Youth Study Center. When the third modular unit becomes fully operational, the City shall then retain a third social worker for that unit. The other two social workers at the YSC shall work under the Clinical Director's supervision.
11

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 12 of 16
The City Defendants agree, i. to work with the City's Civil Service Commission to develop an action plan on or before the target dale of December 31,2009, for the advertisement, recruitment, and hiring of qualified candidates to fill the positions of social worker and Clinical Director, subject to the conditions of HI below.
ii, to maintain three social workers on staff on or before the completion and operation of new modular units.
iii, that two of the three social workers shall have bachelor level degrees in Social Work.
iv. that one social worker shall have a Masters Degree in Social Work in the field of Behavioral Health.
1. This social worker shall serve as the Clinical Director.
v. that the Clinical Director's responsibilities for monitoring of psychotropic medication, supervising the two other social workers, and coordinating group therapy, individual counseling and other mental health programming, shall be as set forth in the Policy and Procedure Manual.
2. Recreational Specialists
The City Defendants agree to hire one full-time and one half-time dedicated Recreational Specialists to design and implement recreational programming for the youth. Such programming shall include, but is not limited to, outdoor activities, passive recreation, and weekend activities.
The City Defendants agree that: i. they will work with the City's Civil Service Commission to develop an action plan on or before the target date of December 31,2009, subject to the conditions of III below, for the advertisement, recruitment, and hiring of qualified candidates to fill the positions of Recreational Specialists.
ii. the Recreation Specialists shall focus exclusively on recreation programming.
iii. a full-time Recreation Specialist shall be present at the YSC from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 7 days per week.
3. Health Services Staff
12

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 13 of 16
The City Defendants have hired and agree to retain a Records Clerk to assist its present nurse. In addition, the City shall also hire a Medical Assistant to work on Saturdays and four other days during the week. The City shall hire the Medical Assistant on or before the target date of October 1,2010 subject to the conditions of III below. In addition to retaining a Medical Doctor, the City shall hire an additional Doctor to ensure that a Medical Doctor shall be on site at the YSC to care for the youth six days per week, Monday through Saturday, for an hour and a half each day, or until examinations are complete. A Medical Doctor shall be on call for emergencies 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The City Defendants agree that:
. i. they will work with the City's Civil Service Commission to develop an action plan on or before the target date of December 31,2009, subject to the conditions of III below for the advertisement,recruitmentand hiring of qualified candidates to fill the positions of Medical Director, Medical Assistant, and Records Clerk.
ii, an additional doctor shall be hired on a contractual basis on or before the target date of October 1,2010, subject to the conditions of HI below
iii. one of the doctors shall be designated the "Medical Director."
iv. a full-time "Medical Clerk" shall be retained to maintain medical record.
v, a full-time "Medical Assistant" shall be hired on or before the target date of October 1,2010, subject to the conditions of in below, to perform such responsibilities, all as set forth in the Policy and Procedure Manual, with respect to:
i. preparing medications for dispensing;
ii. dispensing medications;
iii. administering shots;
iv. training staff on proper dispensing of medications; and
v. any other duties as assigned by the Medical Di rector,
E. Saner-vision of the Youths/Direct Staff
The City Defendants agree to a Counselor-to-youth, ratio of one-to-eight (1:8) during the first two shifts and a onc-to-ten ratio (1:10) during the night shifts, These staffing patterns will require the City Defendants to hire additional counselors, who will be phased in over time. The modular units will require additional staffing as well.
13

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 14 of 16
F. Capacity of the Youths Housed at Youth Study Center
The City Defendants agree to limit the capacity of juveniles housed at the Youth Study Center to the number of beds in the facility. Presently, there are thirty-two (32) beds available for males, limiting capacity of male juveniles to thirty-two (32) beds and four beds available for females, limiting capacity of female juveniles to four beds. Under no circumstances shall any empty beds for one gender be used to accommodate another gender When the modular units are opened and the maximum number of fifty (50) beds are made available, capacity shall be limited tofiftyyouths.
G. Compliance and Monitoring
The City Defendants agree to hire Paul DeMuro for compliance and monitoring of the terms of this Consent Decree, provided that Mr. DeMuro can be retained on reasonable terms and conditions.
i. Mr. DeMuro shall have reasonable access to the YSC's facilities to monitor compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree.
ii. Mr. DeMuro will conduct compliance and monitoring assessments of the Youth Study Center three times per year.
iii. Mr. DeMuro will report the results of his assessments in writing to the Court and to the Parties.
iv. Thirty (30) days prior tofilinghis quarterly report of his assessments to the Court, Mr. DeMuro shall submit a draft ofhis report to the Parties and allow the City Defendants an opportunity to cure any specified deficiencies noted in the report during such thirty (30) day period. In no event shall this opportunity to cure prevent or unreasonably delay Mr. DeMuro'sfilingof his reports and assessments to the Court.
v. Prior to filing any motion challenging the adequacy of the City Defendants' compliance with, the Consent Decree, Plaintiffs shall first notify counsel for the City Defendants of the alleged noncompliance, and the City Defendants shall, together with Mr. DeMuro, negotiate with Plaintiffs towards an informal resolution.
III. TARGET DATES
The Parties agree that the dates for performance set forth herein are goals that the City Defendants will try in good faith to achieve ("target dates"). Failure to achieve a particular goal by the target date shall not be considered a violation of this Consent Decree unless the City Defendants are not proceeding in good faith to achieve said goal. It is the Parties' intent that all such goals set forth in this
14

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 15 of 16
Consent Decree shall be achieved no later than two years from the date of the Order approving settlement.
ii, The City Defendants have already begun the process of hiring additional staff agreed to in the "Governance" and "Professional Services" sections above. Because all of these positions are Civil Service positions, however, the hiring of such additional staff is an on-going process, which may result in unavoidable delays. Nevertheless, the City will, in good faith, use reasonable diligence to fill these positions on or before the end of the two-year for provided for in Section V below ("Jurisdiction").
IV. SCOPE OF STIPULATED REMEDIES
i. The Parties agree that the stipulated remedies set forth in this Consent Decree are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of Federal rights alleged by Plaintiffs, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of Federal rights alleged by Plaintiffs.
ii. The Parties agree that nothing in this Consent Decree will constitute either an admission of liability or any evidence of liability in ay respects, including but not limited to any individual suits for damages which are presently pending or which will be filed. The parties have entered into this agreement due to uncertainties of trial and to end litigation.
iii. Upon entry of an Order approving the Consent Decree evidencing the agreed upon remedial plan, the Parties agree that all claims, disputes and controversies arising out of this lawsuit shall be completely settled and compromised pursuant to the provisions and the effect of said Order.
V. JURISDICTION
i. The Court retains jurisdiction of this case to enforce the Order approving the terms of this Consent Decree for a time period of two years from the date of the Order approving settlement. At the end of this time period, the Consent Decree evidencing the remedial plan will automatically cease and become null and void, without any Order being required by the Court, except that prior to the expiration of this time period either party may obtain an extension of the twoyear limitation on the Court's jurisdiction over this Consent Decree upon a showing of good cause therefor.
SO ORDERED, this the 12thdaDyaoyf of February, ,22001009.
The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle
15

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 16 of 16

United States District Judge

Steplien F. Hanlon Holland &Kriight LLP Class Counsel

By: C. Q ^ Q Q C t Carol A. Kolinchak Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana Class Counsel

By: Lj]^J f "'

Darffefad Morgan

Plaintiffs' Guardian ad Litem

By:

jJJL

Clare Jupiter

Bryan & Jupiter, APLC

CouwdforjhflSchofi Board Defendants

By: /jllWf^L^A
m Chief Deputy City Attorney Counselfor the City Defendants

4^/7 Date: It,

Date: i p j f r y j p 1

Date: ^M001
Date: A14P

Y^Y^ Date: AS

f

# 8927432 vl

16

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

J.D., L.E., and R.A., minors by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Damekia Morgan, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated;
Plaintiffs,

CLASS ACTION CIVIL ACTION NO, 07-9755

C. RAY NAGIN, Mayor, City of New Orleans; RICHARD A. WINDER, Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans; MUBARAK A. KAREEM, Social Services Coordinator, Department of Human Services, OZZIE WILLIAMS, Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center; DARRYL KILBERT, Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools; and WOODY KOPPEL, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD in their official capacities.
Defendants.

(PROPOSED) CONSENT DECREE EDUCATION CLAIMS
INTRODUCTION
1. Parties. Plaintiff's are members of a certified class of pretrial detainees at the Youth Study Center ("YSC") in New Orleans, Louisiana. On February 6, 2009, the Court certified a Plaintiff Class comprised of all children who are now, or in the future will be, confined at the YSC. The "City Defendants" are Defendants C. Ray Nagin, Mayor, City of New Orleans; Richard A. Winder, Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans; Mubarak A. Karcem, Social Services Coordinator, Department of Human Services; and Ozzie Williams, Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center. The "School Board Defendants" are Defendants Darryl Kilbert, Superintendenl of New Orleans Public Schools; Woody Koppel, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and the Orleans Parish School Board ("OPSB"). This Consent Decree is entered into by and between PlaintifTs and the School Board Defendants (collectively, the "Parties").

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 15
2. Counsel. Class Counsel for Plaintiffs is comprised of a team of lawyers from the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (JJPL), which is a juvenile justice advocacy organization, and from Holland & Knight LLP, an international private law firm with a long-standing reputation of providing pro bono services to the poor and with decades of experience in civil rights and class action litigation across the United States. The City Defendants are represented by the City Attorneys from the City of New Orleans Law Department, The School Board Defendants are represented by the law firm Bryan & Jupiter, APLC.
3. Lawsuit. More than four years ago, in August 2005, Hurricane Katrina ripped through New Orleans, Louisiana and flooded over 80% of the city. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declared the YSC irreparably damaged. On December 21, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the City Defendants and the School Board Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for federal constitutional and statutory violations arising out of the conditions of confinement and educational services provided at the YSC. The City Defendants and the School Board Defendants answered the Complaint, denying that they violated Plaintiffs' federal constitutional and statutory rights, and asserting various affirmative defenses.
4. Settlement Negotiations. Pursuant to the Court's August 22, 2008 order, the Parties underwent discovery with a target completion date of June 5, 2009. While actively pursuing discovery, in May 2009, the City Defendants, the School Board Defendants and Class Counsel began negotiations regarding the implementation of policies and procedures designed to address and remedy the federal constitutional and statutory claims alleged in the Complaint. After a status conference with the Court, the Parties filed, on June 4, 2009, Proposed Settlement Procedures and Proposed Class Notices that outlined the Parties' agreed upon plan to pursue settlement negotiations.
According to the Settlement Procedures, which the Court approved after notice and hearing on June 8, 2009, the Parties agreed to mutually retain consultants with expertise in the operation of juvenile detention facilities and in the provision of educational services for detained youth. The Parties further agreed to consult in good faith with the consultants to develop and implement mutually agreed upon remedial plans that include policies and procedures for providing educational programs to youth detained at the YSC that are in accordance with all applicable constitutional and federal and state statutory standards. The Parties agreed that should settlement negotiations prove successful, they would present to the Court a Consent Decree that encompasses the terms of the mutually agreed upon remedial plans relating to the Plaintiffs' educational claims.
On August 20, 2009, the Parties were pleased to report that the School Board Defendants had implemented some, and stood ready to implement most, of the recommendations proposed by Carol Cramer Brooks, the mutually retained Education Consultant, in a comprehensive plan to overhaul the education program at the YSC. While the School Board Defendants have denied and continue to deny liability for all claims alleged by the Plaintiffs in their Complaint, the settlement negotiations among the Parties and with the mutually retained expert have resulted in this Consent Decree.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 15
5. Purpose of this Consent Decree, The Parties and Class Counsel now wish to effect a full, final and complete resolution and settlement of all claims, disputes and controversies relating to the allegations made by the Plaintiffs and to resolve their differences and disputes by settling their controversy in such manner as to: (1) promulgate and implement policies and procedures that provide appropriate services to youth detained at the YSC; (2) promulgate and implement policies and procedures that improve educational programming to youth detained at the YSC; (3) achieve improvements in the educational programming at the YSC in a manner that satisfies all applicable constitutional and federal and state statutory standards; and (4) avoid the uncertainties and costs of further or future litigation.
6. Successors and Assigns. This Consent Decree is binding on all successors, assigns, heirs, administrators and personal representatives of the Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and the School Board Defendants.
II. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT OF THIS CONSENT DECREE
This Consent Decree is conditioned upon, and shall be effective only upon, the occurrence of all of the following events specified below:
1. Joint Motion. The Parties move for an order granting preliminary approval of this Consent Decree and Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement.
2. Notice and Opportunity to Object. Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, as approved by the Court, is provided to the Plaintiff Class, and class members shall have a sufficient opportunity to object to the Court's approval of this Consent Decree by submitting memoranda in opposition within the time prescribed by the Court.
3. Fairness Hearing. After reviewing any and all objections that are timely filed, the Court will hold a hearing on a predetermined date and time to decide whether or not to approve this Consent Decree.
4. Court Approval. Final Approval of the Consent Decree and entry of Final Judgment by the Court in accordance with the terms set forth herein, as modified, if necessary, by the Parties in response to any objections raised and addressed during the Fairness Hearing.
5. Waiver of Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees. In the event that the Court approves this Consent Decree, Class Counsel waives any entitlement to claim attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing and maintaining Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit up to and including the date of the Court's entry of Final Judgment in this lawsuit,
6. Dismissal of Individual Defendants. Upon the Court's entry of an Order approving this Consent Decree, the individual defendants Darryl Kilbert and Woody Koppel shall be dismissed from the lawsuit; however, the Orleans Parish School Board shall remain a party.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 4 of 15

7. Implementation of Terms of Consent Decree. The School Board Defendants agree to exercise good faith to implement the terms of this Consent Decree as soon as practicable, and pursuant to the specific dates set forth below, and, in any event, no later than two (2) years from the date of entry of Final Judgment,

III, TERMS OF CONSENT DECREE

1. DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE

A.

Staffing

The OPSB shall provide the following staff to deliver educational services at the Youth Study Center:

i, Supervisor/Site Administrator: .5 FTE. The OPSB has appointed Mr. Tyrone Casby as the Supervisor/Site Administrator. Mr, Casby, who has additional administrative duties with the extended day program, shall maintain a daily presence at the Youth Study Center, Monday through Friday, for a minimum of four (4) hours per day.

ii. Clerical: .5 FTE, Currently, clerical duties for the education program are performed by City of New Orleans' staff, the facility nurse. The OPSB shall supply a part time clerical employee in order to improve gathering student information in a timely manner, accessing special and general education records, and reporting release information.

iii. Teachers: The OPSB shall achieve and maintain a teacher/student ratio for General Education students of no greater than one to ten (1:10) no later than two years from the date of the Order approving settlement. The teacher/student ratio for Special Education will comply with Bulletin 1706 of the Louisiana Department of Education. The OPSB shall monitor the daily population of the YSC to maintain this ratio.

(a) Specifically, the OPSB shall provide:

i. Special Education teachers in accordance with Bulletin 1706 of the Louisiana Department of Education;

ii. 2 FTE General Education Teacher with "Highly Qualified" statuses in two of four core subject areas: (1) Mathematics, (2) Language Arts (preference given to reading specialist), (3) Social studies, and (4) Science;

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 5 of 15
iii. 1 FTE Special Education Teacher: The OPSB shall increase from .5 to 1 FTE position;
iv. 1 FTE Paraeducator; and
v. 1 FTE Social Worker: The OPSB shall request that the current social worker conduct behavior-based groups during the school day as part of recreation/social skills rotation in the schedule, Requirement includes three behavior-based groups per school day.
(b) When hiring teaching staff, the OPSB shall make good faith efforts to:
i. assign teachers who meet the "Highly Qualified" standard as identified in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to work at the YSC.
ii. ensure that the YSC teachers teach in their areas of certification.
(c) In addition to the positions listed above, the OPSB shall maintain a cadre of substitute teachers trained in providing educational services to youth in detention settings, available on call as needed.
(d) Currently, there is also an after school and a summer school program funded through Title 1 Neglected and Delinquent Funds. In addition to providing materials and supplies, this funding includes two (2) teachers and two (2) para educators for three (3) hours per day for 135 days (after school) and two (2) teachers for five and one-half (5.5) hours per day for eighteen (18) days (summer). YSC administrators, in consultation with the education staff, have discretion to change their allocation of Neglected and Delinquent Funds in future budget cycles.
(e) Future Planning: The OPSB Supervisor/Site Administrator shall supervise Recovery School District ("RSD") employees at the Youth Study Center and report to the RSD regarding their performance.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 6 of 15
B. Physical Plant
With minor renovations, the existing physical plant provides adequate space for providing educational services at the Youth Study Center. Four of the five classrooms should be assigned to the leaching staff, The observation and storage room between Ms. Acosta's and Ms. Lockett's classrooms should be renovated to accommodate Mr. Casby and school clerical staff, Telephone, fax and Internet service should be available in these rooms,
The City of New Orleans has been notified to wire all school classrooms for wireless Internet or Internet and the renovated office space for Internet, telephone and fax services.
C. Technology
i. There are fifteen computers in the Youth Study Center school program (computers delivered in March 2009). Eight are laptops and docking stations dedicated to utilisation by youth and are currently located in Ms. Acosta's classroom. Five are slightly more powerful laptops currently assigned to Ms. Acosta, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Williams, Ms Edwards, and Mr. Kareem.
ii. The OPSB shall supply an additional eight laptops for student use. The OPSB shall reassign OPSB-supplied computers currently used by YSC staff to students and to the education staff, The OPSB shall cooperate with the City of New Orleans to ensure that appropriate firewalls are installed to prohibit access to certain sites.
iii. The OPSB shall give the clerical position at Youth Study Center's education program access to the OPSB's "Power School" software and any other data collection/case management software used in the OPSB in order to expedite access to and transfer of school records, special education documents, and attendance data.
iv. Future Planning: Education staff shall assess the need for additional technology for instructional use in the classrooms and include these items in future budget cycles. The guiding standard shall be that teachers teaching in detention education programs have equal access to the technologies (hard and software) provided for their public school counterparts.
D. Resources
i. The OPSB shall have the responsibility for supplying the resources (i.e., textbooks, classroom materials, and supplies) required to provide a quality education program in the Youth Study Center, Access to resources shall be comparable to resources available in any OPSB or RSD public school. Once

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 7 of 15
resources are at the Youth Study Center, they shall be equally accessible to all school staff regardless of the district or agency that employs them.
ii. The Parties acknowledge that some of the obligations of the OPSB herein will require the cooperation and consent of both the RSD and the City Defendants. The OPSB agrees to make good faith efforts and use due diligence to obtain same from the RSD and the City Defendants.
E. Schedule
i. Educators at the Youth Study Center shall be required to work the daily time requirement (7 hours/day with 30 minutes for lunch) and the OPSB approved school calendar, The education program at the Youth Study Center shall follow a schedule that includes:
(a) Two 30 minute staff meetings per school day;
(b) Three 90-minute instructional blocks per school day, including a 90-minute rotation of behavior management training/recreation per student, per school day, The City of New Orleans Youth Study Center recreation staff and social worker shall provide recreation and behavior management instruction. This is a continuation of existing practice. Instructional blocks of 90 minutes shall be divided into two core content areas based on teacher certification areas;
(c) Two 45 minute instructional blocks per school day; and
(d) A total instruction time of 360 minutes (6 hours) per student, per day.
ii. OPSB staff shall work in partnership with Youth Study Center staff to develop processes to provide education services to youth segregated from the general population for medical, security, or behavioral reasons, as soon as the safety and security concern has subsided.
iii. When the number of students in attendance on a school day declines (e.g., due to court appearances or releases) teachers not needed for instruction may complete and analyze assessments, work with individual students to develop a Student Education Plan ("SEP"), contact receiving schools and institutions to prepare for a Youth Study Center youth's arrival, or to check on recently released residents. Clerical staff and the paraeducator should coordinate the required phone calls.
iv. Unless otherwise noted on a youth's Individual Education Plan ("IEP"), special education services shall include pullout services, inclusion services (team teaching, providing individual assistance in the regular education classroom) and teacher consultant services (working with teachers to provide

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 8 of 15
recommendations for working with special education students in the regular education classroom). v. Beginning August 2009, the OPSB and the RSD shall work to identify potential funding sources to support a year-round school program at the Youth Study Center for implementation as soon as feasible.
vi, Future Planning: OPSB School Supervisor/Site Administrator shall monitor and appropriately respond, on a daily basis, to changes in population and housing status, for compliance with teacher/student ratios, caseload size for special education teachers, and classroom space.
2. PREPARATION AND TRAINING FOR STAFF
A, Training Provided The OPSB shall provide to the education staff at the Youth Study Center training and professional development specific to teaching in a detention facility. The OPSB shall provide for training in the following areas:
i. Safety and Security (including facility policies and procedures); ii. Behavior Observation and Recording;
iii. Understanding the Juvenile Justice System;
iv. Managing Mentally 111 Youth; v. Suicide Prevention; vi. Behavior and Classroom Management;
vii. Understanding the Learning Styles of At-Risk and Delinquent Youth; viii. Experiential-Based Education; and
ix. Evidence-Based Behavior Training Programs.
3. PARTNERSHIP WITH JUVENILE COURT, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS YOUTH STUDY CENTER STAFF, AND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
A. General Principles The education staff of the Youth Study Center shall seek to develop working partnerships with the juvenile court, facility staff and public school entities. To achieve the vision of the Youth Study Center's education program, education staff shall make good faith

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 9 of 15
efforts to help each youth develop a student education plan for addressing their future academic needs.
B. Partnerships with the Juvenile Court and the YSC Supervisor
Accurate completion of this plan depends on effective and timely communication between probation staff from the juvenile court and Youth Study Center education staff regarding recommendations for the youth's future placement. The Youth Study Center education Supervisor/Site Administrator shall make the initial contact with representatives from the juvenile courts to create a viable process for obtaining the required information.
C. Partnerships with the YSC Facility Staff
Critical to the effectiveness and quality of the education program is the partnership developed with the YSC facility staff. The YSC facility staff shall transport youth in a timely manner so that education staff can meet the mandated instructional time. While youth are in school, YSC facility staff shall be assigned to classrooms to assist in monitoring youth behavior and maintaining a safe and secure environment. Education staff shall continue these practices.
D. Partnerships with the School Districts and YSC Staff
Equally important in the vision to assist in the successful transition of youth to the public school system is the development of a mutually respectful relationship between staff and administration in the public schools, including RSD, the School Board, and the Youth Study Center's education program. The OPSB shall create a process to increase the opportunity for successful transition.
E. Future Planning
The education staff shall work with the YSC staff to develop a single behavior management program that combines strategies to increase appropriate behaviors, decrease inappropriate behaviors, and teach self-monitoring behaviors.
4. EDUCATION PROGRAM
A, Enrollment
Clerical staff shall enroll youth into the Youth Study Center education program no later than the first school morning following detainment into the Youth Study Center, or in the case of extenuating circumstances, as soon as possible thereafter. The Education staff shall implement processes and partnerships with RSD and other school districts to;

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 10 of 15
i. notify previous school of youth's enrollment at the Youth Study Center;
ii, determine existing eligibility for special education;
iii. request any available educational history, i,e, credits earned, current schedule, suspensions, expulsions, etc. and current special education documents; and
iv, document findings in youth's academic record and OPSB data base.
B. Information Gathering and Assessment of Basic Skills
Education program staff shall gather information by interviewing the youth regarding educational history, educational goals, existing support systems, among other things. Following the interview, the youth shall complete a basic skills assessment using the computer based A+ assessment program. A+ is a self-administered assessment that provides information on current reading comprehension and math skills.
C. Creating the Student Education Plan (SEP)
Youth shall create their Student Education Plan (SEP) within one week of enrollment in the Youth Study Center education program. The SEP shall contain, among other things, future goals, tasks to achieve the goals, and development of a support team. Education staff shall use all or some of the following sources of information to work with the youth to develop the SEP:
i. Youth interview;
ii. Results of the A+ assessment;
iii, Previous school records;
iv. Interview with staff from previous school;
v. Information from Juvenile Court; and
vi. Interview with parent/guardian (Interview is conducted only after approval from the Juvenile Court personnel who are more aware of the family environment).
D. Communicating basic assessment information and contents of the SEP
Youth Study Center education staff shall participate in a daily Admit/Assessment Review meeting. During this meeting, staff shall communicate to all education staff, basic assessment information, relevant educational history, and the contents of the SEP (when complete) for all youth admitted to the school program that day. Teachers shall plan future learning activities for each youth based on the results of the assessment and skills required for successful transition to their next placement.
10

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 11 of 15
E. General Education Services
General education services shall be available to all eligible youth admitted to the Youth Study Center. There are two (2) general education teachers providing instruction in their certified content area. In order to maintain accountability, attempt some continuity with the public school instruction, and meet the learning challenges of the detention population, teachers shall:
i. Adopt the Louisiana Department of Education's state comprehensive curriculum for use in teaching the core subject areas including Mathematics, Language Arts, Reading, Social Studies, and Science.
ii. Consult median grade level district Pacing Guides to define weekly plans. Because youth do not get detained in the Youth Study Center for academic deficits, but rather for inappropriate behaviors and poor decision-making, the education program must also include in its curriculum instruction on teaching successful school behaviors and social skills. Cognitive Behavior Training is an excellent example of an evidence-based curriculum.
iii. Submit weekly lesson plans each Friday to the Supervisor/Site Administrator for approval. Lesson plans shall be written pursuant to the OPSB approved lesson plan format (or an agreed upon version that includes the components necessary to complete the learning cycle). Lesson plans shall be written for the median grade levels (currently, 7/8 and 9/10) and shall include lesson enhancements for youth that test above or below the median grade level. Teachers shall use the youths' SEPs, assessment results, educational history and goals when formulating learning objectives and lesson plans.
iv. Demonstrate understanding of the learning styles of at-risk and delinquent youth and, subsequently, the inclusion of a variety of instructional strategies in each lesson to address those learning needs. The Supervisor/Site Administrator should review lesson plans with multiple teaching strategies as a basic criteria.
v. Per state legislation, OPSB Curriculum Staff shall proctor the annual LEAP test for eligible youth in residence at the Youth Study Center.
vi. Provide the Juvenile Court, sending and receiving schools, receiving institutions, youth, and parents with a summary of the youth's academic and behavioral progress made while the youth was enrolled in the Youth Study Center's education program.
vii, Actively participate in the teacher evaluation process, including daily Student Academic Reviews, quarterly formal observations, and annual teacher evaluations. The Supervisor/Site Administrator is responsible for completing staff evaluations.
11

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 12 of 15
F, Special Education Services
The special education provider, with support from the OPSB Department of Exceptional Children's Services shall:
i. create and implement a process for Child Find activities at the Youth Study Center.
ii. identify youth previously identified as eligible for special education services and implement—to the extent possible—that youth's existing IEP;
iii, develop new lEP's for youth eligible for special education services that have an expired IEP.
iv. develop an IEP for youth whose length of stay at the Youth Study Center has exceeded thirty (30) days.
v. coordinate with the OPSB Department of Exceptional Children's Services to complete the evaluation process for youth identified through Child Find and for youth in need of a multi-disciplinary evaluation. The OPSB Department of Exceptional Children's Services shall assign staff to conduct evaluations as part of their regular rotation to school sites. The team from the OPSB assigned to complete evaluations for youth at the Youth Study Center shall include, but not be limited to a: psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, and medical doctor.
vi. provide services to youth as identified in their IEP's (across the continuum of special education services). The OPSB Department of Exceptional Children's Services shall assign staff to perform related services at the Youth Study Center as part of their regular rotation to school sites.
vii. provide opportunities for all mandated individuals, including parents, to be actively involved in the special education process.
viii. identify and connect youth in need of transitional services with the service providers prior to release from the Youth Study Center.
5. EXIT UPON ENTRY
A. Supportive Release
The OPSB shall work with facility and court staff to develop processes to connect youth to critical services, including educational services, medical and mental health services, prior to their release. Examples of supportive release strategics from the education perspective include, but are not limited to:
12

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 13 of 15
i. Portfolio of student work; ii. Student Education Plans; iii. Court report outlining successes while attending Youth Study Center's
education program; iv. Educational credit history report; v. Contact person at the receiving school; vi. Appointment set with receiving school for day following release; vii. Schedule for the new school prior to release; viii. Follow-up on youth pursuant to a regular schedule and according to specific
release criteria (i.e., follow up on all students released to Booker T. Washington, every Friday); ix. Transportation (only as part of exceptional circumstances); and x. Assistance with forms and bureaucracy. B. Alternative Pathways to Graduation When appropriate, confinement educators shall help youth gain access to the General Education Diploma (GED) process and to similar programs after their release from YSC. C. Court Reports and Educational Information i. Teachers shall provide youths or the Juvenile Court with reports of the youth's progress while detained in the Youth Study Center, prior to the youth's court appearances. Such reports should include academic and behavioral progress, results of the A+ assessment (if it is determined that the results are an accurate reflection of the youth's level), and the youth's SEP. ii. Prior to release, education staff shall contact the receiving school to provide critical information for a seamless transition of services. Critical information shall include results of the A+ assessment (if it is determined that the results are an accurate reflection of the youth's level), a work sample, specifically a writing sample, and the youth's SEP. iii. Upon release, the school clerical staff shall close out the youth's academic file. Records shall be kept for the length of time required by Louisiana state law.
13

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 14 of 15

6. COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING
The School Board Defendants shall hire Carol Cramer Brooks for compliance and monitoring of the terms of this agreement.
i. Ms. Brooks shall have reasonable access to the YSC's educational facilities to monitor compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree.
ii. Ms. Brooks shall conduct compliance and monitoring assessments of the Youth Study Center three times per year,
iii. Ms. Brooks shall communicate the results of her assessments in writing to the Parties and to the Court.

7. IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT
The School Board Defendants agree to exercise good faith to implement this agreement as soon as practicable and, in any event, no later than two years from the date of entry of this Consent Decree.

8. SCOPE OF STIPULATED REMEDIES
The Parties agree that the stipulated remedies set forth in this Consent Decree are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of Federal rights alleged by Plaintiffs, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of Federal rights alleged by Plaintiffs.

9. JURISDICTION
i. The Court retains jurisdiction of this case to enforce the Order approving the terms of this Consent Decree for a time period of two years from the date of the Order approving settlement.
ii. Either party may obtain an extension of the two-year limitation on the Court's jurisdiction over this Consent Decree upon a showing of good cause therefor.

SO ORDERED, this the 12th day of February, 2010.

SO ORDERED, this the ___ day of

, 2009.

The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle United States District Judge
14

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 15 of 15

:EstbLdww
Stephen F. Hanlon Holland & Knight LLP Class Counsel
By: C, 0 Pt^kOQQ
Carol A, Kolinchak Juvenile Jjastice project of Louisiana Clask Coihsel
By: / / / y V y / ^ f /--—~~~ fanTelcia MorgaV Plaintiffs' Guardian ad Lit<
By: O^ZSX^.^^
Clare Jupiter Bryan & Jupiter, APLC Counselfor the School Board Defendants

Date: /oM&/ai
Date: J ^ W P <\
Date MMiWl
Date: 9)4- Si. 3fffj

#8924448 vl

15

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

J.D., L.E., AND R.A., MINORS VERSUS C. RAY NAGIN, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-9755 SECTION B(4)

ORDER AND REASONS On February 4, 2009, the Court held oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. (Rec. Doc. 146). The motion is opposed. (Rec. Doc. 151). After review of the pleadings and applicable law, and for the reasons that follow, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Rec. Doc. 146) is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND This is a civil action brought by minors J.D., L.E., and R.A., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Damekia Morgan, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Named Plaintiffs are minors who were in custody at the Youth Study Center (“YSC”) in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Plaintiffs seek class certification for all children who are now or in the future will be confined at YSC.1 YSC is presently operating in a fifty year old facility that was
1 The “now” in children who are now or in the future will be confined seems to apply to those children who were confined at the time the suit was filed, December 21, 2007. At least one of the named Plaintiffs, J.D. has since been released.
1

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 2 of 24
damaged after Hurricane Katrina and is awaiting demolition. (See Rec. Doc. 151 at 2). Defendants claim that there are plans to build a new facility. According to YSC officials, YSC holds a maximum of 20 boys and 12 girls. All the current juveniles under detention at YSC are African-American males. The population at YSC is constantly changing as youth are detained, committed, transferred, or released. In 2008, more than 400 children had been detained at the YSC. (See Affidavit of Dana Kaplan, Rec. Doc. 1465).
Plaintiffs allege a variety of constitutional and state violations by those responsible for running the YSC and administering education and rehabilitation programs at the facility.2 Plaintiffs assert civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and allege that the children detained at YSC are being denied rights protected by the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also allege violation by Defendants of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; Individual with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1401; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133; and various provisions of the Louisiana Constitution, Louisiana’s
2 Defendants include C. Ray Nagin, Mayor of the City of New Orleans; Richard Winder, Director of the City of New Orleans Department of Human Services; Mubarek Kareem, Social Services Coordinator of New Orleans Department of Human Services; Ozzie Williams, Acting Supervisor of YSC; Darryl Kilbert, Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools; Phyllis Landrieu, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and Orleans Parish School Board.
2

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 3 of 24
Children Code, and other Louisiana law. Plaintiffs’ allegations consist primarily of claims of poor confinement conditions; inadequate staffing, supervision, and training; arbitrary disciplinary procedures and improper use of isolation; failure to provide mental health care; inadequate medical care, nutrition, education, and rehabilitative programming; unreasonable barriers for family unification and community integration; and denial of meaningful access to court and counsel through YSC policies and procedures.
Poor confinement condition claims include allegations of poor ventilation, small, dark cells, unsanitary conditions, presence of spiders, rodents, and other vermin, and failure to provide youth with personal hygiene items and adequate clean clothing and shoes. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to protect the youth at YSC from the threat of violence and abuse by staff and other children and also contend that children are subject to shouting, cursing, and berating by staff members. (Compl. at ¶ 34, Rec. Doc. 1).
With respect to arbitrary disciplinary procedures, Plaintiffs assert that youths are isolated for grossly excessive periods of time (22-23 hours per day) and that no procedure exists by which qualified professionals determine the need and length of isolation or “lockdown.” Plaintiffs further allege that isolation and “lockdown” are used for the convenience of staff and in some instances, in place of therapeutic programming. Plaintiffs further
3

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 4 of 24
allege that isolated children are not adequately monitored or provided adequate education, recreation, or counseling. Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants’ continuing policies and practices have failed to ensure that prolonged use of isolation does not have adverse psychological consequences and have failed to exclude children with mental illness and other disorders from the prolonged use of isolation, which may constitute cruel and unusual punishment for such children. 3
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants are “deliberately indifferent” to the mental health and medical needs of the youth. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to assure adequate psychological assessments, denied access to medical practitioners, and failed to provide a psychiatrist to monitor medications. (Compl. at ¶¶ 41-44, Rec. Doc. 1). Plaintiffs further assert that youth at YSC are not provided prompt medical care and that staff do not distribute medications as prescribed and are ill-trained and unable to recognize or respond adequately to the children’s medical needs. Id. at ¶¶ 46-49. Plaintiffs also claim that youth fail to receive a nutritionally adequate diet and are not regularly provided fresh fruit or vegetables. Plaintiffs assert that youth are given only one portion of milk a day and that the milk is
3 See Rec. Doc. 1 at 9-11 for more specific allegations surrounding Plaintiffs’ claims of arbitrary disciplinary procedures and improper use of isolation.
4

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 5 of 24
sometimes spoiled.4 Id. at ¶¶ 51-52. Regarding Plaintiffs’ claims of inadequate education and
rehabilitative programming, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants do not provide youth with adequate and appropriate individualized academic education, including special needs determination and failure to develop and implement Individualized Education Programs (“IEP”) for eligible children. Plaintiffs assert overcrowded classrooms in violation of the state mandated student/teacher ratio and claim that all YSC youth receive the same education from a single teacher who is without access to prior education records. Other inadequate education claims include failure to ensure the state requirements regarding minimum minutes of daily instruction5 and curriculum development standards.
Rehabilitative programming inadequacy claims include failure to provide adequate and individualized child and adolescent developmental treatment and counseling services, inadequate recreation, and insufficient transitional services and aftercare and follow-up programs. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants’ continuing practices and policies place unreasonable and unnecessary burdens on youths’ ability to maintain contact with their families by interfering with and restricting mail, telephone,
4 Plaintiffs also claim that youth may be disciplined if they refuse to drink the spoiled milk. 5 In addition to claims that the general population does not receive the minimum minutes of daily instruction, Plaintiffs also point out that students on “lockdown” simply fail to receive educational services.
5

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 6 of 24
and visitation. Finally, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants deny youth meaningful access to court and counsel and allege that Defendants’ policies restrict the ability of children to communicate with attorneys by restricting attorney visitation time and providing only one room for legal visits.6 Plaintiffs further assert YSC’s grievance procedure, which requires exhaustion of administrative remedies as a prerequisite to suit, is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have refused to accept grievances when children attempt to submit them and that some grievances have been physically destroyed in the presence of the children. Youth have also allegedly been advised that grievances will be ignored. (Compl. at ¶¶ 78-84, Rec. Doc. 1).
Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are aware of the allegedly unconstitutional conditions and risks of irreparable harm to the children confined at YSC and contend that Defendants have and continue to act in violation of the law. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and other and further relief that the Court shall deem just and proper and move this Court for class certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The remainder of the proposed class consists of present and future children detained at YSC.
6 Plaintiffs note that if this one room is being utilized for some other purpose, children may not visit with counsel.
6

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 7 of 24
Plaintiffs argue that this Court certify the proposed class because the case meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rules 23(a) and (b)(2). They argue that the prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation have all been met. Citing Jones v. Diamond, 519 F. 2d 1090, 1097 (5th Cir. 1975), Plaintiffs assert that class action suits have been a traditional vehicle for challenging system-wide violations in prisons and detention facilities and argue that federal Courts in this and other judicial circuits have routinely authorized such cases to proceed as class actions on behalf of all prisoners confined in those institutions. See e.g., Monmouth County Correctional Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 328 (3d Cir. 1987); French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1251 (7th Cir. 1985); Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 986 (3d Cir. 1983). Plaintiffs argue that numerosity is satisfied because the rapid turnover and the inclusion of future detainees make joinder impracticable.
Plaintiffs assert that the commonality test is met when there is at least one issue, the resolution of which, will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members. See Mullen, 186 F.3d at 625 (quoting Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, 118 F.3d 421, 426 (5th Cir. 1997)). Plaintiffs argue that commonality is satisfied in the present case because all class members are children detained at YSC who are subject to the same policies, practices, and conditions of confinement and that the legal issues
7

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 8 of 24
raised by each class member’s challenge to YSC’s policies, practices, and conditions are identical.
Plaintiffs argue that typicality is satisfied because the claims of both named and unnamed class members arise from the same practice or course of conduct and are based on the same legal theory and that relief sought by the named Plaintiffs and putative class members is the same. Similarly, Plaintiffs argue that adequacy of representation is also satisfied because the named Plaintiffs have the same claims and seek the same remedies as the class as a whole; therefore there is no conflict of interest between named Plaintiffs and other members of the class.
Plaintiffs also assert that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are satisfied because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, making appropriate injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Plaintiffs assert that Rule 23(b)(2) class actions are particularly common and appropriate in prison and jail lawsuits in which the issues involved are applicable in the same manner to each member of the class. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that class certification “takes on heightened importance” in pre-adjudication detention contexts like YSC because of the likelihood of mootness because of the fluidity of the population, transfers, and release. (Rec. Doc. 146-2 at 15). See also Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 (1975); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S.
8

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 9 of 24
393, 403 (1975); Jones, 519 F.2d at 1097-98; Santiago v. City of Philadelphia, 72 F.R.D. 619 (E.D. Pa. 1976)(granting motion to certify class brought by 17 juveniles on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, challenging the conditions of confinement and treatment at the Youth Study Center).
Finally, Plaintiffs contend that the proposed class counsel, Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (“JJPL”) and international private law firm Holland & Knight, LLP, will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and thus satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements of Rule 23. They assert that Plaintiffs have failed to establish numerosity, common character, typicality, or adequate representation. Further, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the class definition is logical and that the individual plaintiffs are indeed members of the class sought to be certified.
Among Defendants' strongest arguments is that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is not logical or definable. They submit that the entire YSC building is awaiting demolition, with 17 million dollars set aside to build a new, state of the art facility. Defendants highlight the problem with establishing a class which contains future youth who will be confined at YSC and argue that it is unfair to include in the same class youth who were confined at YSC
9

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 10 of 24
shortly after Hurricane Katrina with future residents who will be in a state of the art facility.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot show that they meet the requirement of numerosity. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of numerosity for each subclass but Defendants do not argue that subclasses are necessary for class certification.7 Defendants also assert that counsel for Plaintiffs go through the YSC daily and so there is no reason to believe potential members would not be able to be reasonably identified and joined. Defendants further argue that there may not necessarily be numerosity because not every inmate who passes through YSC has complaints.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims do not have a common character with the proposed class. Defendants erroneously assert that under Rule 23(a)(2) and (3), the potential class members must have in common questions of both law and fact. Defendants argue that the impact of the conditions of confinement would have to be established individually due to the “wide variety of claims” and the “inherently different physical and mental characteristics of each detainee.” (Rec. Doc. 151 at 12). Defendants assert that typicality is not satisfied because the class representatives have
7 Defendants cite In re Fema Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation, 2008 WL 5423488 (E.D. La. 2008), for support of their subclass argument. However, Defendants’ argument on this issue is unclear and the facts of In re Fema Trailer differ significantly from the present case.
10

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 11 of 24
not together suffered the entire range of injuries alleged. Similarly, Defendants claim that named Plaintiffs are not adequate representatives of the proposed class because Plaintiffs’ claims are neither common nor typical and “do not represent a crosssection of the claims of all purported class members.”8
Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims satisfy neither the predominance nor superiority requirements under Rules 23(b)(1) and (b)(3). However, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is asserted under Rule 23(b)(2), which Defendants do not directly address. The only argument that Defendants assert that may apply to Rule 23(b)(2) is that due to the differences among members, there is no pattern of action or regulatory set of practices that affects all of the members of the purported class. Defendants conclude their argument by urging the Court to consider the Uniform Class Actions Act and cite provisions from said Act that simply repeat statutory and case law provisions previously evaluated by both parties. Defendants neither specifically argue the Uniform Class Actions Act, assert how the Act would additionally influence the evaluation of the motion to certify class, nor cite cases for interpretation and application of the Act.
8 Defendants reference Exhibit 1, a chart they produced categorizing the types of claims and the claims of detained children who have been deposed or were scheduled to be deposed.
11

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 12 of 24
DISCUSSION Mootness
Consideration of class certification begins with an examination of mootness. The proposed class consists of all children who are now, or in the future, will be confined at the YSC. As noted by Defendants, the named Plaintiffs and several potential class members who have been deposed have been released from YSC. The Fifth Circuit, recognizing the Supreme Court’s discussion of the issue in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), held that mootness is an illusory issue in class certification proceedings involving pretrial detention because it falls within the mootness exception of claims that are “capable of repetition, yet evad[e] review.” Jones v. Diamond, 519 F.2d 1090, 1097 (5th Cir. 1975). In fact, the temporary nature of pretrial detention, in which a person could “suffer repeated deprivations” but be released before his claim was fully adjudicated, makes such cases suitable for class certification. Id. In such situations, “it is certain that other persons similarly situated will be detained under the allegedly unconstitutional procedures” and “the constant existence of a class of persons suffering the deprivation is certain.” Id. at 1097, 1098; see also Santiago v. City of Philadelphia, 72 F.R.D. 619, 623-24 (E.D. Pa 1976). Rule 23(a)
In order for a case to be certified as a class action,
12

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 13 of 24
plaintiffs must satisfy the four prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and one of the conditions of 23(b). Subsection 23(a) requires that class representatives demonstrate:
(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.
Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) allows a class action to be maintained if the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Rule 23's numerosity requirement requires examination of the specific facts of each case and imposes no absolute limitations. General Tel. Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 446 U.S. 318 (1980). To satisfy the numerosity prong, “a plaintiff must ordinarily demonstrate some evidence or reasonable estimate of the number of purported class members,” and some courts have denied class certification in which the plaintiffs included fewer than 45 people. Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F.2d 1030, 1038 (5th Cir. 1981). However, Courts have also held that relatively small amounts of plaintiffs can also satisfy the numerosity requirement and Courts in the Fifth Circuit have not required evidence of exact class size or identity of class members to satisfy the numerosity requirement
13

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 14 of 24
and there is no set number above or below which a class is considered to have or have not satisfied the numerosity requirement. See Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, 186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, “Rule 23(a) must be read liberally in the context of civil rights suits,” and “smaller classes are less objectionable where the plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief on behalf of future class members as well as past and present members.” Jones, 519 F.2d at 1099, 1100.
More important than estimated numbers is whether joinder of all the proposed members of the class is impracticable. The Fifth Circuit has found the inclusion of future members in the class definition a factor to consider in determining whether joinder is impracticable. In Jack v. American Linen Supply Co., the Court noted that “[t]he alleged class ... include[d] unnamed, unknown future ... [members] who will be affected by ... discriminatory policies, and joinder of unknown individuals is certainly impracticable” and weighs in favor of certification. See Pederson v. Louisiana State University, 213 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 2000).
As in Jones v. Diamond, the YSC class would contain the three named Plaintiffs who were confined at the facility at the time suit was filed, as well as all present youth confined at the facility and youth who may in the future be confined at YSC. Each year, hundreds of children are detained at YSC. In 2008, more than 400 children were detained at the Youth Study Center. (See Affidavit
14

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 15 of 24
of Dana Kaplan, Rec. Doc. 146-5). However, at any one time, the facility can hold only around thirty youth. The mere fact that the population of the YSC is constantly revolving during the pendency of litigation renders any joinder impractical. Moreover, individual litigation would impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs, defendants, and the judicial system.
Defendants argue that there may not necessarily be numerosity because not every inmate who passes through YSC has complaints. They also assert that perhaps this Court should not consider the inclusion of future youth who will be confined at YSC because it is scheduled to move to a state of the art facility. However, such an argument ignores the complaints of inadequate education -- failure to provide youth with adequate and appropriate individualized academic education or the alleged deliberate indifference to the medical needs of the youth caused in part by lack of staff. A yet to be built state of the art facility will not address all of the alleged constitutional, federal law, and state law violations complained of by the proposed class. The mere fact that the proposed class contains future members illustrates that the plaintiff class is not easily identifiable, and obstacles exist that hamper joinder of all potential class members. Thus, the numerosity requirement is satisfied.
Commonality Rule 23(a)(2) allows a class action to be maintained if there 15

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 16 of 24
are questions of law or fact that are common to the class. A common question is one which, when answered as to one class member, is answered to all. Defendants erroneously assert that under Rule 23(a)(2) and (3), the potential class members must have in common questions of both law and fact and that there is no common character because "different members of the class were impacted differently." (Rec. Doc. 151 at 14-15). However, the test for commonality is not demanding and is met “where there is at least one issue, the resolution of which will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members.” Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999); Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, 118 F.3d 421, 426 (5th Cir. 1997). The commonality requirement does not require that the class members’ claims be identical, but only that they raise an issue subject to generalized proof such that a class action would be an efficient and economical mechanism for resolving them. As the Fifth Circuit held in Walker v. Jim Dandy Co., 638 F.2d 1330, 1336 (5th Cir. 1981), “[a]lthough there need not be identity of claims, there must be common elements of law or fact such that the class action would be an economical way of prosecuting and defending claims.”
In the present case all class members are children detained at YSC. Despite Defendants' contentions, all are subject to the same policies, practices, and conditions of confinement just as the prisoners in Jones v. Diamond and the children in Santiago v. City
16

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 17 of 24

of Philadelphia.

The violations of federal and state law

constitute the factual core of each member’s claim. The legal

issues raised by each class member’s challenge to YSC’s practices,

policies, and conditions are identical. The resolution of the

problems complained of will affect all or a significant number of

the class members. Thus commonality is satisfied.

Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) allows a class action to be maintained if the

claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the

claims or defenses of the class. Like commonality, the test for

typicality is not demanding, “focus[ing] on the similarity between

the named plaintiffs' legal and remedial theories and the theories

of those whom they purport to represent.” Lightbourn, 118 F.3d at

426.

In the present case the legal theories advanced and relief

sought by the named Plaintiffs and putative class members are the

same. At the core of this suit are allegations that Defendants

have violated Plaintiffs’ First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendment constitutional rights by the conditions of confinement,

lack of medical or mental health care, and excessive use of

isolation for the pretrial detainees. There are no fundamental

factual differences between the circumstances of the named

Plaintiffs and the other putative class members. Each member of

the class is or will be detained at the YSC for some period of time

17

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 18 of 24
and will be subjected to the same conditions, rules, and policies. Defendants argue that typicality cannot be met because "each
and every day post-Katrina brings more improvements to the YSC facility and a brand new facility is in the works." (Rec. Doc. 151 at 16). Defendants submit that each Plaintiff and proposed class representative spawns individual issues related to injury and causation. However, some of the violations stem from excessive use of isolation and inadequate medical and mental health care. These circumstances described and the remedies sought are shared by all proposed class members. Structural improvements or even a new facility will not extinguish most, much less all, of the constitutional violations addressed in the complaint. Moreover, the typicality requirement focuses less on the relative strength of the named and unnamed plaintiffs' cases than on the similarity of the legal and remedial theories behind their claims. Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc. 782 F. 2d 468 (5th Cir. 1986). Therefore, the typicality requirement is met. Adequacy of Representation
The last requirement of Rule 23(a) is that the representative party fairly and adequately protects the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). “The ‘adequacy’ requirement looks at both the class representatives and their counsel.” Jenkins, 782 F.2d at 468. The adequate representation requirement for certification of class mandates inquiry into: (1) zeal and
18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 19 of 24
competence of representative's counsel; and (2) willingness and ability of representative to take active role in and control litigation and to protect interests of absentees. Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 257 F.3d 475. (5th Cir. 2001). Initial determination that representative would be an adequate representative of the class should be based on two criteria: first, representative must have common interests with the unnamed members of the class; and second, it must appear that the representative will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel. Gonzales v. Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1975). For the adequacy requirement to be met, there must be no significant conflict of interest between the named plaintiffs and the absent class members.
In the present case there is no conflict of interest between named Plaintiffs and class members, and the representatives have common interests with the unnamed members. All claims of named and unnamed Plaintiffs rest upon the practices and policies at YSC as a whole, and as such apply to both named and unnamed class members alike. Additionally, the named Plaintiffs seek the same remedies, namely declaratory and injunctive relief, as the class as a whole. Hence, adequacy of representation is met. Rule 23(b)(2)
In addition to the requirements of Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs must satisfy one of three requirements of Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs
19

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 20 of 24
specifically assert their motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2), which states:
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole;
This case is suitable for certification under 23(b)(2) because it alleges that Defendants’ policies and practices generally applicable to class members have operated to injure them in violation of federal and state law and thus would be appropriate for injunctive and/or declaratory relief.
The language of 23(b)(2) “does not mandate that all members of the (b)(2) class be aggrieved by or desire to challenge the defendant’s conduct,” but requires “that the conduct or lack of it which is subject to challenge be premised on a ground that is applicable to the entire class.” Jones, 519 F.2d at 1199-1100. Rule 23(b)(2) class actions have been used to challenge conditions in prison and jail lawsuits and has been recognized by the Fifth Circuit as “an effective weapon for an across-the-board attack against systematic abuse.” Id.
A seminal suit in Louisiana premised on unconstitutional prison conditions is Hamilton v. Morial, a 1969 class action originally titled Hamilton v. Schiro, Civil Action No. 69-2443. Hamilton was filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana and challenged conditions in the New Orleans Parish Prison. The
20

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 21 of 24
plaintiff class expanded over the years to include prisoners in other facilities as new jails were built and other cases challenging prison conditions in the area arose. See Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F. 3d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1998); and Hamilton v. Morial, Civil Action No. 69-2443, Rec. Doc. 367 (granting class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) for all present and future inmates incarcerated in certain facilities within the Orleans Parish Prison System in Robinson v. Phelps, Civil Action No. 87-5867, a case consolidated with Hamilton v. Morial in that same order).
Similarly, class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is an appropriate case management tool for cases involving juvenile detention centers. In Santiago v. City of Philadelphia, 72 F.R.D. 619, 626 (E.D. Pa 1976), the court granted a motion to certify class in an action brought by seventeen juveniles on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, challenging the conditions of confinement and mistreatment at a youth study center. The Santiago court held 23(b)(2) to be satisfied, finding that “plaintiffs’ claims, pertaining to ... the overall conditions at YSC, the policies controlling the administration of educational services and treatment of residents . . . and the alleged restraints on individual liberties, sufficiently allege[d]” conduct that was “based on policies and practices applicable to the entire
21

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 22 of 24
class” and that “final injunctive and declaratory relief may be required to terminate these practices.”
Defendants do not directly address Rule 23(b)(2) but choose instead to argue that Plaintiffs’ claims satisfy neither the predominance nor superiority requirements under Rules 23(b)(1) and (b)(3). The only argument that Defendants assert that may be construed as applying to Rule 23(b)(2) is that due to the differences among members, there is no pattern of action or regulatory set of practices that affects all of the members of the purported class. This argument, however, is overcome by case law such as Jones and Santiago which are directly analogous to the present case and involve individuals who enter a detention facility with their own unique set of circumstances but are all subject to the conditions of the facility and the policies and practices used to manage the facility. As in both Jones and Santiago, Plaintiffs in the present case assert Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class at YSC as a group through their policies and practices. Therefore, injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class may be appropriate and 23(b)(2) is met. Rule 23(g)
Unless a statute provides otherwise, a court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel. In appointing class counsel, the court must consider:
22

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 23 of 24
(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action;
(ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;
(iii)counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to
representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
The proposed class counsel is a juvenile justice advocacy organization, Juvenile justice of Louisiana (“JJPL”), and an international private law firm, Holland & Knight LLP. JJPL has received numerous awards in litigation and legislative initiatives. The Community Services Team at Holland and Knight provides legal representation to people and groups that otherwise could not afford it. The Holland and Knight attorneys working on this matter have extensive experience litigating issues of federal Constitutional law and civil rights. The proposed counsel have resources sufficient to represent the class seeks vigorous prosecution on behalf of the class.
The Fifth Circuit stated in Jones v. Diamond, “Realistically, class actions are the only practicable judicial mechanism for the cleansing reformation and purification of these penal institutions.” Jones, 519 F.2d at 1097. In the present case involving a detention center for youth, all requirements of Rule 23(a) and one requirement of 23(b) are met. Additionally, proposed counsel for the class satisfy Rule 23(g). Accordingly,
23

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 159 Filed 02/06/09 Page 24 of 24 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification (Rec. Doc. 146) is GRANTED and the class shall be described as all children who are now or in the future9 will be confined at the Youth Study Center in New Orleans, Louisiana.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of February, 2009. ______________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9 “Now or in the future” means all children detained at YSC on or after December 21, 2007, the date the complaint in this action was filed.
24

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 239 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ______________________________________

J.D., L.E., and R.A., minors by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Damekia Morgan, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated;
Plaintiffs,
v.

CLASS ACTION CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-9755

C. RAY NAGIN, Mayor, City of New Orleans; RICHARD A. WINDER, Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans; MUBARAK A. KAREEM, Social Services Coordinator, Department of Human Services, OZZIE WILLIAMS, Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center; DARRYL KILBERT, Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools; and WOODY KOPPEL, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD in their official capacities.

Defendants. _____________________________________

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL YOUTH CONFINED AT THE YOUTH STUDY CENTER (“YSC”) IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

READ THIS CAREFULLY! IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS!

The Defendants have agreed to settle this class action lawsuit now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The lawsuit was filed on December 21, 2007, by the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana and Holland & Knight, LLP, on behalf of thirteen individual youth seeking relief for themselves and all similarly situated youth confined at the Youth Study Center (“YSC”) in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants subject the youth at the YSC to unsanitary conditions, inadequate medical and mental healthcare, cruel psychological and verbal harassment and abuse, improper and excessive use of lockdown, inadequate education, and other illegal conditions of confinement. The Plaintiffs asked for a declaration that the conditions were illegal and injunctive relief to improve the conditions of confinement for all youth housed in the YSC.
The individual plaintiffs asked, through their lawyers, to represent all youth detained at the YSC via a class action suit. The Court agreed and certified the class on February 5, 2009. As a class action, any remedy the individual plaintiffs obtain would apply to all youth at YSC.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 239 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 2 of 5
PUBLICATION OF NOTICE: In addition to publication by posting at the YSC, which occurred on December 4, 2009, the Parties are arranging for additional publication of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement by the following means (Note that any inability to arrange publication by the following means will not invalidate publication by other means i.e. posting at YSC):
1. Posting at the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court;
2. Online posting on the homepage of the City of New Orleans website: http://www.cityofno.com/;
3. Online posting on the homepage of the Orleans Parish School Board website: http://www.nops.k12.la.us/;
4. Online posting on the homepage of the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana website: http://jjpl.org/new/; and
5. Public Service Announcement broadcasting in New Orleans, Louisiana, including but not limited to the following radio stations: i. WBOK 1230 AM ii. KKND 106.7 FM iii. WQUE Q93 FM iv. WYLD 98 FM
THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE IS TO INFORM YOU OF:
THE STATUS OF THE LAWSUIT, INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF YOUR RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREES IN THE CASE; AND
THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE WITH THE COURT ANY OBJECTIONS YOU MAY HAVE TO THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREES
1. The Class. On February 5, 2009, the Court certified the lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The class is made up of “all children who are now or will in the future be confined at the Youth Study Center in New Orleans, Louisiana.” If the Court ultimately approves a settlement of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, it will cover all members of the class, and the settlement may affect your rights.
2. Manner of Settlement by Consent Decrees. The Plaintiffs and Defendants have entered into two agreements to settle the lawsuit (“Consent Decrees”). The first Consent Decree is with the “City Defendants,” who are: Defendants C. Ray Nagin, Mayor, City of New Orleans; Richard A. Winder, Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans; Mubarak A. Kareem, Social Services Coordinator, Department of Human Services; and Ozzie Williams, Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center. The second Consent Decree is with the “School Board Defendants,” who are: Defendants Darryl Kilbert, Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools; Woody Koppel, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and the Orleans Parish School Board (“OPSB”).
2

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 239 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 3 of 5
3. Terms of Consent Decrees. In these two proposed Consent Decrees, the City Defendants and/or the School Board Defendants agree to (1) promulgate and implement policies and procedures that improve the operation of the YSC and provide appropriate services to youth detained at the YSC; (2) promulgate and implement policies and procedures that improve educational programming to youth detained at the YSC; (3) achieve improvements in the conditions of confinement at the YSC in a manner that satisfies all applicable constitutional and federal and state statutory standards; and (4) achieve improvements in the educational programming at the YSC in a manner that satisfies all applicable constitutional and federal and state statutory standards.
4. Compliance and Monitoring. The City Defendants agree to hire Paul DeMuro, who has expertise in the operation of juvenile detention facilities for detained youth, to monitor their compliance with the terms of this agreement. The School Board Defendants agree to hire Carol Cramer Brooks, who has expertise in the provision of educational services for detained youth, to monitor their compliance with the terms of this agreement. Both the City Defendants and the School Board Defendants agree that:
i. Mr. DeMuro and Ms. Brooks shall have reasonable access to the YSC’s facilities to monitor compliance with the terms of these Consent Decrees.
ii. Mr. DeMuro and Ms. Brooks shall conduct compliance and monitoring assessments of the YSC three times per year.
iii. Mr. DeMuro and Ms. Brooks shall communicate the results of their assessments in writing to the Parties and to the Court.
5. Enforcement of Terms. The Court will retain jurisdiction of this case to enforce the terms of these Consent Decrees for two years from the date of the Order approving this class action settlement. Any party may obtain an extension of the two-year limitation on the Court’s jurisdiction over this Consent Decree upon a showing of good cause therefor.
6. The Proposed Settlement Would Be Instead of a Trial. If, after reviewing all timely filed objections and holding a fairness hearing, the Court enters an Order approving the substantive agreements and the remedial plans included in these two proposed Consent Decrees, there will not be a trial.
7. No Money Damages Are Involved in This Case. The lawsuit does not involve money damages, so whether or not this case proceeds to settlement or trial, no class member will obtain money from the Defendants.
8. The summary of the two proposed Consent Decrees contained in this notice does not include all of the terms and conditions of those two agreements. Therefore, you may obtain a copy of each proposed Consent Decree by writing to:
Carol Kolinchak Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 1600 Oretha Casele Haley Blvd.
3

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 239 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 4 of 5
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
9. Reasons for Agreement with Proposed Consent Decrees. Class Counsel has concluded that the terms and conditions of these two proposed Consent Decrees are fair, reasonable, and adequate and are in the best interests of the class. In reaching this conclusion, Class Counsel has carefully analyzed the benefits of the two proposed Consent Decrees, the risks of an unfavorable outcome in this litigation, as well as the length of time that would be needed to prosecute this case through a trial and possible appeals.
10. If You Have No Objection to the Two Proposed Consent Decrees. If you have no objection to the Court approving the two proposed Consent Decrees, you do not have to do anything.
11. If You Object to Either of the Two Proposed Consent Decrees. If you believe that the Court should not approve one or both of the two proposed Consent Decrees, you may object. If you wish to object, you must submit the objection in writing. The objections must contain the following information:
(1) The case name and number: Morgan v. Nagin, Civil Action No. 07-9755;
(2) Your full name and YSC number; and
(3) Exactly what it is that you object to in the two proposed Consent Decrees with an explanation of why you object.
For your objection to be considered by the Judge, you must mail it by Monday, January 4, 2010, to the Clerk of the Court with a copy to counsel, at the following addresses:
Clerk, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana ATTENTION: Morgan v. Nagin, 07-9755 500 Poydras Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Carol Kolinchak Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd. New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 Counsel for Plaintiffs
Nolan P. Lambert City of New Orleans, Law Department 1300 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Counsel for City of New Orleans
Claire Jupiter Bryan & Jupiter 650 Poydras Street
4

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 239 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 5 of 5
Suite 2345 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Counsel for Orleans Parish School Board
12. Response to Objections. Class Counsel, the City Defendants, and the School Board Defendants shall have an opportunity to respond to all timely filed objections on or before Monday, January 25, 2010.
13. Fairness Hearing. After reviewing all the objections that are filed on time and any responses to objections, Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle will hold a final fairness hearing on Friday, February 12, 2010, at 11 a.m., in the United States District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana, to decide whether or not to approve these two proposed Consent Decrees. If the Judge decides that these two Consent Decrees are fair, adequate, and reasonable, then the Judge will enter an Order approving the Consent Decrees. Upon the entry of such an Order of Approval, the terms both Consent Decrees will become binding on all members of the certified class.
14. Questions About the Proposed Consent Decrees. If you have questions about these two proposed Consent Decrees, or if you wish to review any of the documents in this case, you may contact Plaintiffs’ counsel by writing to:
Carol Kolinchak Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 1600 Oretha Casele Haley Blvd. New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 15. If the Court Does Not Approve These Two Proposed Consent Decrees. If after the Fairness Hearing the Court decides not to approve these two proposed Consent Decrees, this case will not be settled, but will continue to proceed to trial. If that happens, there is no assurance that any decision at trial will be in favor of the class members; or that even if there is a favorable decision, it will be as favorable to the Plaintiffs as these two proposed Consent Decrees would have been; or that any such favorable decision at trial would be upheld on appeal. Hello This is a Test
New Orleans, Louisiana this __7_th__ day of __D__e_c_e_m__b_e_r___, 2009.
United States District Court Judge
5

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

J.D., L.E., AND R.A., MINORS VERSUS C.RAY NAGIN, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-9755 SECTION B(4)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for an Order

Prohibiting Obstruction of Access to Counsel (Rec. Doc. No. 20).

After review of the pleadings and applicable law, and for the

reasons that follow,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

Further, within 5 days of

the signing of this Order,

Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with a list of the names of

their representative Plaintiffs as well as the guardians of those

Plaintiffs.

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed suit on December 21, 2007 against the Mayor of New Orleans as well as various other local officials on behalf of all children who are now or in the future will be confined at the Youth Study Center in New Orleans, Louisiana. Plaintiffs
1

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 8
allege, among other things, that the conditions at the Youth Study Center are unsanitary, that the staff is inadequately trained, that the children confined there are denied basic needs and access to courts, and that they lack adequate medical care and right to counsel. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the conditions violate the students’ constitutional rights. Along with the Complaint, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for class certification which is currently pending before this Court.
Plaintiffs allege that before this lawsuit was filed, attorneys and paralegals working for the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana, the group representing Plaintiffs in this case, were allowed to privately meet with the children confined at the Youth Study Center. Plaintiffs allege, however, that once counsel for the Defendants learned that this suit had been filed, they denied all attorneys representing the Plaintiffs as well as paralegals working with them any access to the children confined at the Youth Study Center. Plaintiffs’ counsel were originally denied access to the named Plaintiffs as well as putative members of the class action. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ counsel then modified this prohibition and allowed communication between Plaintiffs’ counsel and named Plaintiffs as well as communication between Plaintiffs’ counsel and other confined youths who actually requested meetings with such counsel. Defendants’ counsel
2

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 8
continued, however, to prohibited Plaintiffs’ counsels’ access to other youths who may be potential members of the class but who did not request meetings. On January 22, 2008 Plaintiffs filed this Motion to prohibit Defendants’ alleged obstruction of access to these putative class members. Rec. Doc. No. 20.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants are violating the local rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana as well as Supreme Court precedent by prohibiting communication between Plaintiffs’ counsel and putative class members without a court order. Defendants argue that to allow Plaintiffs’ counsel access to putative class members is an abuse of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and would cause injustice to Defendants. Defendants also argue that under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, this Court cannot grant the relief sought by Plaintiffs’ Motion.
DISCUSSION Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 addresses the procedure for class actions in Federal Court. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(d) provides that “[i]n conducting an action under this rule, the court may issue orders that...impose conditions on the representative parties or on intervenors.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(d). Rule 23(D) of the Local Rules for the Untied States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana also addresses class action procedure. It provides:
3

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 8
1. Whenever a party or counsel desires to prohibit another party or counsel from communicating concerning such action with any potential or actual class member not a formal party to the action, he or she shall apply in writing to the court for such an order. In such application, the parties must set forth with particularity the abuses they fear will result from such communication, along with the form of remedy they believe would be appropriate to prevent frustration of the policies of Rule 23.
2. The court will not enter an order prohibiting communication with members of the class in the absence of a clear record (and when necessary, an evidentiary hearing) reflecting:
a. specific findings regarding the abuse the court seeks to prevent;
b. the need for such an order, weighing the abuse sought to be corrected and the effect it will have on the right of a party to proceed pursuant to Rule 23 without interference.
Local Rule 23(D). The text of Local Rule 23(D) tracks the Supreme
Court’s reasoning in Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981).
In that case, the Supreme Court addressed a District Court’s
discretion in controlling a class action. The Court stated that
“an order limiting communications between parties and potential
class members should be based on a clear record and specific
findings that reflect a weighing of the need for a limitation and
the potential interference with the rights of the parties. Only
such a determination can ensure that the court is furthering,
rather than hindering, the policies embodies in the Federal Rules.”
4

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 5 of 8
Gulf Oil , 452 U.S. at 101-02. The Court stated that a district court cannot issue orders restricting communications
without a specific record showing by the moving party of the particular abuses by which it is threatened. Moreover, the district court must find that the showing provides a satisfactory basis for the relief and that the relief sought would be consistent with the policies of Rule 23 giving explicit consideration to the narrowest possible relief which would protect the respective parties. Id. at 102 (quoting Coles v. Marsh , 560 F.2d 186, 189 (3 rd Cir. 1977). In the present case, there is no dispute that Defendants are seeking to restrict Plaintiffs’ counsels’ access to putative class members. Defendants, however, have filed no motion with this Court seeking to restrict such access. Defendants argue that by restricting such access, they are attempting “to prevent the injustice that is dealt upon defendants where counsel is permitted to solicit additional putative plaintiffs in support of a lawsuit that has been filed but in which no class has been certified and no specific facts have been advanced.” Defendants, however, have not set forth with particularity the abuses they fear will result from such communication. The Court is aware, as Defendant points out, that this case involves a detention center, therefore, proper precautions must be taken such that access to putative class members does not create a threat to security. The Court finds, however, that under the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Gulf Oil as
5

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 6 of 8
well as the requirements set forth in Local Rule 23(D), this Court cannot prohibit Plaintiffs’ counsels’ access to putative class members at this time without a clearer record warranting such relief.
Defendants also argue that under the Prison Litigation Reform Act [“PLRA”], this Court cannot grant Plaintiffs’ Motion allowing Plaintiffs’ counsel access to children detained a the Youth Study Center. The PLRA provides:
Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). The term “prospective relief” is defined under the PLRA as “all relief other than compensatory monetary damages.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(7). Defendant argues that the relief Plaintiffs are seeking in the present Motion, the right of Plaintiffs’ counsel to access children confined at the Youth Study Center, is, in fact, “prospective relief” as defined under the PLRA. Defendant argues that because this Court can only grant such relief to correct a “violation of a Federal right” and because this Court has not yet determined that a Constitutional violation exists, it cannot at this time grant the relief Plaintiffs seek.
6

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 7 of 8

The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ argument.

Defendants’ denial of access to detained children has apparently

come about as a result of the instant litigation. Nowhere does

Defendant dispute that prior to the filing of this suit,

Plaintiffs’ counsel were permitted to meet with children detained

at the Youth Study Center. While Plaintiff’s Complaint might seek

injunctive relief regarding conditions at the Youth Study Center,

the present Motion simply attempts to grant Plaintiffs’ counsel a

right they apparently had prior to filing this suit. Additionally,

Although Defendants focus on § 3626(a)(1) of the PLRA, § 3626(a)(2)

provides that

In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief. Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Thus, an order of th is Court allowing

Plaintiffs’ counsel limited access to other children detained at

the Youth Study Center is lawful under § 3626(a)(2) of the PLRA.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for an Order

Prohibiting Obstruction of Access to Counsel is GRANTED.

Further, within 5 days of

the signing of this Order,

Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with a list of the names of

7

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 51 Filed 03/04/08 Page 8 of 8 their representative Plaintiffs as well as the guardians of those Plaintiffs.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 4th day of March, 2008. ______________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

J.D., L.E., AND R.A., MINORS VERSUS C. RAY NAGIN, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-9755 SECTION B(4)

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is Defendants C. Ray Nagin and Ozzie Williams’ Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. No. 44). After review of the pleadings and applicable law, and for the reasons that follow, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND The Youth Study Center [“the Center”] is located in New Orleans, Louisiana and acts as a pretrial detention facility for minors accused of offenses. Plaintiffs filed suit on December 21, 2007 on behalf of all minors who are now or in the future will be confined at the Center. Plaintiffs allege that the conditions at the Center violate the minors’ rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Plaintiffs named as Defendants: (1) C. Ray Nagin, the Mayor of New Orleans, (2) Richard Winder, Director of the Department of
1

Human Services for the City of New Orleans, (3) Mubarek Kareem, Social Services Coordinator for the Department of Human Services, (4) Ozzie Williams, the acting supervisor of the Center, (5) Phyllis Landrieu, the acting president of the Orleans Parish School Board, and (6) Daryl Kilbert, Superintendent of the New Orleans Public Schools.
Plaintiffs make a number of allegations regarding conditions at the Center. First, they allege that the staff of the Center are inadequately trained and that the staff fail to protect the youths from the threat of abuse by staff members and other youths. Plaintiffs contend that the youths are punished arbitrarily, that they are placed in isolation for grossly excessive periods of time, and that there is no procedure in place for determining when isolation is appropriate. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants are indifferent to the mental health needs of the youths, that Defendants fail to assure adeq uate psychological assessment of the youths, and that Defendants do not employ a sufficient number of psychologists and social workers. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are indifferent to the medical care of the youths, that medication is not distributed as prescribed, that the youths are not fed nutritious meals, and that they are sometimes fed spoiled food. Plaintiffs contend that the toilets, showers, and sinks are not adequately cleaned, that cells are oppressively small and dark, and that the youths are not
2

provided adequate hygiene items. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that the youths are forced to wear dirty clothes and that the Center is infested with vermin and rodents. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants do not provide appropriate education, that the Defendants fail to assess the youths to determine if they have special educational needs, and that Defendants fail to provide adequate rehabilitative treatment. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants deny the youths access to the courts by maintaining a grievance procedure that is vague and by sometimes actually physically destroying grievances that are submitted. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants deny them access to counsel by unreasonably limiting contact with attorneys.
Based on these claims, Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action:
1. That the conditions at the Center violate the youths’ Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment;
2. That the conditions at the Center constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment under the Eighth Amendment;
3. That the process of arbitrary punishment at the Center violates the youths’ Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment;
4. That the refusal to protect the youths violates their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
5. That Defendants’ refusal to allow meaningful access to
3

courts violates the youths’ rights under the First,

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments;

6. That Defendants’ indifference to Plaintiffs’ mental

health needs violates their rights under the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments;

7. That Defendants’ failure to provide adequate special

education services violates the youths’ rights under the

Fourth and Eighth Amendm

ents as well as the

Rehabilitation Act, the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act;

8. That Defendants’ failure to provide adequate mental care

for youths with mental disabilities violates their rights

under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments as well as the

Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities

Act;

9. That Defendants’ failure to provide adequate

rehabilitation violates the youths’ rights under the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Defendants C. Ray Nagin and Ozzie Williams have now moved to

dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against them.

Defendants contend that dismissal is proper because Plaintiffs

have failed to allege that they have exhausted their remedies under

the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Additionally, Defendants claim

that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to support

4

claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments regarding the general conditions at the Center and the staff’s failure to provide adequate medical care. Further, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for denial of access to courts. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have failed to support a claim for failure to train and supervise on the part of Defendants Nagin and Williams. Finally, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have stated no concrete allegations in support of these claims.
Plaintiffs contend that failure to exhaust under the Prison Litigation Reform Act is an affirmative defense and that it is Defendants’ burden to raise such a defense. Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that they have alleged facts related to the general conditions of confinement at the Center as well as failure of the staff to provide medical and mental healthcare which are sufficient to state a claim for unconstitutional “conditions of confinement” at the Center under Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520 (1979). Plaintiffs contend that their allegation that the staff of the Center are actively interfering with the youths’ attempts to file grievances is sufficient to support a claim for denial of access to courts. Plaintiffs contend that despite Defendants’
5

conclusory statements to the contrary, they have alleged sufficient facts to establish claims under the Rehabilitation Act, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Finally, Plaintiffs contend that given Nagin and Williams’ alleged actual participation in the unconstitutional acts enumerated in the Complaint, both Nagin and Williams are proper Defendants in this suit.
DISCUSSION I. Motion to Dismiss Standard
In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts have found that dismissal pursuant to this provision "is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted." Lowery v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997); Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. , 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982). The complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all facts pleaded in the original complaint must be taken as true. Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2002); Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank , 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir. 1986). Until recently, the standard for a motion to dismiss was often phrased in such a way that a district court could not dismiss a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) "unless it appear[ed] beyond doubt that the plaintiff [could] prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Blackburn v. Marshall, 42 F.3d
6

925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). The Supreme Court, however, recently noted that the phrase “no set of facts” “is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard...” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007). The Court went on to note that the standard, in reality, remains the same, that “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by s howing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Id. The Fifth Circuit defines this strict standard as, "whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Lowrey, 117 F.3d at 247, citing 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §1357, at 601 (1969). “In other words, a motion to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim admits the facts alleged in the complaint, but challenges plaintiff’s rights to relief based upon those facts.” Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161-62 (5th Cir. 2001). II. Exhaustion Requirement Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
Defendants allege that dismissal is proper because Plaintiffs have failed to allege that they have exhausted their remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act [“PLRA”]. The PLRA mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and requires that prisoners exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit. Jones v. Bock , 127 S. Ct. 910, 914 (2007). The Supreme Court
7

recently held in Jones v. Bock that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA and that inmates are not required to specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints. Id. at 921. Further, under Fifth Circuit law, an affirmative defense is properly raised in a motion to dismiss only if the affirmative defense appears clearly on the face of the pleadings. Clark v. Amoco Prod. Co. , 794 F.2d 967, 970 (5 th Cir. 1986); A2D Technologies, Inc. v. MJ Sys., Inc., 2008 WL 695251, *3 (5th Cir. 2008). Whether Plaintiffs in this case have exhausted their administrative remedies cannot be determined from the face of their Complaint. Thus, dismissal on these grounds is improper. III. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Constitutional Violations Regarding the
Conditions at the Center Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to support claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments regarding the general conditions at the Center and the staff’s failure to provide adequate medical care. The Plaintiffs in this case are youths that have been charged with crimes but have not yet gone to trial. Although Plaintiffs allege cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that pretrial detainees, like the Plaintiffs in this case, derive their rights from the Due Process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 537 n.16 (1979). The standard for determining whether a pretrial
8

detainee has suffered a Due Process violation depends on whether the constitutional challenge is based on a “condition of confinement” or an “episodic act or omission.” Flores v. County of Hardeman, 124 F.3d 736, 738 (5 th Cir. 1997). A “conditions of confinement” claim challenges the “general conditions, practices, rules, or restrictions of pretrial confinement.” Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 644 (5 th Cir. 1996). An “episodic act or omission” challenge, on the other hand, focuses on a particular act or omission of one or more officials. Flores, 124 F.3d at 738.
Although the Defendants characterize Plaintiffs’ claims as episodic act challenges, Plaintiffs contend that they are challenging the conditions of confinement at the Center rather than particular isolated acts. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs’ contention. The Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that the general rules and conditions in place at the Center violate the youths’ rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have “deliberately understaffed [the Cent er]” and that they have “completely mismanaged [the Center].” Comp. ¶ 2. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he totality of conditions and treatment amounts to an unsafe and constitutionally deficient environment that harms [the] children....” Comp. ¶ 29. Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants subject youth[s] at [the Center] to a disciplinary system in which pun ishments are arbitrarily meted out” and that “Defendants do not have a procedure by which qualified
9

professionals determine the need for isolation or lockdown....” Comp. ¶ 35, 37. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ actions regarding mental health and medical care “demonstrate an official policy or custom that manifests a deliberate indifference” to the mental health and medical care needs of the youths. Comp. ¶ 45, 50. The Court finds that these allegations constitute a condition of confinement claim.
To determine whether a condition of confinement is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court must determine whether the “particular condi tion or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate government objective.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 539. If it is not related to a legitimate goal, that is, if it is arbitrary or purposeless, a court may infer that the purpose of the condition or restriction is punishment and that it is, therefore, unconstitutional. Id. Thus, in order for a pretrial detainee to allege a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process violation arising from the conditions of confinement, the detainee must plead facts that support the finding that he was subjected to jail conditions that were not reasonably related to a legitimate government objective. Shepherd v. Dallas County, 2008 WL 656889, *4 (N.D. Tex. 2008).
In the present case, Defendants focus specifically on Plaintiffs’ claims that the facilities are unsanitary and that the youths’ medical health needs are not properly addressed.
10

Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action under Section 1983 regarding these conditions. The Court finds, however, that Plaintiffs have alleged numerous facts to support their conditions of confinement claim. Specif ically, they state that the toilets, showers, and sinks are unsanitary, that the cells are small and dark with inadequate ventilation, that the youths are not provided adequate personal hygiene items, and that the Center is infested with vermin. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that the youths are denied prompt medical care, that medications are not distributed as prescribed, and that there is no formal, on-going psychiatric care provided to youths in need of these services. Separate conditions of confinement may establish a constitutional violation “when each would not do so alone, but...when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need....” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2004). Additionally, Defendants have failed to show how any of the conditions listed by the Plaintiffs are in any way related to a legitimate government objective. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement under Section 1983. IV. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Denial of Access to Courts
Defendants allege that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for denial of access to courts. In
11

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348, (1996), the Supreme Court held that an inmate asserting an access to court claim must show that the actions of the defendants resulted in an actual injury, that is, “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” Thus, an individual asserting an access to courts claim must at least allege some general factual allegations of injury resulting from the conduct of the defendants. Brown v. Ridge, 2006 WL 1581167, *12 (W.D. La. 2006).
In the present case, Plaintiffs allege that the grievance procedure is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite. Plaintiffs also allege, however, that grievances have actually been destroyed in the presence of the youths and that the youths have been told that their grievances will be ignored. These specific allegations sufficiently indicate injury resulting from Defendants’ conduct. If grievances are destroyed or ignored, there is certainly a chance that youths are actually prejudiced in their ability to present a claim. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for denial of access to courts. V. Involvement of Defendants Nagin and Williams
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts that support a claim for failure to train and supervise on the part of Defendants Nagin and Williams. As Plaintiffs point out, however, they have not alleged claims against these Defendants
12

based on the theory of vicarious liability. Instead, they have

brought an action against the Defendants in their individual and

official capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claims

against Defendants in their official capacities are essentially

claims against the City of New Orleans, the entity of which they

are agents. Burge v. City of St. Tammany , 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5 th

Cir. 1999). In order for a local governmental body to be held

accountable for a constitutional violation, there must be (1) a

policy maker, (2) an official policy, and (3) a violation of the

constitutional rights whose moving force was the policy or custom.

Piotrowski v. City of Houston , 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5 th Cir. 2001).

The unconstitutional conduct must be directly attributable to the

municipality through some sort of official action.

Id.

Additionally, there must be a link between the policy and the

constitutional violation, and the policy must be maintained with an

objective deliberate indifference to a constitutionally protected

right. Lawson v. Dallas County, 286 F.3d 257, 263 (5th Cir. 2002).

In order to find the Defendants liable in their individual

capacities, Plaintiffs must show (1) their personal involvement in

the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal

connection between their wrongful conduct and the constitutional

violation. Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5 th Cir. 1987).

Additionally, “[s]upervisory liability exists even without overt

personal participation in the offensive act if supervisory

13

officials implement a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation (citations omitted).’” Id.
With these standards in mind, the Court must address Plaintiffs’ allegations against Defendants Nagin and Williams. Plaintiffs’ Complaint states that C. Ray Nagin is the Mayor of the City of New Orleans and that the City “is responsible for the secure detention and constitutional treatment of children remanded to detention pending trial and children adjudicated delinquent and held pending placement with the Louisiana Office of Youth Development.” Comp. ¶ 14. The Complaint states that Ozzie Williams is the Acting Supervisor of the Youth Study Center, that he “oversees daily operations and management of the youth[s] at [the Center]” and that it is his duty “to properly maintain [the Center] and care for its residents.” Id. Additionally, it states that Williams is “responsible for the care, custody, security, and treatment of children remanded to detention by juvenile courts in Orleans Parish pending trial and children adjudicated delinquent and held pending placement with the Louisiana Office of Youth Development.” Id. Plaintiffs allege further that “Defendants are aware of the unconstitutional conditions and the risks of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs” which are enumerated in the Complaint and that “[d]espite Defendants’ knowledge, they are deliberately indifferent to those unconstitutional conditions and
14

the risk of irreparable harm.” Comp. ¶ 87. Plaintiffs allege that

“[t]he conditions of confinement at [the Center], and the policies,

procedures, and practices established by the Defendants are not

rationally related to a legitimate, non-punitive government

purpose....” Comp. ¶ 88. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that “[a]s a

proximate result of the policies, practices, acts, and omissions of

Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer serious

and irreparable...injuries.” Comp. ¶ 86.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts

to state a claim against Nagin and Williams in their official

capacities. Plaintiffs have clearly alleged a policy on the part

of the Mayor and the Director related to the proc edures at the

Center. Additionally, as noted above, Plaintiffs have sufficiently

alleged certain Constitutional violations. Finally, Plaintiffs

have alleged a direct causal link between the Defendants’ policies

and the unconstitutional violations enumerated in the Complaint.

The Court finds that the allegations are also sufficient to

state a cause of action against Williams in his individual capacity.

Plaintiffs allege that as the supervisor of the Center, Williams is

responsible for the care of the youths, that he oversees the daily

operations at the Center,

and that he is

aware of the

unconstitutional conditions. The Court finds that there is

sufficient causal connection between Williams’ personal involvement,

and specifically his conduct of ov erseeing the conditions at the

15

Center, and the deprivations alleged in the Complaint. Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations are
sufficient to state a claim against the Mayor in his individual capacity. The Complaint does not allege the same level of personal participation on the part of the Mayor as it does on the part of Defendant Williams. The Complaint, however, does allege a policy of unconstitutional confinement attributable to the Mayor. Additionally, it alleges that the Mayor has knowledge of the conditions at the Center. Although personal liability under Section 1983 depends on actual participation in the unconstitutional acts, “such participation can consist in formulating a policy pursuant to which subordinates deprive a person of his constitutional rights.” Bush v. Viterna, 795 F.2d 1203, 1206 (5th Cir. 1986). Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to state a valid claim against the Mayor in his individual capacity. V. Plaintiffs’ Claims Under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [“RA”], under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act [“ADA”], and under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [“IDEA”] should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have stated no concrete allegations in support of these claims.
16

Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The federal regulations implementing Title II require public entities to “make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the services, program, or activity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). The phrase “services, programs, or activities” includes medical and educational prison programs. See Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey , 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998). Finally, the rights and procedures available under Section 504 of the RA are the same as those available under Title II of the ADA. Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3d 795, 799 (5 th Cir. 2000); Patterson v. Kerr County , 2007 WL 2086671, *6 (W.D. Tex. 2007).
Plaintiffs have made numerous allegations regarding Defendants’ failure to provide adequate special education as well as adequate psychological assessments of children with mental disabilities. These allegations include a failure of the staff to allow access to the Center to medical practitioners qualified to address mental health problems, failure to provide formal psychiatric care, and
17

denial of special education and related services. Other than the conclusory statement that Plaintiffs have not stated concrete allegations to support their claims, Defendants have pointed to no specific deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ pleadings regarding their special education or mental disability claims. The Court finds that these allegations are sufficient to state claims under the ADA and RA.
The IDEA provides that states which receive federal education funding must provide each disabled child within its jurisdictional boundaries with a “free appropriate public education” tailored to his unique needs. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(1). This is accomplished through the formulation of an “individual education program” [“IEP”] for each disabled child. An IEP is a written statement prepared with input from the child’s parent, teachers, and a representative of the school district that addresses the child’s particular needs. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to provide the youths at the Center with free appropriate public education. Specifically, they allege that there is no screening in place at the Center to determine which youths are eligible for special education and that Defendants have failed to develop IEPs for the youths that require special education services. As in the case of the RA and ADA contentions, Defendants have failed to point out any specific deficiencies in these pleadings. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff have stated a valid
18

claim under IDEA. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana this 19th day of June, 2008.
______________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 103 Filed 08/27/08 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DAMEKIA MORGAN VERSUS C. RAY NAGIN, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-9755 SECTION B(4)

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is Defendants Richard W. Winder and Mubarek A. Kareem’s Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. No. 67). After review of the pleadings and applicable law, and for the reasons that follow, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
BACKGROUND The Youth Study Center [“the Cen ter”] is located in New Orleans, Louisiana and acts as a pretrial detention facility for minors accused of offenses. Plaintiffs filed suit on December 21, 2007, on behalf of all minors who are now or in the future will be confined at the Center. Plaintiffs allege that the conditions at the Center violate the minors’ rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Plaintiffs named as Defendants: (1) C. Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, (2) Richard Winder, Director of the Department of Human Services for the City of New Orleans, (3) Mubarek Kareem, Social Services Coordinator for the Department of Human Services, (4) Ozzie Williams, the acting supervisor of the Center, (5) Phyllis Landrieu, the acting president of the New Orleans School
1

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 103 Filed 08/27/08 Page 2 of 10
Board, and (6) Daryl Kilbert, Superinten dent of the New Orleans Public Schools.
Plaintiffs make a number of allegations regarding conditions at the Center. First, they allege that the staff of the Center are inadequately trained and that the staff fail to protect the youths from the threat of abuse by staff members and other youths. Plaintiffs contend that the youths are punished arbitrarily, that they are placed in isolation for grossly excessive periods of time, and that there is no procedure in place for determining when isolation is appropriate. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants are indif ferent to the mental health needs of the youths, that Defendants fail to assure adequate psychological assessment of the youths, and that Defendants do not employ a sufficient number of psychologists and social workers. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are indifferent to the medical care of the youths, that medication is not distributed as prescribed, that the youths are not fed nutritious meals, and that they are sometimes fed spoiled food. Plaintiffs contend that the toilets, showers, and sinks are not adequately cleaned, that cells are oppressively small and dark, and that the youths are not provided adequate hygiene items. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that the youths are forced to wear dirty clothes and that the Center is infested with vermin and rodents. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants do not provide appropriate education, that the Defendants fail to assess the youths to determine if they have
2

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 103 Filed 08/27/08 Page 3 of 10
special educational needs, and that Defendants fail to provide adequate rehabilitative treatment. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants deny the youths access to the courts by maintaining a grievance procedure that is vague and by sometimes actually physically destroying grievances that are submitted. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants deny them access to counsel by unreasonably limiting contact with attorneys.
Based on these claims, Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action:
1. That the conditions at the Center violate the youths’ Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment;
2. That the conditions at the Center constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment under the Eighth Amendment;
3. That the process of arbitrary punishment at the Center violates the youths’ Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment;
4. That the refusal to protect the youths violates their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
5. That Defendants’ refusal to allow meaningful access to courts violates the youths’ rights under the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments;
6. That Defendants’ indifference to Plaintiffs’ mental health needs violate their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
7. That Defendants’ failure to provide adequate special 3

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 103 Filed 08/27/08 Page 4 of 10

education services violates the youths’ rights under the

Fourth and Eighth Amendm

ents as well as the

Rehabilitation Act, the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act;

8. That Defendants’ failure to provide adequate mental care

for youths with mental disabilities violates their rights

under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments as well as the

Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities

Act;

9. That Defendants’ failure to provide adequate

rehabilitation violates the youths’ rights under the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Defendants C. Ray Nagin and Ozzie Williams previously moved to

dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against them. See Rec. Doc. No. 44.

The Court denied Defendants’ Motion.

See Rec. Doc. No. 84.

Defendants Richard W. Winder and Mubarek A. Kareem have now filed

a Motion to Dismiss essentially adopting the arguments made in the

previous Motion to Dismiss.

Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts

sufficient to support claims for Constitutional violations

regarding the general conditions at the Center, the staff’s failure

to provide adequate medical care, and Defendants’ denial of access

to courts.

Plaintiffs contend that they have alleged facts related to the

general conditions of confinement at the Center as well as failure

4

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 103 Filed 08/27/08 Page 5 of 10
of the staff to provide medical and mental healthcare which are sufficient to state a claim for unconstitutional “conditions of confinement” at the Center under Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520 (1979). Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that their allegation that the staff of the Center are actively interfering with the youths’ attempts to file grievances is sufficient to support a claim for denial of access to courts.
DISCUSSION I. Motion to Dismiss Standard
In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts have found that dismissal pursuant to this provision "is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted." Lowery v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997); Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. , 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982). The complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all facts pleaded in the original complaint must be taken as true. Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2002); Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank , 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir. 1986). Until recently, the standard for a motion to dismiss was often phrased in such a way that a district court could not dismiss a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) "unless it appear[ed] beyond doubt that the plaint iff [could] prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Blackburn v. Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). The Supreme Court, however, recently
5

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 103 Filed 08/27/08 Page 6 of 10

noted that the phrase “no set of facts” “is best forgotten as an

incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard...”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007). The

Court went on to note that the standard, in reality, remains the

same, that “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be

supported by showing any set of

facts consiste nt with the

allegations in the complaint.” Id. The Fifth Circuit defines this

strict standard as "whether in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the

complaint states any valid claim for relief." Lowrey, 117 F.3d at

247, citing 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure, §1357, at 601 (1969). “In other words, a

motion to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim admits the

facts alleged in the complaint, but challenges plaintiff’s rights

to relief based upon those facts.” Ramming v. United States, 281

F.3d 158, 161-62 (5th Cir. 2001).

II. Claims Against Defendants Winder and Kareem under 42 U.S.C. §

1983

As in the case of Defendants Nagin and Williams, Plaintiffs

have brought an action against Defendants Winder and Kareem in

their individual and official capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The claims against Defendants in their official capacities

are essentially claims against the City of New Orleans, the entity

of which they are agents. Burge v. City of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d

452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999). In order for a local governmental body 6

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 103 Filed 08/27/08 Page 7 of 10

to be held accountable for a constitutional violation, there must

be (1) a policy maker, (2) an official policy, and (3) a violation

of the constitutional rights whose moving force was the policy or

custom. Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir.

2001). The unconstitutional conduct must be directly attributable

to the municipality through some sort of official action.

Id.

Additionally, there must be a link between the policy and the

constitutional violation, and the policy must be maintained with an

objective deliberate indifference to a constitutionally protected

right. Lawson v. Dallas County, 286 F.3d 257, 263 (5th Cir. 2002).

In order to find the Defendants liable in their individual

capacities, Plaintiffs must show (1) their personal involvement in

the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal

connection between their wrongful conduct and the constitutional

violation. Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 ( 5th Cir. 1987).

Additionally, “[s]upervisory liability exists even without overt

personal participation in the offensive act if supervisory

officials implement a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself

is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force

of the constitutional violation (citations omitted).’” Id.

As shown above, in the case of both municipal and individual

liability, the plaintiff must first sufficiently allege a

constitutional violation. The Court has already found in its

previous ruling denying Defendants Nagin and Williams’ Motion to

Dismiss that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim for 7

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 103 Filed 08/27/08 Page 8 of 10
unconstitutional conditions of confinement and denial of access to courts under Section 1983. See Rec. Doc. No. 84. Thus, the only remaining issue is whether Plaintiffs have alleged a sufficient connection between Defendants’ conduct and these constitutional violations to support claims against Defendants Winder and Kareem in their individual and official capacities.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint states that Richard Winder is the Director of the Department of Human Services for the City of New Orleans and that he is “responsible for the secure detention and constitutional treatment of youths remanded to detention pending trial and youths adjudicated delinquent and held pending placement with the Louisiana Office of Youth Development.” Comp. ¶ 15. Further, the Complaint states that Winder “has full control of [the Center], including but not limited to, its budget, personnel, programs, and the administration and affairs of [the Center], and is responsible for the adoption and establishment of all rules and regulations for the placement, care, and treatment of juveniles in the City’s custody.” Id. The Complaint states that Mubarek Kareeem is the Social Services Coordinator for the Department of Human Services for the City of New Orleans. Comp. ¶ 16. It states that he is responsible for addressing the social services needs of the children detained at the Center and that he reports to Defendant Winder. Id.
Plaintiffs allege further that “Defendants are aware of the unconstitutional conditions and the risks of irreparable harm to
8

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 103 Filed 08/27/08 Page 9 of 10
Plaintiffs,” which are enumerated in the Complaint and that “[d]espite Defendants’ knowledge, they are deliberately indifferent to those unconstitutional conditions and the risk of irreparable harm.” Comp. ¶ 87. Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he conditions of confinement at [the Center], and the policies, procedures, and practices established by the Defendants are not rationally related to a legitimate, non-punitive government purpose....” Comp. ¶ 88. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that “[a]s a proximate result of the policies, practices, acts, and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer serious and irreparable...injuries.” Comp. ¶ 86.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim against Defendants Winder and Kareem in their official capacities. Plaintiffs have clearly alleged an official policy on the part of Winder and Kareem related to the procedures at the Center. Additionally, Plaintiffs have alleged a direct causal link between this policy and the unconstitutional violations enumerated in the Complaint.
The Court finds that the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are also sufficient to state a cause of action against Defendants Winder and Kareem in their individual capacities. Plaintiffs allege that as the Director of the Department of Human Services, Winder has full control over the Center including its budget, personnel, programs, as well as the establishment of rules and procedures. Additionally, Defendant Kareem coordinates the social services at
9

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 103 Filed 08/27/08 Page 10 of 10
the Center and reports to Defendant Winder. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have made sufficient allegations concerning the formulation on Defendants’ part of a policy at the Center that deprives the Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights as well as allegations that this policy is the moving force behind the deprivation.
In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged a sufficient connection between the Constitutional violations detailed in their Complaint and conduct on the part of Defendants Winder and Kareem to support claims against the Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ M otion to Dismiss is DENIED.1
New Orleans, Louisiana this 26th day of August, 2008.
_______________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1Plaintiffs filed along with their Complaint a Motion to Certify Class. All Defendants have now filed an answer. Additionally, there are no other motions currently pending in the case. Thus, it would now be proper to set a hearing date for the Motion to Certify Class unless defendant timely seeks class discovery.
10

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

J.D., L.E., AND R.A., MINORS VERSUS C. RAY NAGIN, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-9755 SECTION B(4)

ORDER AND REASONS

On February 4, 2009, the Court

held oral argument on

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. (Rec. Doc. 146). The

motion is opposed. (Rec. Doc. 151). After review of the pleadings

and applicable law, and for the reasons that follow,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification

(Rec. Doc. 146) is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a civil action brought by minors J.D., L.E., and R.A.,

by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Damekia Morgan, on behalf

of themselves and others similarly situated. Named Plaintiffs are

minors who were in custody at the Youth Study Center (“YSC”) in New

Orleans, Louisiana, and Plaintiffs seek class certification for all children who are now or in the future will be confined at YSC. 1

YSC is presently operating in a fifty year old fa cility that was

1 The “now” in children who are now or in the future will be confined seems to apply to those children who were confined at the time the suit was filed, December 21, 2007. At least one of the named Plaintiffs, J.D. has since been released.
1

damaged after Hurricane Katrina and is awaiting demolition. (See Rec. Doc. 151 at 2). Defendants claim that there are plans to build a new facility. According to YSC officials, YSC holds a maximum of 20 boys and 12 girls. All the current juveniles under detention at YSC are African-American males. The population at YSC is constantly changing as youth are detained, committed, transferred, or released. In 2008, more than 400 children had been detained at the YSC. (See Affidavit of Dana Kaplan, Rec. Doc. 1465).
Plaintiffs allege a variety of constitutional and state violations by those responsible for running the YSC and administering education and rehabilitation programs at the facility.2 Plaintiffs assert civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and allege that the children detained at YSC are being denied rights protected by the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also allege violation by Defendants of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; Individual with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1401; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133; and various provisions of the Louisiana Constitution, Louisiana’s
2 Defendants include C. Ray Nagin, Mayor of the City of New Orleans; Richard Winder, Director of the City of New Orleans Department of Human Services; Mubarek Kareem, Social Services Coordinator of New Orleans Department of Human Services; Ozzie Williams, Acting Supervisor of YSC; Darryl Kilbert, Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools; Phyllis Landrieu, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and Orleans Parish School Board.
2

Children Code, and other Louisiana law. Plaintiffs’ allegations

consist primarily of claims of

poor confinement conditions;

inadequate staffing, supervision, and training; arbitrary

disciplinary procedures and improper use of isolation; failure to

provide mental health care; inadequate medical care, nutrition,

education, and rehabilitative programming; unreasonable barriers

for family unification and community integration; and denial of

meaningful access to court and counsel through YSC policies and

procedures.

Poor confinement condition claims include allegations of poor

ventilation, small, dark cells, unsanitary conditions, presence of

spiders, rodents, and other vermin, and failure to provide youth

with personal hygiene items and adequate clean clothing and shoes.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to protect the youth

at YSC from the threat of violence and abuse by staff and other

children and also contend that children are subject to shouting,

cursing, and berating by staff members. (Compl. at ¶ 34, Rec. Doc.

1).

With respect to arbitrary disciplinary procedures, Plaintiffs

assert that youths are isolated for grossly excessive periods of

time (22-23 hours per day) and that no procedure exists by which

qualified professionals determine the need and length of isolation

or “lockdown.” Plaintiffs further allege that isolation and

“lockdown” are used for the convenience of staff and in some

instances, in place of therapeutic programming. Plaintiffs further 3

allege that isolated children are not adequately monitored or provided adequate education, recreation, or counseling. Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants’ continuing policies and practices have failed to ensure that prolonged use of isolation does not have adverse psychological consequences and have failed to exclude children with mental illness and other disorders from the prolonged use of isolation, which may constitute cruel and unusual punishment for such children. 3
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants are “deliberately indifferent” to the mental health and medical needs of the youth. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to assure adequate psychological assessments, denied access to medical practitioners, and failed to provide a psychiatrist to monitor medications. (Compl. at ¶¶ 41-44, Rec. Doc. 1). Plaintiffs further assert that youth at YSC are not provided prompt medical care and that staff do not distribute medications as prescribed and are ill-trained and unable to recognize or respond adequately to the children’s medical needs. Id. at ¶¶ 46-49. Plaintiffs also claim that youth fail to receive a nutritionally adequate diet and are not regularly provided fresh fruit or vegetables. Plaintiffs assert that youth are given only one portion of milk a day and that the milk is
3 See Rec. Doc. 1 at 9-11 for more specific allegations surrounding Plaintiffs’ claims of arbitrary disciplinary procedures and improper use of isolation.
4

sometimes spoiled.4 Id. at ¶¶ 51-52. Regarding Plaintiffs’ claims of inadequate education and
rehabilitative programming, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants do not provide youth with adequate and appropriate individualized academic education, including special needs determination and failure to develop and implement Individualized Education Programs (“IEP”) for eligible children. Plaintiffs assert overcrowded classrooms in violation of the state mandated student/teacher ratio and claim that all YSC youth receive the same education from a single teacher who is without access to prior education records. Other inadequate education claims include failure to ensure the state requirements regarding minimum minutes of daily instruction5 and curriculum development standards.
Rehabilitative programming inadequacy claims include failure to provide adequate and indiv idualized child and adolescent developmental treatment and counseling services, inadequate recreation, and insufficient transitional services and aftercare and follow-up programs. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants’ continuing practices and policies place unreasonable and unnecessary burdens on youths’ ability to maintain contact with their families by interfering with and restricting mail, telephone,
4 Plaintiffs also claim that youth may be disciplined if they refuse to drink the spoiled milk. 5 In addition to claims that the general population does not receive the minimum minutes of daily instruction, Plaintiffs also point out that students on “lockdown” simply fail to receive educational services.
5

and visitation. Finally, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants deny youth meaningful access to court and counsel and a llege that Defendants’ policies restrict the ability of children to communicate with attorneys by restricting attorney visitation time and providing only one room for legal visits.6 Plaintiffs further assert YSC’s grievance procedure, which requires exhaustion of administrative remedies as a prerequisite to suit, is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have refused to accept grievances when children attempt to submit them and that some grievances have been physically destroyed in the presence of the children. Youth have also allegedly been advised that grievances will be ignored. (Compl. at ¶¶ 78-84, Rec. Doc. 1).
Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are aware of the allegedly unconstitutional conditions and risks of irreparable harm to the children confined at YSC and contend that Defendants have and continue to act in violation of the law. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and other and further relief that the Court shall deem just and proper and move this Court for class certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The remainder of the proposed class consists of present and future children detained at YSC.
6 Plaintiffs note that if this one room is being utilized for some other purpose, children may not visit with counsel.
6

Plaintiffs argue that this Court certify the proposed class because the case meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rules 23(a) and (b)(2). They argue that the prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation have all been met. Citing Jones v. Diamond , 519 F. 2d 1090, 1097 (5th Cir. 1975), Plaintiffs assert that class action suits have been a traditional vehicle for challenging system-wide violations in prisons and detention facilities and argue that federal Courts in this and other judicial circuits have routinely authorized such cases to proceed as class actions on behalf of all prisoners confined in those institutions. See e.g., Monmouth County Correctional Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro , 834 F.2d 326, 328 (3d Cir. 1987); French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1251 (7th Cir. 1985); Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 986 (3d Cir. 1983). Plaintiffs argue that numerosity is satisfied because the rapid turnover and the inclusion of future detainees make joinder impracticable.
Plaintiffs assert that the commonality test is met when there is at least one issue, the resolution of which, will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members. See Mullen, 186 F.3d at 625 (quoting Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, 118 F.3d 421, 426 (5th Cir. 1997)). Plaintiffs argue that commonality is satisfied in the present case because all class members are children detained at YSC who are subject to the same policies, practices, and conditions of confinement and that the legal issues
7

raised by each class member’s challenge to YSC’s policies,

practices, and conditions are identical.

Plaintiffs argue that typicality is satisfied because the

claims of both named and unnamed class members arise from the same

practice or course of co nduct and are based on the same legal

theory and that relief sought by the named Plaintiffs and putative

class members is the same. Similarly, Plaintiffs argue that

adequacy of representation is also satisfied because the named

Plaintiffs have the same claims and seek the same remedies as the

class as a whole; therefore there is no conflict of interest

between named Plaintiffs and other members of the class.

Plaintiffs also assert that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2)

are satisfied because Defendants have acted or refused to act on

grounds generally applicable to the class, making appropriate

injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect

to the class as a whole. Plaintiffs assert that Rule 23(b)(2)

class actions are particularly common and appropriate in prison and

jail lawsuits in which the issues involved are applicable in the

same manner to each member of the class. Additionally, Plaintiffs

argue that class certification “takes on heightened importance” in

pre-adjudication detention contexts like YSC because of the

likelihood of mootness because of the fluidity of the population,

transfers, and release. (Rec. Doc. 146-2 at 15).

See also

Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 (1975);Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S.

8

393, 403 (1975); Jones, 519 F.2d at 1097-98; Santiago v. City of Philadelphia, 72 F.R.D. 619 (E.D. Pa. 1976)(granting motion to certify class brought by 17 juveniles on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, challenging the conditions of confinement and treatment at the Youth Study Center).
Finally, Plaintiffs contend that the proposed class counsel, Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (“JJPL”) and international private law firm Holland & Knight, LLP, will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and thus satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements of Rule 23. They assert that Plaintiffs have failed to establish numerosity, common character, typicality, or adequate representation. Further, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the class definition is logical and that the individual plaintiffs are indeed members of the class sought to be certified.
Among Defendants' strongest arguments is that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is not logical or definable. They submit that the entire YSC building is awaiting demolition, with 17 million dollars set aside to build a new, state of the art facility. Defendants highlight the problem with establishing a class which contains future youth who will be confined at YSC and argue that it is unfair to include in the same class youth who were confined at YSC
9

shortly after Hurricane Katrina with future residents who will be in a state of the art facility.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot show that they meet the requirement of numerosity. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of numerosity for each subclass but Defendants do not argue that subclasses are necessary for class certification.7 Defendants also assert that counsel for Plaintiffs go through the YSC daily and so there is no reason to believe potential members would not be able to be reasonably identified and joined. Defendants further argue that there may not necessarily be numerosity because not every inmate who passes through YSC has complaints.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims do not have a common character with the proposed class. Defendants erroneously assert that under Rule 23(a)(2) and (3), the potential class members must have in common questions of both law and fact. Defendants argue that the impact of the conditions of confinement would have to be established individually due to the “wide variety of claims” and the “inherently different physical and mental characteristics of each detainee.” (Rec. Doc. 151 at 12). Defendants assert that typicality is not satisfied because the class representatives have

7 Defendants cite In re Fema Trailer Formaldehyde Products LiabilityLitigation,

2008 WL 5423488 (E.D. La. 2008), for

support of their subclass argument.

However, Defendants’ argument on this issue is unclear and the facts of In re

Fema Trailer differ significantly from the present case.

10

not together suffered the entire range of injuries alleged. Similarly, Defendants claim that named Plaintiffs are not adequate representatives of the proposed class because Plaintiffs’ claims are neither common nor typical and “do not represent a crosssection of the claims of all purported class members.”8
Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims satisfy neither the predominance nor superiority requirements under Rules 23(b)(1) and (b)(3). However, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is asserted under Rule 23(b)(2), which Defendants do not directly add ress. The only argument that Defendants assert that may apply to Rule 23(b)(2) is that due to the differences among members, there is no pattern of action or regulatory set of practices that affects all of the members of the purported class. Defendants conclude their argument by urging the Court to consider the Uniform Class Actions Act and cite provisions from said Act that simply repeat statutory and case law provisions previously evaluated by both parties. Defendants neither specifically argue the Uniform Class Actions Act, assert how the Act would additionally influence the evaluation of the motion to certify class, nor cite cases for interp retation and application of the Act.
8 Defendants reference Exhibit 1, a chart they produced categorizing the types of claims and the claims of detained children who have been deposed or were scheduled to be deposed.
11

DISCUSSION Mootness
Consideration of class certification begins with an examination of mootness. The proposed class consists of all children who are now, or in the future, will be confined at the YSC. As noted by Defendants, the named Plaintiffs and several potential class members who have been deposed have been released from YSC. The Fifth Circuit, recognizing the Supreme Court’s discussion of the issue in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), held that mootness is an illusory issue in class certification proceedings involving pretrial detention because it falls within the mootness exception of claims that are “capable of repetition, yet evad[e] review.” Jones v. Diamond, 519 F.2d 1090, 1097 (5th Cir. 1975). In fact, the temporary nature of pretrial detention, in which a person could “suffer repeated deprivations” but be released before his claim was fully adjudicated, makes such cases suitable for class certification. Id. In such situations, “it is certain that other persons similarly situated will be detained under the allegedly unconstitutional procedures” and “the constant existence of a class of persons suffering the deprivation is certain.” Id. at 1097, 1098; see also Santiago v. City of Philadelphia, 72 F.R.D. 619, 623-24 (E.D. Pa 1976). Rule 23(a)
In order for a case to be certified as a class action,
12

plaintiffs must satisfy the four prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and one of the conditions of 23(b). Subsection 23(a)
requires that class representatives demonstrate:
(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 def enses 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.
Numerosity
Rule 23(a)(1) allows a class action to be maintained if the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
Rule 23's numerosity requirement requires examination of the
specific facts of each case and imposes no absolute limitations.
General Tel. Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission , 446 U.S. 318 (1980 ). To satisfy the
numerosity prong, “a plaintiff must ordinarily demonstrate some
evidence or reasonable estimate of the number of purported class
members,” and some courts have denied class certification in which
the plaintiffs i ncluded fewer than 45 people. Zeidman v. J. Ray
McDermott & Co., Inc. , 651 F.2d 1030, 1038 (5th Cir. 1981).
However, Courts have also held that relatively small amounts of
plaintiffs can also satisfy the numerosity requirement and Courts
in the Fifth Circuit have not required evidence of exact class size
or identity of class members to satisfy the numerosity requirement 13

and there is no set number above or below which a class is considered to have or have not satisfied the numerosity requirement. See Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, 186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, “Rule 23(a) must be read liberally in the context of civil rights suits,” and “smaller classes are less objectionable where the plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief on behalf of future class members as well as past and present members.” Jones, 519 F.2d at 1099, 1100.
More important than estimated numbers is whether joinder of all the proposed members of the class is impracticable. The Fifth Circuit has found the inclusion of future members in the class definition a factor to consider in determining whether joinder is impracticable. In Jack v. American Linen Supply Co. , the Court noted that “[t]he alleged class ... include[d] unnamed, unknown future ... [members] who will be affected by ... discriminatory policies, and joinder of unknown individuals is certainly impracticable” and weighs in favor of certification. See Pederson v. Louisiana State University, 213 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 2000).
As in Jones v. Diamond, the YSC class would contain the three named Plaintiffs who were confined at the facility at the time suit was filed, as well as all present youth confined at the facility and youth who may in the future be confined at YSC. Each year, hundreds of children are detained at YSC. In 2008, more than 400 children were detained at the Youth Study Center. (See Affidavit
14

of Dana Kaplan, Rec. Doc. 146-5). However, at any one time, the facility can hold only around thirty youth. The mere fact that the population of the YSC is constantly revolving during the pendency of litigation renders any joinder impractical. Moreover, individual litigation would impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs, defendants, and the judicial system.

Defendants argue that there may not necessarily be numerosity

because not every inmate who passes through YSC has complaints.

They also assert that perhaps this Court should not consider the

inclusion of future youth who will be confined at YSC because it is

scheduled to move to a state of the art facility. However, such an

argument ignores the complaints of inadequate education -- failure

to provide youth with adequate and appropriate individualized

academic education or the alleged deliberate indifference to the

medical needs of the youth caused in part by lack of staff. A yet

to be built state of the art facility will not address all of the

alleged constitutional, federal law, and state law violations

complained of by the proposed class. The mere fact that the

proposed class contains future members

illustrates that the

plaintiff class is not easily identifiable, and obstacles exist

that hamper joinder of all potential class members. Thus, the

numerosity requirement is satisfied.

Commonality
Rule 23(a)(2) allows a class action to be maintained if there 15

are questions of law or fact that are common to the class. A common question is one which, when answered as to one class member, is answered to all. Defendants erroneously assert that under Rule 23(a)(2) and (3), the potential class members must have in common questions of both law and fact and that there is no common character because "different members of the class were impacted differently." (Rec. Doc. 151 at 14-15). However, the test for commonality is not demanding and is met “where there is at least one issue, the resolution of which will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members.” Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999); Lightbourn v. County of El Paso , 118 F.3d 421, 426 (5th Cir. 1997). The commonality requirement does not require that the class members’ claims be identical, but only that they raise an issue subject to generalized proof such that a class action would be an efficient and economical mechanism for resolving them. As the Fifth Circuit held inWalker v. Jim Dandy Co., 638 F.2d 1330, 1336 (5th Cir. 1981),“[a]lthough there need not be identity of claims, there must be common elements of law or fact such that the class action would be an economical way of prosecuting and defending claims.”
In the present case all class members are children detained at YSC. Despite Defendants' contentions, all are subject to the same policies, practices, and conditions of confinement just as the prisoners in Jones v. Diamond and the children in Santiago v. City
16

of Philadelphia . The violations of federal and state law constitute the factual core of each member’s claim. The legal issues raised by each class member’s challenge to YSC’s practices, policies, and conditions are identical. The resolution of the problems complained of will affect all or a significant number of the class members. Thus commonality is satisfied. Typicality
Rule 23(a)(3) allows a class action to be maintained if the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Like commonality, the test for typicality is not demanding, “focus[ing] on the similarity between the named plaintiffs' legal and remedial theories and the theories of those whom they purport to represent.” Lightbourn, 118 F.3d at 426.
In the present case the legal theories advanced and relief sought by the named Plaintiffs and putative class members are the same. At the core of this suit are allegat ions that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights by the conditions of confinement, lack of medical or mental health care, and excessive use of isolation for the pretrial detainees. There are no fundamental factual differences between the circumstances of the named Plaintiffs and the other putative class members. Each member of the class is or will be detained at the YSC for some period of time
17

and will be subjected to the same conditions, rules, and policies. Defendants argue that typicality cannot be met because "each
and every day post-Katrina brings more improvements to the YSC facility and a brand new facility is in the works." (Rec. Doc. 151 at 16). Defendants submit that each Plaintiff and proposed class representative spawns indiv idual issues related to injury and causation. However, some of the violations stem from excessive use of isolation and inadequate medical and mental health care. These circumstances described and the remedies sought are shared by all proposed class members. Structural improvements or even a new facility will not extinguish most, much less all, of the constitutional violations addressed in the complaint. Moreover, the typicality requirement focuses less on the relative strength of the named and unnamed plaintiffs' cases than on the similarity of the legal and remedial theories behind their claims. Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc. 782 F. 2d 468 (5th Cir. 1986). Therefore, the typicality requirement is met. Adequacy of Representation
The last requirement of Rule 23(a) is that the representative party fairly and adequately protects the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). “The ‘adequacy’ requirement looks at both the class representatives and their counsel.” Jenkins, 782 F.2d at 468. The adequate representation requirement for certification of class mandates inquiry into: (1) zeal and
18

competence of representative's counsel; and (2) willingness and ability of representative to take active role in and control litigation and to protect interests of absentees. Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp. , 257 F.3d 475. (5th Cir. 2001). Initial determination that representative would be an adequate representative of the class should be based on two criteria: first, representative must have common interests with the unnamed members of the class; and second, it must appear that the representative will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel. Gonzales v. Cassidy , 474 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1975). For the ad equacy re quirement to be met, there must be no significant conflict of interest between the named plaintiffs and the absent class members.
In the present case there is no conflict of interest between named Plaintiffs and class members, and the representatives have common interests with the unnamed members. All claims of named and unnamed Plaintiffs rest upon the practices and policies at YSC as a whole, and as such apply to both named and unnamed class members alike. Additionally, the named Plaintiffs seek the same remedies, namely declaratory and injunctive relief, as the class as a whole. Hence, adequacy of representation is met. Rule 23(b)(2)
In addition to the requirements of Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs must satisfy one of three requirements of Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs
19

specifically assert their motion for class certification under Rule
23(b)(2), which states:
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole;

This case is suitable for certification under 23(b)(2) because it

alleges that Defendants’ policies and practices generally

applicable to class members have operated to injure them in

violation of federal and state law and thus would be appropriate

for injunctive and/or declaratory relief.

The language of 23(b)(2) “does not mandate that all members of

the (b)(2) class be aggrieved by or desire to challenge the

defendant’s conduct,” but requires “that the conduct or lack of it

which is subject to ch allenge be premised on a ground that is

applicable to the entire class.” Jones, 519 F.2d at 1199-1100.

Rule 23(b)(2) class actions have been used to challenge conditions

in prison and jail lawsuits and has been recognized by the Fifth

Circuit as “an effective weapon for an across-the-board attack

against systematic abuse.” Id.

A seminal suit in Louisiana premised on unconstitutional

prison conditions is Hamilton v. Morial , a 1969 class action

originally titled Hamilton v. Schiro, Civil Action No. 69-2443.

Hamilton was filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana and

challenged conditions in the New Orleans 20

Parish Prison. The

plaintiff class expanded over the years to include p risoners in

other facilities as new jails were built and other cases

challenging prison conditions in the area arose.

See Hamilton

Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs , 147 F. 3d 367, 368 (5th Cir.

1998); and Hamilton v. Morial, Civil Action No. 69-2443, Rec. Doc.

367 (granting class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) for

all present and future inmates incarcerated in certain facilities

within the Orleans Parish Prison System in Robinson v. Phelps ,

Civil Action No. 87-5867, a case consolidated with Hamilton v.

Morial in that same order).

Similarly, class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is an

appropriate case management tool for cases involving juvenile

detention centers. In Santiago v. City of Philadelphia, 72 F.R.D.

619, 626 (E.D. Pa 1976), the court granted a motion to certify

class in an action brought by seventeen juveniles on behalf of

themselves and others similarly situated, challenging the

conditions of confinement and mistreatment at a youth study center.

The Santiago court held 23(b)(2) to be satisfied, finding that

“plaintiffs’ claims, pertaining to ... the overall conditions at

YSC, the policies controlling the administration of educational

services and treatment of residents . . . and the alleged

restraints on individual liberties, sufficiently allege[d]” conduct

that was “based on policies and practices applicable to the entire

21

class” and that “final injunctive and declaratory relief may be required to terminate these practices.”
Defendants do not directly address Rule 23(b)(2) but choose instead to argue that Plaintiffs’ claims satisfy neither the predominance nor superiority requirements under Rules 23(b)(1) and (b)(3). The only argument that Defendants assert that may be construed as applying to Rule 23(b)(2) is that due to the differences among members, there is no pattern of action or regulatory set of practices that affects all of the members of the purported class. This argument, however, is overcome by case law such as Jones and Santiago which are directly analogous to the present case and involve individuals who enter a detention facility with their own unique set of circumstances but are all subject to the conditions of the facility and the policies and practices used to manage the facility. As in both Jones and Santiago, Plaintiffs in the present case assert Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class at YSC as a group through their policies and practices. Therefore, injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class may be appropriate and 23(b)(2) is met. Rule 23(g)
Unless a statute provides otherwise, a court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel. In appointing class counsel, the court must consider:
22

(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action;
(ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;
(iii)counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to
representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
The proposed class counsel is a juvenile justice advocacy organization, Juvenile justice of Louisiana (“JJPL”), and an international private law firm, Holland & Knight LLP. JJPL has received numerous awards in litigation and legislative initiatives. The Community Services Team at Holland and Knight provides legal representation to people and groups that otherwise could not afford it. The Holland and Knight attorneys working on this matter have extensive experience litigating issues of federal Constitutional law and civil rights. The proposed counsel have resources sufficient to represent the class seeks vigorous prosecution on behalf of the class.
The Fifth Circuit stated in Jones v. Diamond, “Realistically, class actions are the only practicable judicial mechanism for the cleansing reformation and purification of these penal institutions.” Jones, 519 F.2d at 1097. In the present case involving a detention center for youth, all requirements of Rule 23(a) and one requirement of 23(b) are met. Additionally, proposed counsel for the class satisfy Rule 23(g). Accordingly,
23

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Rec. Doc. 146) is GRANTED and the class shall be described as all children who are now or in the future9 will be confined at the Youth Study Center in New Orleans, Louisiana.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of February, 2009. ______________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9 “Now or in the future” means all children detained at YSC on or after December 21, 2007, the date the complaint in this action was filed.
24

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

J.D., L.E., and R.A., minors by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Damefaa Morgan, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated;
Plaintiffs,
v.

CLASS ACTION CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-9755

C. RAYNAGIN, Mayor, City of New Orleans; RICHARD A. WINDER, Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans; MUBARAK A. KAREEM, Social Serviues Coordinator, Department of Human Services, OZZIE WILLIAMS, Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center; DARRYL KILBERT, Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools; and WOODY KOPPEL, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD in their official capacities.
Defendants,

(PROPOSED) FFFCONSENT DECREE CONDITIONS OF CONFP1EMENT CLAIMS
INTRODUCTION

1. Parties. Plaintiff's are members of a certified class of pretrial detainees at the Youth Study Center ("YSC") in New Orleans, Louisiana. On February 6, 2009, the Court certified a Plaintiff Class comprised of all children who are now, or in the future will be, confined at the YSC. The "City Defendants1' arc Defendants C. Ray Nagin, Mayor, City of New Orleans; Richard A. Winder, Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans; Mubarak A. Kareem, Social Services Coordinator, Department of Human Services; and Ozzie Williams, Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center. The "School Board Defendants" arc Defendants Darryl Kilbert, Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools; Woody Koppcl, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and the Orleans Parish School Board ("OPSB"). This Consent Decree is entered into by and between Plaintiffs, the City Defendants, and the School Board Defendants (collectively, the "Parties").

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 16
2. Counsel. Class Counsel for Plaintiffs is comprised of a team of lawyers from the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (JJPL), which is a juvenile justice advocacy organization, and from Holland & Knight LLP, an international private law firm with a long-standing reputation of providing pro bono services to the poor and with decades of experience in civil rights and class action litigation across the United States. The City Defendants are represented by the City Attorneys from the City of New Orleans Law Department, The School Board Defendants are represented by the law firm Bryan & Jupiter, APLC,
3. Lawsuit. More than four years ago, in August 2005, Hurricane Katrina ripped through New Orleans, Louisiana andfloodedover 80% ofthe city. In the aftermath df Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declared the YSC irreparably damaged. On December 21, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the City Defendants and the School Board Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for federal constitutional and statutory violations arising out of the conditions of confinement and educational services provided at the YSC, The City Defendants and the School Board Defendants answered the Complaint, denying that they violated Plaintiffs' federal constitutional and statutory rights, and asserting various affirmative defenses.
4. Settlement Negotiations. Settlement Negotiations. Pursuant to the Court's August 22, 2008 order, the Parties underwent discovery with a target completion date of June 5,2009. While actively pursuing discovery, in May 2009, the City Defendants, the School Board Defendants and Class Counsel began negotiations regarding the implementation of policies and procedures designed to address and remedy the federal constitutional and statutory claims alleged in the Complaint. After a status conference with the Court, the Parties filed, on June 4, 2009, Proposed Settlement Procedures and Proposed Class Notices that outlined the Parties' agreed upon plan to pursue settlement negotiations.
According to the Settlement Procedures, which the Court approved after notice and hearing on June 8,2009, the Parties agreed to mutually retain consultants with expertise in the operation of juvenile detention facilities and in the provision of educational services for detained youth. The Parties further agreed to consult in good faith with the consultants to develop and implement mutually agreed upon remedial plans that include policies and procedures for providing detention services and educational programs to youth detained at the YSC that are in accordance with all applicable constitutional and federal and state statutory standards, noting specifically that the City Defendants deny (hat any constitutional, federal or state, standards have been violated. The Parties agreed that should settlement negotiations prove successful, they would present to the Court a Consent Decree that encompasses the terms of the mutually agreed upon remedial plans relating to the Plaintiffs' conditions of confinement and educational claims.
On August 20, 2009, the Parties were pleased to report that after extensive negotiations that included exceptional work by the Parties' mutually agreed upon expert, Paul DcMuro, the City Defendants proposed major changes to the operations of the YSC that are acceptable to the Plaintiffs. The Parties further reported that the School Board Defendants had implemented some, and stood ready to implement most, of the recommendations proposed by Carol Cramer Brooks,

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 16
the mutually retained Education Consultant, jn a comprehensive plan to overhaul the education program at the YSC. While the City Defendants and the School Board Defendants have denied and continue to deny liability for any and all claims alleged by the Plaintiffs in their Complaint, the settlement negotiations among the Parlies and with the mutually retained experts have resulted in this Consent Decree.
5, Purpose of this Consent Decree. The Parties and Class Counsel now wish to effect a fall, final and complete resolution and settlement of all claims, disputes and controversies relating to the allegations made by the Plaintiffs and to resolve their differences and disputes by settling their controversy in such manner as to: (1) promulgate and implement policies and procedures that improve the operation of the YSC and provide appropriate services to youth detained at the YSC; (2) promulgate and implement policies and procedures that improve educational programming to youth detained at the YSC; (3) achieve improvements in both the conditions of confinement at the YSC and in the educational programming at the YSC in a manner that satisfies all applicable constitutional and federal and state statutory standards; and (4) avoid the uncertainties and costs of further or future litigation.
6. Successors and Assigns. This Consent Decree is binding on all successors, assigns, heirs, administrators and personal representatives of the Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, the City Defendants, and the School Board Defendants.
II. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT OF THIS CONSENT DECREE
This Consent Decree is conditioned upon, and will be effective only upon, the occurrence of all of the following events specified below:
1. Joint Motion. The Parties move for an order granting preliminary approval of this Consent Decree and Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement.
2. Notice and Opportunity to Object. Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, as approved by the Court, is provided to the Plaintiff Class, and class members will have a sufficient opportunity to object to the Court's approval of this Consent Decree by submitting memoranda in opposition within thetimeprescribed by the Court.
3. Fairness Hearing. After reviewing any and all objections that are timely filed, the Court will hold a hearing on a predetermined date and time to decide whether or not to approve this Consent Decree.
4. Court Approval. Final Approval of the Consent Decree and entry of Final Judgment by the Court in accordance with the terms set forth herein, as modified, if necessary, by the Parties in response to any objections raised and addressed during the Fairness Hearing,
5. Waiver of Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees. In the event that the Court approves this Consent Decree, Class Counsel waives any entitlement to claim attorneys' fees and costs

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 4 of 16
incurred in bringing and maintaining Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit up to and including the date of the Court's entry of Final Judgment in this lawsuit.
6. Implementation of Terms of Consent Decree. The City Defendants and the School Board Defendants agree to exercise good faith to implement the terms of this Consent Decree as soon as practicable, and pursuant to the specific dates set forth below, and, in any event, no later than two (2) years from the date of entry of Final Judgment.
HI. TERMS OF CONSENT DECREE (CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CLAIMS)
1. Actions to Address Immediate Concerns. Pursuant to the recommendations proposed by the Parties' mutually agreed-upon expert, Paul DcMuro, who has expertise in the operation of juvenile detention facilities, the City Defendants have agreed to take the following action to address immediate concerns about the conditions of confinement at the YSC:
A- Fire Safety and Prevention
The New Orleans Fire Department inspected plans for the current and projected configuration of the Youth Study Center in July 2009. As part of the inspection of the plans, a senior member of the Fire Department reviewed the entire system offiresafety at the YSC to make recommendations for improvement to the entire fire safety system at the YSC.
The City Defendants agree to:
i. implement all of the recommendations made by the New Orleans Fire Department on or before November 15,2009.
ii. conduct quarterly fire drills during each shift for a rninimum of twelve (12) fire drills per year.
iii. schedule routine inspections of the YSC premises by the State Fire Marshall, as per their regulations, to ensure that the fire equipment is in proper condition.
iv. ensure that the YSC staff receives training in the use of fire extinguishers by the New Orleans Fire Department
v. ensure that the YSC staff is equipped with Tier 2 radio equipment

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 5 of 16
B. Building Safety During construction of the new juvenile detention facility, the City Defendants agree to take (he following immediate actions to safeguard the youth:
i. immediately cordon off construction areas; ii. immediately implement a plan of daily "walk-throughs" with the
construction foreman and a representative of the YSC to note hazards and potentially dangerous conditions; and iii. conduct daily "walk-throughs" during construction of the new juvenile detention facility.
C. Youth Security hi Detention The Parties acknowledge that the ongoing construction of the new detention facility, presents additional security concerns for the youth detained in YSC. Consequently, the use of shackles will be limited to only circumstances where the security and safety of youth is compromised, and the City Defendants agree to take the following immediate actions:
i. Youth will NOT be shackled while being transported within the building unless there is a security reason.
it. When youth are shackled within the building for security reasons, this will be logged and must be approved by the superintendent
iii. Until the perimeter is secured, youth will be shackled when taken to the trailer for visits or sick calls.
iv. When transferring youth outside of the facility or if security in the facility is breached, the City retains therightto use restraints.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 6 of 16
D. Food Service The City Defendants agrees
i. to allow the Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals to routinely inspect the YSC food service area on an annual basis as per its regulations.
ii. That the modular construction will include a separate eating area, as submitted to FEMA, if approved by FEMA.
iii. to comply with ALL state health and licensing standards. iv. to acquire additional refrigeration and freezer capacity.
E. Intake/Admissions Process The City Defendants agree that:
i. new admissions will not be put on lockdown for the first twenty-four (24) hours unless there is a specific security xeason. This reason must be documented and approved.
ii. admissions will be done by only 1 of 2 staff members who will be retrained on the admissions process, including administration of the MAYSI-2 screening form. Such staff members shall also: 1. be retrained on general orientation procedures; 2. be retrained on proper completion of all intake and admission forms; and 3. be retrained on proper administration of the MAYSI-2.
iii. completed MAYSI-2 will be properly filed and, where appropriate, flagged for follow-up.
iY. all new admissions will receive a medical examination within 24 hours of admission, with the exception of youth who are admitted during a weekend.
v. any youth admitted on a weekend will be given a medical examination on the following workday.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 7 of 16
F. Health/Medical Care The City Defendants agree',
i. to inform all staff that they cannot screen a request for medical and/or dental care, but that all requests will be forwarded to Medical Staff.
ii. to retain a Medical Records Clerk who shall assist the medical staff in providing medical care and record keeping.
iii. that staff shall not deny a youth who has requested medical care access to appropriate medical care.
G. Room Confinement The City Defendants agree that.
i. staff shall not order a youth to room confinement for more than eight (8) hours within a 24 hour period.
ii. any room confinement in excess of eight (8) hours within a 24 hour period must be approved by the Supervisor.
iii. in the event that, upon Supervisor approval, a youth is ordered to room confinement for more than eight (8) hours within a 24 hour period, a member of the Medical Staff and/or Counselors must evaluate that youth daily.
H. Air Conditioning/Temperature Control The City Defendants agree that:
i, air conditioning units and the temperature in the school areas will be adequately maintained,
ii. if an air conditioner breaks, the staff shall monitor and document the temperature in the school area and the sleeping areas; fans shall be made available to the youth.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 8 of 16
I, Grievance Policy The Cily Defendants have produced a copy of a new grievance policy to Plaintiffs and such policy has been reviewed and approved by Paul DeMuro. The City Defendants agree:
i. to implement the new grievance policy. ii. to make the new grievance policy part of the Policies and Procedures
Manual for the Youth Study Center.
J, Housing of Girls at Youth Study Center The City Defendants agree that:
i. prior to the delivery and implementation of the modular units, the girls shall be housed in one of the newly renovated class rooms, with appropriate bedding, daytime space and space to store personal items.
ii, the rooms to which the girls shall be moved shall contain window coverings installed for privacy.
iii, when girls are showering on one of the boys' units, all males will be removedfromthe unit to ensure privacy.
K. Administration The City Defendants agree that;
i. Administrative Staff shall be movedfromthe trailer currently being used to a renovated area in the facility itself on or before the completion of the renovations.
L, Outdoor Space The Youth Study Center currently has a seating space for outdoor and fresh air time for youth. The City Defendants agree tot
i. complete the repairs on the outdoor space that is now available on or before January 15,2010.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 9 of 16
2. Actions to Address Short and Mid Term Concerns. The City Defendants agree that in developing policies and procedures to address short and mid-term concerns, the overall goal is reliance on programming andrecreation,and not on lockdown. This emphasis on programming and recreation shall be reflected in the policies and procedures promulgated and implemented by the City Defendants. Pursuant to the recommendations proposed by the Parties' mutually agreed-upon expert, Paul DeMuro, the City Defendants have agreed to take the following action to address the short and mid-term concerns about the conditions of confinement at the YSC:
A. Policies and Procedures
The City Defendants agree to use, as aframework,the policy submitted to the Parties by Paul DeMuro. Youth Study Centex Administration and Staff have reviewed the policies and procedures and made appropriate annotations to same so that it is tailored to the Youth Study Center's needs. The City has contracted with Anne Nelsen, an expert in the field, to assist the City in this endeavor. The first of these annotations were given to Anne Nelsen on July 31, 2009. Ms. Nelsen will assist the City in producing a working draft on or before November 15, 2009.
The City Defendants agree:
I. to contract Anne Nelsen to assist with development of a comprehensive' policies and procedures manual.
ii. that these policies and procedures will be Standard Operating Procedure for the Youth Study Center.
iii. that the Policies and Procedures Manual for the Youth Study Center will be Complete on or before December 31,2009.
iv. to provide Plaintiffs with a copy of the official Policies and Procedures Manual for the Youth Study Center on or before December 31,2009.
v, that the provisions of the official Policies and Procedures Manual for the Youth Study Center shall remain in force for two years, and that the City Defendants may amend such provisionsfromtime lo time only with the Plaintiffs' prior written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
vi. that in the event of a dispute about amendments to the official Policies and Procedures Manual for the Youth Study Center, such dispute shall be submitted to the Court for resolution.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 10 of 16
B. Training The City Defendants agree to obtain a "Needs Assessment"froma nationally recognized association acceptable to Paul DeMuro. Once an assessment is performed, the City Defendants shall have the training performed pursuant to the conclusions of the assessment. This training shall be phased in with the City agreeing to an initial forty (40) hour pre-service training for present and newly hired Counselors and a fifteen (15) hour in-service.training in subsequent years for its Counselors.
The City Defendants agree: i. to implement a training program.
ii. to obtain a Needs Assessmentfrom,a nationally recognized expert in best practices in Juvenile Detention that shall: 1. identify current training needs; and 2. be completed on or before December 31,2009.
iii. that all current staff and new hires shall receive an initial forty (40) hour pre/in-service training as developed through the Needs Assessment.
C, Governance Structure The City Defendants agree to maintain a full-time Superintendent with juvenile justice experience, a fuUtime Assistant Superintendent, and a Social Services Specialist. The Assistant Superintendent shall handle, in addition to other duties, the grievance procedures, as well as supervise the intake and admissions process and daily operations of the facility. The Social Services Specialist shall supervise the counselors' training.
The City Defendants agree: i. to work with me City's Civil Service Commission to develop an action plan on or before the target date of December 31,2009, for the advertisement, recruitment, and hiring of qualified candidates to fill the positions of Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and Social Services Specialist, subject to the conditions of III below. ii. to hire a full time Superintendent on or before the target date of October 1, 2010, subject to the conditions of III below. iii, to hire a full time Assistant Superintendent on or before the target date of October 1, 2010, subject to the conditions of HI below.
10

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 11 of 16
iv. to hire a full time Social Services Specialist on or before the target date of October 1,2010, subject to the conditions of HI below.
v. that the full time Superintendent shall have a background in juvenile justice. vi. that the Assistant Superintendent shall handle such administrative
responsibilities as set out in the Policy and Procedure Manual. vii. to designate one person for each shift as who shall:
1. be responsible for supervising the overall operation of the facility during that shift;
2. conduct walk-throughs of the facility and handle any large scale problem or emergency; and
3. handle intake, grievances and problems on units without any disruption to the operation of the unit.
viii. to designate one person in each unit who shall; 1. monitor adherence to schedule on that unit; 2. supervise all other staff on the unit; 3. be responsible for ensuring that all policies and procedures are adhered to on the unit; 4. be responsible for ensuring that all paperwork, including shift paperwork, is properly completed on the unit; and 5. beresponsiblefor completing the shift paperwork.
D. Professional Services 1. Clinical Director and Social Workers
The City Defendants agree to hire one social worker per unit on or before January 1, 2010. Currently, there are only two units operating, but only one social worker. The City Defendants agree that the first social worker hired shall have a Master's degree in Social Work, and that this social worker shall also officially serve as the "Clinical Director" at the Youth Study Center. When the third modular unit becomes fully operational, the City shall then retain a third social worker for that unit. The other two social workers at the YSC shall work under the Clinical Director's supervision.
11

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 12 of 16
The City Defendants agree, i. to work with the City's Civil Service Commission to develop an action plan on or before the target dale of December 31,2009, for the advertisement, recruitment, and hiring of qualified candidates to fill the positions of social worker and Clinical Director, subject to the conditions of HI below.
ii, to maintain three social workers on staff on or before the completion and operation of new modular units.
iii, that two of the three social workers shall have bachelor level degrees in Social Work.
iv. that one social worker shall have a Masters Degree in Social Work in the field of Behavioral Health.
1. This social worker shall serve as the Clinical Director.
v. that the Clinical Director's responsibilities for monitoring of psychotropic medication, supervising the two other social workers, and coordinating group therapy, individual counseling and other mental health programming, shall be as set forth in the Policy and Procedure Manual.
2. Recreational Specialists
The City Defendants agree to hire one full-time and one half-time dedicated Recreational Specialists to design and implement recreational programming for the youth. Such programming shall include, but is not limited to, outdoor activities, passive recreation, and weekend activities.
The City Defendants agree that: i. they will work with the City's Civil Service Commission to develop an action plan on or before the target date of December 31,2009, subject to the conditions of III below, for the advertisement, recruitment, and hiring of qualified candidates to fill the positions of Recreational Specialists.
ii. the Recreation Specialists shall focus exclusively on recreation programming.
iii. a full-time Recreation Specialist shall be present at the YSC from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 7 days per week.
3. Health Services Staff
12

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 13 of 16
The City Defendants have hired and agree to retain a Records Clerk to assist its present nurse. In addition, the City shall also hire a Medical Assistant to work on Saturdays and four other days during the week. The City shall hire the Medical Assistant on or before the target date of October 1,2010 subject to the conditions of III below. In addition to retaining a Medical Doctor, the City shall hire an additional Doctor to ensure that a Medical Doctor shall be on site at the YSC to care for the youth six days per week, Monday through Saturday, for an hour and a half each day, or until examinations are complete. A Medical Doctor shall be on call for emergencies 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The City Defendants agree that:
. i. they will work with the City's Civil Service Commission to develop an action plan on or before the target date of December 31,2009, subject to the conditions of III below for the advertisement,recruitmentand hiring of qualified candidates to fill the positions of Medical Director, Medical Assistant, and Records Clerk.
ii, an additional doctor shall be hired on a contractual basis on or before the target date of October 1,2010, subject to the conditions of HI below
iii. one of the doctors shall be designated the "Medical Director."
iv. a full-time "Medical Clerk" shall be retained to maintain medical record.
v, a full-time "Medical Assistant" shall be hired on or before the target date of October 1,2010, subject to the conditions of in below, to perform such responsibilities, all as set forth in the Policy and Procedure Manual, with respect to:
i. preparing medications for dispensing;
ii. dispensing medications;
iii. administering shots;
iv. training staff on proper dispensing of medications; and
v. any other duties as assigned by the Medical Di rector,
E. Saner-vision of the Youths/Direct Staff
The City Defendants agree to a Counselor-to-youth, ratio of one-to-eight (1:8) during the first two shifts and a onc-to-ten ratio (1:10) during the night shifts, These staffing patterns will require the City Defendants to hire additional counselors, who will be phased in over time. The modular units will require additional staffing as well.
13

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 14 of 16
F. Capacity of the Youths Housed at Youth Study Center
The City Defendants agree to limit the capacity of juveniles housed at the Youth Study Center to the number of beds in the facility. Presently, there are thirty-two (32) beds available for males, limiting capacity of male juveniles to thirty-two (32) beds and four beds available for females, limiting capacity of female juveniles to four beds. Under no circumstances shall any empty beds for one gender be used to accommodate another gender When the modular units are opened and the maximum number of fifty (50) beds are made available, capacity shall be limited tofiftyyouths.
G. Compliance and Monitoring
The City Defendants agree to hire Paul DeMuro for compliance and monitoring of the terms of this Consent Decree, provided that Mr. DeMuro can be retained on reasonable terms and conditions.
i. Mr. DeMuro shall have reasonable access to the YSC's facilities to monitor compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree.
ii. Mr. DeMuro will conduct compliance and monitoring assessments of the Youth Study Center three times per year.
iii. Mr. DeMuro will report the results of his assessments in writing to the Court and to the Parties.
iv. Thirty (30) days prior tofilinghis quarterly report of his assessments to the Court, Mr. DeMuro shall submit a draft ofhis report to the Parties and allow the City Defendants an opportunity to cure any specified deficiencies noted in the report during such thirty (30) day period. In no event shall this opportunity to cure prevent or unreasonably delay Mr. DeMuro'sfilingof his reports and assessments to the Court.
v. Prior to filing any motion challenging the adequacy of the City Defendants' compliance with, the Consent Decree, Plaintiffs shall first notify counsel for the City Defendants of the alleged noncompliance, and the City Defendants shall, together with Mr. DeMuro, negotiate with Plaintiffs towards an informal resolution.
III. TARGET DATES
The Parties agree that the dates for performance set forth herein are goals that the City Defendants will try in good faith to achieve ("target dates"). Failure to achieve a particular goal by the target date shall not be considered a violation of this Consent Decree unless the City Defendants are not proceeding in good faith to achieve said goal. It is the Parties' intent that all such goals set forth in this
14

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 15 of 16
Consent Decree shall be achieved no later than two years from the date of the Order approving settlement.
ii, The City Defendants have already begun the process of hiring additional staff agreed to in the "Governance" and "Professional Services" sections above. Because all of these positions are Civil Service positions, however, the hiring of such additional staff is an on-going process, which may result in unavoidable delays. Nevertheless, the City will, in good faith, use reasonable diligence to fill these positions on or before the end of the two-year for provided for in Section V below ("Jurisdiction").
IV. SCOPE OF STIPULATED REMEDIES
i. The Parties agree that the stipulated remedies set forth in this Consent Decree are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of Federal rights alleged by Plaintiffs, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of Federal rights alleged by Plaintiffs.
ii. The Parties agree that nothing in this Consent Decree will constitute either an admission of liability or any evidence of liability in ay respects, including but not limited to any individual suits for damages which are presently pending or which will be filed. The parties have entered into this agreement due to uncertainties of trial and to end litigation.
iii. Upon entry of an Order approving the Consent Decree evidencing the agreed upon remedial plan, the Parties agree that all claims, disputes and controversies arising out of this lawsuit shall be completely settled and compromised pursuant to the provisions and the effect of said Order.
V. JURISDICTION
i. The Court retains jurisdiction of this case to enforce the Order approving the terms of this Consent Decree for a time period of two years from the date of the Order approving settlement. At the end of this time period, the Consent Decree evidencing the remedial plan will automatically cease and become null and void, without any Order being required by the Court, except that prior to the expiration of this time period either party may obtain an extension of the twoyear limitation on the Court's jurisdiction over this Consent Decree upon a showing of good cause therefor.
SO ORDERED, this the 12thdaDyaoyf of February, ,22001009.
The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle
15

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 241 Filed 02/12/10 Page 16 of 16

United States District Judge

Steplien F. Hanlon Holland &Kriight LLP Class Counsel

By: C. Q ^ Q Q C t Carol A. Kolinchak Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana Class Counsel

By: Lj]^J f "'

Darffefad Morgan

Plaintiffs' Guardian ad Litem

By:

jJJL

Clare Jupiter

Bryan & Jupiter, APLC

CouwdforjhflSchofi Board Defendants

By: /jllWf^L^A
m Chief Deputy City Attorney Counselfor the City Defendants

4^/7 Date: It,

Date: i p j f r y j p 1

Date: ^M001
Date: A14P

Y^Y^ Date: AS

f

# 8927432 vl

16

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

J.D., L.E., and R.A., minors by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Damekia Morgan, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated;
Plaintiffs,

CLASS ACTION CIVIL ACTION NO, 07-9755

C. RAY NAGIN, Mayor, City of New Orleans; RICHARD A. WINDER, Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans; MUBARAK A. KAREEM, Social Services Coordinator, Department of Human Services, OZZIE WILLIAMS, Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center; DARRYL KILBERT, Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools; and WOODY KOPPEL, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD in their official capacities.
Defendants.

(PROPOSED) CONSENT DECREE EDUCATION CLAIMS
INTRODUCTION
1. Parties. Plaintiff's are members of a certified class of pretrial detainees at the Youth Study Center ("YSC") in New Orleans, Louisiana. On February 6, 2009, the Court certified a Plaintiff Class comprised of all children who are now, or in the future will be, confined at the YSC. The "City Defendants" are Defendants C. Ray Nagin, Mayor, City of New Orleans; Richard A. Winder, Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans; Mubarak A. Karcem, Social Services Coordinator, Department of Human Services; and Ozzie Williams, Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center. The "School Board Defendants" are Defendants Darryl Kilbert, Superintendenl of New Orleans Public Schools; Woody Koppel, President of Orleans Parish School Board; and the Orleans Parish School Board ("OPSB"). This Consent Decree is entered into by and between PlaintifTs and the School Board Defendants (collectively, the "Parties").

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 15
2. Counsel. Class Counsel for Plaintiffs is comprised of a team of lawyers from the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (JJPL), which is a juvenile justice advocacy organization, and from Holland & Knight LLP, an international private law firm with a long-standing reputation of providing pro bono services to the poor and with decades of experience in civil rights and class action litigation across the United States. The City Defendants are represented by the City Attorneys from the City of New Orleans Law Department, The School Board Defendants are represented by the law firm Bryan & Jupiter, APLC.
3. Lawsuit. More than four years ago, in August 2005, Hurricane Katrina ripped through New Orleans, Louisiana and flooded over 80% of the city. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declared the YSC irreparably damaged. On December 21, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the City Defendants and the School Board Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for federal constitutional and statutory violations arising out of the conditions of confinement and educational services provided at the YSC. The City Defendants and the School Board Defendants answered the Complaint, denying that they violated Plaintiffs' federal constitutional and statutory rights, and asserting various affirmative defenses.
4. Settlement Negotiations. Pursuant to the Court's August 22, 2008 order, the Parties underwent discovery with a target completion date of June 5, 2009. While actively pursuing discovery, in May 2009, the City Defendants, the School Board Defendants and Class Counsel began negotiations regarding the implementation of policies and procedures designed to address and remedy the federal constitutional and statutory claims alleged in the Complaint. After a status conference with the Court, the Parties filed, on June 4, 2009, Proposed Settlement Procedures and Proposed Class Notices that outlined the Parties' agreed upon plan to pursue settlement negotiations.
According to the Settlement Procedures, which the Court approved after notice and hearing on June 8, 2009, the Parties agreed to mutually retain consultants with expertise in the operation of juvenile detention facilities and in the provision of educational services for detained youth. The Parties further agreed to consult in good faith with the consultants to develop and implement mutually agreed upon remedial plans that include policies and procedures for providing educational programs to youth detained at the YSC that are in accordance with all applicable constitutional and federal and state statutory standards. The Parties agreed that should settlement negotiations prove successful, they would present to the Court a Consent Decree that encompasses the terms of the mutually agreed upon remedial plans relating to the Plaintiffs' educational claims.
On August 20, 2009, the Parties were pleased to report that the School Board Defendants had implemented some, and stood ready to implement most, of the recommendations proposed by Carol Cramer Brooks, the mutually retained Education Consultant, in a comprehensive plan to overhaul the education program at the YSC. While the School Board Defendants have denied and continue to deny liability for all claims alleged by the Plaintiffs in their Complaint, the settlement negotiations among the Parties and with the mutually retained expert have resulted in this Consent Decree.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 15
5. Purpose of this Consent Decree, The Parties and Class Counsel now wish to effect a full, final and complete resolution and settlement of all claims, disputes and controversies relating to the allegations made by the Plaintiffs and to resolve their differences and disputes by settling their controversy in such manner as to: (1) promulgate and implement policies and procedures that provide appropriate services to youth detained at the YSC; (2) promulgate and implement policies and procedures that improve educational programming to youth detained at the YSC; (3) achieve improvements in the educational programming at the YSC in a manner that satisfies all applicable constitutional and federal and state statutory standards; and (4) avoid the uncertainties and costs of further or future litigation.
6. Successors and Assigns. This Consent Decree is binding on all successors, assigns, heirs, administrators and personal representatives of the Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and the School Board Defendants.
II. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT OF THIS CONSENT DECREE
This Consent Decree is conditioned upon, and shall be effective only upon, the occurrence of all of the following events specified below:
1. Joint Motion. The Parties move for an order granting preliminary approval of this Consent Decree and Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement.
2. Notice and Opportunity to Object. Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, as approved by the Court, is provided to the Plaintiff Class, and class members shall have a sufficient opportunity to object to the Court's approval of this Consent Decree by submitting memoranda in opposition within the time prescribed by the Court.
3. Fairness Hearing. After reviewing any and all objections that are timely filed, the Court will hold a hearing on a predetermined date and time to decide whether or not to approve this Consent Decree.
4. Court Approval. Final Approval of the Consent Decree and entry of Final Judgment by the Court in accordance with the terms set forth herein, as modified, if necessary, by the Parties in response to any objections raised and addressed during the Fairness Hearing.
5. Waiver of Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees. In the event that the Court approves this Consent Decree, Class Counsel waives any entitlement to claim attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing and maintaining Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit up to and including the date of the Court's entry of Final Judgment in this lawsuit,
6. Dismissal of Individual Defendants. Upon the Court's entry of an Order approving this Consent Decree, the individual defendants Darryl Kilbert and Woody Koppel shall be dismissed from the lawsuit; however, the Orleans Parish School Board shall remain a party.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 4 of 15

7. Implementation of Terms of Consent Decree. The School Board Defendants agree to exercise good faith to implement the terms of this Consent Decree as soon as practicable, and pursuant to the specific dates set forth below, and, in any event, no later than two (2) years from the date of entry of Final Judgment,

III, TERMS OF CONSENT DECREE

1. DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE

A.

Staffing

The OPSB shall provide the following staff to deliver educational services at the Youth Study Center:

i, Supervisor/Site Administrator: .5 FTE. The OPSB has appointed Mr. Tyrone Casby as the Supervisor/Site Administrator. Mr, Casby, who has additional administrative duties with the extended day program, shall maintain a daily presence at the Youth Study Center, Monday through Friday, for a minimum of four (4) hours per day.

ii. Clerical: .5 FTE, Currently, clerical duties for the education program are performed by City of New Orleans' staff, the facility nurse. The OPSB shall supply a part time clerical employee in order to improve gathering student information in a timely manner, accessing special and general education records, and reporting release information.

iii. Teachers: The OPSB shall achieve and maintain a teacher/student ratio for General Education students of no greater than one to ten (1:10) no later than two years from the date of the Order approving settlement. The teacher/student ratio for Special Education will comply with Bulletin 1706 of the Louisiana Department of Education. The OPSB shall monitor the daily population of the YSC to maintain this ratio.

(a) Specifically, the OPSB shall provide:

i. Special Education teachers in accordance with Bulletin 1706 of the Louisiana Department of Education;

ii. 2 FTE General Education Teacher with "Highly Qualified" statuses in two of four core subject areas: (1) Mathematics, (2) Language Arts (preference given to reading specialist), (3) Social studies, and (4) Science;

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 5 of 15
iii. 1 FTE Special Education Teacher: The OPSB shall increase from .5 to 1 FTE position;
iv. 1 FTE Paraeducator; and
v. 1 FTE Social Worker: The OPSB shall request that the current social worker conduct behavior-based groups during the school day as part of recreation/social skills rotation in the schedule, Requirement includes three behavior-based groups per school day.
(b) When hiring teaching staff, the OPSB shall make good faith efforts to:
i. assign teachers who meet the "Highly Qualified" standard as identified in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to work at the YSC.
ii. ensure that the YSC teachers teach in their areas of certification.
(c) In addition to the positions listed above, the OPSB shall maintain a cadre of substitute teachers trained in providing educational services to youth in detention settings, available on call as needed.
(d) Currently, there is also an after school and a summer school program funded through Title 1 Neglected and Delinquent Funds. In addition to providing materials and supplies, this funding includes two (2) teachers and two (2) para educators for three (3) hours per day for 135 days (after school) and two (2) teachers for five and one-half (5.5) hours per day for eighteen (18) days (summer). YSC administrators, in consultation with the education staff, have discretion to change their allocation of Neglected and Delinquent Funds in future budget cycles.
(e) Future Planning: The OPSB Supervisor/Site Administrator shall supervise Recovery School District ("RSD") employees at the Youth Study Center and report to the RSD regarding their performance.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 6 of 15
B. Physical Plant
With minor renovations, the existing physical plant provides adequate space for providing educational services at the Youth Study Center. Four of the five classrooms should be assigned to the leaching staff, The observation and storage room between Ms. Acosta's and Ms. Lockett's classrooms should be renovated to accommodate Mr. Casby and school clerical staff, Telephone, fax and Internet service should be available in these rooms,
The City of New Orleans has been notified to wire all school classrooms for wireless Internet or Internet and the renovated office space for Internet, telephone and fax services.
C. Technology
i. There are fifteen computers in the Youth Study Center school program (computers delivered in March 2009). Eight are laptops and docking stations dedicated to utilisation by youth and are currently located in Ms. Acosta's classroom. Five are slightly more powerful laptops currently assigned to Ms. Acosta, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Williams, Ms Edwards, and Mr. Kareem.
ii. The OPSB shall supply an additional eight laptops for student use. The OPSB shall reassign OPSB-supplied computers currently used by YSC staff to students and to the education staff, The OPSB shall cooperate with the City of New Orleans to ensure that appropriate firewalls are installed to prohibit access to certain sites.
iii. The OPSB shall give the clerical position at Youth Study Center's education program access to the OPSB's "Power School" software and any other data collection/case management software used in the OPSB in order to expedite access to and transfer of school records, special education documents, and attendance data.
iv. Future Planning: Education staff shall assess the need for additional technology for instructional use in the classrooms and include these items in future budget cycles. The guiding standard shall be that teachers teaching in detention education programs have equal access to the technologies (hard and software) provided for their public school counterparts.
D. Resources
i. The OPSB shall have the responsibility for supplying the resources (i.e., textbooks, classroom materials, and supplies) required to provide a quality education program in the Youth Study Center, Access to resources shall be comparable to resources available in any OPSB or RSD public school. Once

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 7 of 15
resources are at the Youth Study Center, they shall be equally accessible to all school staff regardless of the district or agency that employs them.
ii. The Parties acknowledge that some of the obligations of the OPSB herein will require the cooperation and consent of both the RSD and the City Defendants. The OPSB agrees to make good faith efforts and use due diligence to obtain same from the RSD and the City Defendants.
E. Schedule
i. Educators at the Youth Study Center shall be required to work the daily time requirement (7 hours/day with 30 minutes for lunch) and the OPSB approved school calendar, The education program at the Youth Study Center shall follow a schedule that includes:
(a) Two 30 minute staff meetings per school day;
(b) Three 90-minute instructional blocks per school day, including a 90-minute rotation of behavior management training/recreation per student, per school day, The City of New Orleans Youth Study Center recreation staff and social worker shall provide recreation and behavior management instruction. This is a continuation of existing practice. Instructional blocks of 90 minutes shall be divided into two core content areas based on teacher certification areas;
(c) Two 45 minute instructional blocks per school day; and
(d) A total instruction time of 360 minutes (6 hours) per student, per day.
ii. OPSB staff shall work in partnership with Youth Study Center staff to develop processes to provide education services to youth segregated from the general population for medical, security, or behavioral reasons, as soon as the safety and security concern has subsided.
iii. When the number of students in attendance on a school day declines (e.g., due to court appearances or releases) teachers not needed for instruction may complete and analyze assessments, work with individual students to develop a Student Education Plan ("SEP"), contact receiving schools and institutions to prepare for a Youth Study Center youth's arrival, or to check on recently released residents. Clerical staff and the paraeducator should coordinate the required phone calls.
iv. Unless otherwise noted on a youth's Individual Education Plan ("IEP"), special education services shall include pullout services, inclusion services (team teaching, providing individual assistance in the regular education classroom) and teacher consultant services (working with teachers to provide

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 8 of 15
recommendations for working with special education students in the regular education classroom). v. Beginning August 2009, the OPSB and the RSD shall work to identify potential funding sources to support a year-round school program at the Youth Study Center for implementation as soon as feasible.
vi, Future Planning: OPSB School Supervisor/Site Administrator shall monitor and appropriately respond, on a daily basis, to changes in population and housing status, for compliance with teacher/student ratios, caseload size for special education teachers, and classroom space.
2. PREPARATION AND TRAINING FOR STAFF
A, Training Provided The OPSB shall provide to the education staff at the Youth Study Center training and professional development specific to teaching in a detention facility. The OPSB shall provide for training in the following areas:
i. Safety and Security (including facility policies and procedures); ii. Behavior Observation and Recording;
iii. Understanding the Juvenile Justice System;
iv. Managing Mentally 111 Youth; v. Suicide Prevention; vi. Behavior and Classroom Management;
vii. Understanding the Learning Styles of At-Risk and Delinquent Youth; viii. Experiential-Based Education; and
ix. Evidence-Based Behavior Training Programs.
3. PARTNERSHIP WITH JUVENILE COURT, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS YOUTH STUDY CENTER STAFF, AND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
A. General Principles The education staff of the Youth Study Center shall seek to develop working partnerships with the juvenile court, facility staff and public school entities. To achieve the vision of the Youth Study Center's education program, education staff shall make good faith

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 9 of 15
efforts to help each youth develop a student education plan for addressing their future academic needs.
B. Partnerships with the Juvenile Court and the YSC Supervisor
Accurate completion of this plan depends on effective and timely communication between probation staff from the juvenile court and Youth Study Center education staff regarding recommendations for the youth's future placement. The Youth Study Center education Supervisor/Site Administrator shall make the initial contact with representatives from the juvenile courts to create a viable process for obtaining the required information.
C. Partnerships with the YSC Facility Staff
Critical to the effectiveness and quality of the education program is the partnership developed with the YSC facility staff. The YSC facility staff shall transport youth in a timely manner so that education staff can meet the mandated instructional time. While youth are in school, YSC facility staff shall be assigned to classrooms to assist in monitoring youth behavior and maintaining a safe and secure environment. Education staff shall continue these practices.
D. Partnerships with the School Districts and YSC Staff
Equally important in the vision to assist in the successful transition of youth to the public school system is the development of a mutually respectful relationship between staff and administration in the public schools, including RSD, the School Board, and the Youth Study Center's education program. The OPSB shall create a process to increase the opportunity for successful transition.
E. Future Planning
The education staff shall work with the YSC staff to develop a single behavior management program that combines strategies to increase appropriate behaviors, decrease inappropriate behaviors, and teach self-monitoring behaviors.
4. EDUCATION PROGRAM
A, Enrollment
Clerical staff shall enroll youth into the Youth Study Center education program no later than the first school morning following detainment into the Youth Study Center, or in the case of extenuating circumstances, as soon as possible thereafter. The Education staff shall implement processes and partnerships with RSD and other school districts to;

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 10 of 15
i. notify previous school of youth's enrollment at the Youth Study Center;
ii, determine existing eligibility for special education;
iii. request any available educational history, i,e, credits earned, current schedule, suspensions, expulsions, etc. and current special education documents; and
iv, document findings in youth's academic record and OPSB data base.
B. Information Gathering and Assessment of Basic Skills
Education program staff shall gather information by interviewing the youth regarding educational history, educational goals, existing support systems, among other things. Following the interview, the youth shall complete a basic skills assessment using the computer based A+ assessment program. A+ is a self-administered assessment that provides information on current reading comprehension and math skills.
C. Creating the Student Education Plan (SEP)
Youth shall create their Student Education Plan (SEP) within one week of enrollment in the Youth Study Center education program. The SEP shall contain, among other things, future goals, tasks to achieve the goals, and development of a support team. Education staff shall use all or some of the following sources of information to work with the youth to develop the SEP:
i. Youth interview;
ii. Results of the A+ assessment;
iii, Previous school records;
iv. Interview with staff from previous school;
v. Information from Juvenile Court; and
vi. Interview with parent/guardian (Interview is conducted only after approval from the Juvenile Court personnel who are more aware of the family environment).
D. Communicating basic assessment information and contents of the SEP
Youth Study Center education staff shall participate in a daily Admit/Assessment Review meeting. During this meeting, staff shall communicate to all education staff, basic assessment information, relevant educational history, and the contents of the SEP (when complete) for all youth admitted to the school program that day. Teachers shall plan future learning activities for each youth based on the results of the assessment and skills required for successful transition to their next placement.
10

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 11 of 15
E. General Education Services
General education services shall be available to all eligible youth admitted to the Youth Study Center. There are two (2) general education teachers providing instruction in their certified content area. In order to maintain accountability, attempt some continuity with the public school instruction, and meet the learning challenges of the detention population, teachers shall:
i. Adopt the Louisiana Department of Education's state comprehensive curriculum for use in teaching the core subject areas including Mathematics, Language Arts, Reading, Social Studies, and Science.
ii. Consult median grade level district Pacing Guides to define weekly plans. Because youth do not get detained in the Youth Study Center for academic deficits, but rather for inappropriate behaviors and poor decision-making, the education program must also include in its curriculum instruction on teaching successful school behaviors and social skills. Cognitive Behavior Training is an excellent example of an evidence-based curriculum.
iii. Submit weekly lesson plans each Friday to the Supervisor/Site Administrator for approval. Lesson plans shall be written pursuant to the OPSB approved lesson plan format (or an agreed upon version that includes the components necessary to complete the learning cycle). Lesson plans shall be written for the median grade levels (currently, 7/8 and 9/10) and shall include lesson enhancements for youth that test above or below the median grade level. Teachers shall use the youths' SEPs, assessment results, educational history and goals when formulating learning objectives and lesson plans.
iv. Demonstrate understanding of the learning styles of at-risk and delinquent youth and, subsequently, the inclusion of a variety of instructional strategies in each lesson to address those learning needs. The Supervisor/Site Administrator should review lesson plans with multiple teaching strategies as a basic criteria.
v. Per state legislation, OPSB Curriculum Staff shall proctor the annual LEAP test for eligible youth in residence at the Youth Study Center.
vi. Provide the Juvenile Court, sending and receiving schools, receiving institutions, youth, and parents with a summary of the youth's academic and behavioral progress made while the youth was enrolled in the Youth Study Center's education program.
vii, Actively participate in the teacher evaluation process, including daily Student Academic Reviews, quarterly formal observations, and annual teacher evaluations. The Supervisor/Site Administrator is responsible for completing staff evaluations.
11

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 12 of 15
F, Special Education Services
The special education provider, with support from the OPSB Department of Exceptional Children's Services shall:
i. create and implement a process for Child Find activities at the Youth Study Center.
ii. identify youth previously identified as eligible for special education services and implement—to the extent possible—that youth's existing IEP;
iii, develop new lEP's for youth eligible for special education services that have an expired IEP.
iv. develop an IEP for youth whose length of stay at the Youth Study Center has exceeded thirty (30) days.
v. coordinate with the OPSB Department of Exceptional Children's Services to complete the evaluation process for youth identified through Child Find and for youth in need of a multi-disciplinary evaluation. The OPSB Department of Exceptional Children's Services shall assign staff to conduct evaluations as part of their regular rotation to school sites. The team from the OPSB assigned to complete evaluations for youth at the Youth Study Center shall include, but not be limited to a: psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, and medical doctor.
vi. provide services to youth as identified in their IEP's (across the continuum of special education services). The OPSB Department of Exceptional Children's Services shall assign staff to perform related services at the Youth Study Center as part of their regular rotation to school sites.
vii. provide opportunities for all mandated individuals, including parents, to be actively involved in the special education process.
viii. identify and connect youth in need of transitional services with the service providers prior to release from the Youth Study Center.
5. EXIT UPON ENTRY
A. Supportive Release
The OPSB shall work with facility and court staff to develop processes to connect youth to critical services, including educational services, medical and mental health services, prior to their release. Examples of supportive release strategics from the education perspective include, but are not limited to:
12

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 13 of 15
i. Portfolio of student work; ii. Student Education Plans; iii. Court report outlining successes while attending Youth Study Center's
education program; iv. Educational credit history report; v. Contact person at the receiving school; vi. Appointment set with receiving school for day following release; vii. Schedule for the new school prior to release; viii. Follow-up on youth pursuant to a regular schedule and according to specific
release criteria (i.e., follow up on all students released to Booker T. Washington, every Friday); ix. Transportation (only as part of exceptional circumstances); and x. Assistance with forms and bureaucracy. B. Alternative Pathways to Graduation When appropriate, confinement educators shall help youth gain access to the General Education Diploma (GED) process and to similar programs after their release from YSC. C. Court Reports and Educational Information i. Teachers shall provide youths or the Juvenile Court with reports of the youth's progress while detained in the Youth Study Center, prior to the youth's court appearances. Such reports should include academic and behavioral progress, results of the A+ assessment (if it is determined that the results are an accurate reflection of the youth's level), and the youth's SEP. ii. Prior to release, education staff shall contact the receiving school to provide critical information for a seamless transition of services. Critical information shall include results of the A+ assessment (if it is determined that the results are an accurate reflection of the youth's level), a work sample, specifically a writing sample, and the youth's SEP. iii. Upon release, the school clerical staff shall close out the youth's academic file. Records shall be kept for the length of time required by Louisiana state law.
13

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 14 of 15

6. COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING
The School Board Defendants shall hire Carol Cramer Brooks for compliance and monitoring of the terms of this agreement.
i. Ms. Brooks shall have reasonable access to the YSC's educational facilities to monitor compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree.
ii. Ms. Brooks shall conduct compliance and monitoring assessments of the Youth Study Center three times per year,
iii. Ms. Brooks shall communicate the results of her assessments in writing to the Parties and to the Court.

7. IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT
The School Board Defendants agree to exercise good faith to implement this agreement as soon as practicable and, in any event, no later than two years from the date of entry of this Consent Decree.

8. SCOPE OF STIPULATED REMEDIES
The Parties agree that the stipulated remedies set forth in this Consent Decree are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of Federal rights alleged by Plaintiffs, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of Federal rights alleged by Plaintiffs.

9. JURISDICTION
i. The Court retains jurisdiction of this case to enforce the Order approving the terms of this Consent Decree for a time period of two years from the date of the Order approving settlement.
ii. Either party may obtain an extension of the two-year limitation on the Court's jurisdiction over this Consent Decree upon a showing of good cause therefor.

SO ORDERED, this the 12th day of February, 2010.

SO ORDERED, this the ___ day of

, 2009.

The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle United States District Judge
14

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 242 Filed 02/12/10 Page 15 of 15

:EstbLdww
Stephen F. Hanlon Holland & Knight LLP Class Counsel
By: C, 0 Pt^kOQQ
Carol A, Kolinchak Juvenile Jjastice project of Louisiana Clask Coihsel
By: / / / y V y / ^ f /--—~~~ fanTelcia MorgaV Plaintiffs' Guardian ad Lit<
By: O^ZSX^.^^
Clare Jupiter Bryan & Jupiter, APLC Counselfor the School Board Defendants

Date: /oM&/ai
Date: J ^ W P <\
Date MMiWl
Date: 9)4- Si. 3fffj

#8924448 vl

15

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 287 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DAMEKIA MORGAN, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 07-9755

C. RAY NAGIN, ET AL.

SECTION “B”(4)

ORDER Considering the foregoing Joint Motion to Dismiss this matter and Relinquish Jurisdiction over the Conditions of Confinement Consent Decree ("Consent Decree") entered herein on February 12, 2010 (Rec. Docs. No. 286 & 241), as modified by this Court's Orders dated March 23, 2011, February 9, 2012, and November 13, 2012, (Rec. Docs. No. 252, 268, & 276), IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Dismiss and Relinquish Jurisdiction (Rec. Doc. No. 286) isGRANTED in part to dismiss the case without prejudice, subject however to retaining jurisdiction in the event that the new juvenile detention facility is not completed and in operation by April 1, 2014 upon timely motion of any party as set forth below; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Consent Decree issued herein, as modified and amended, is hereby DISSOLVED, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to file a motion for reinstatement of same no later than April 1, 2014 , upon showing good cause, i.e., noncompletion and non-operation of new facility by the latter date.
Jurisdiction is retained for a reasonable period to hear and

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 287 Filed 01/17/13 Page 2 of 2 resolve timely motions to reopen case and/or reinstate Consent Decree in accordance with above directives.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of January, 2013. ____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 1 of 12
November 25, 2013
Stephen Hanlon, Esq. Co-Counsel for the Plaintiff Carol Kolinchak, Esq. Local Counsel for the Plaintiff Trevor Bryan, Esq. Counsel for the Orleans Parish School Board
Morgan v. Nagin 07-9755: Good Faith Stipulations
Good Afternoon All,
Attached p lease f ind t he revised f ormat of t he Final Report r egarding “ Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree as requested by the Defendant’s Attorney. The Original Report was sent on November 22 , 2013. This report is organized in two sections. The first section contains the report. The second section contains the following Exhibits: a onepager outlining my involvement as Education Monitor during the 45-Day period and documentation about Ms. Decuir’s performance from the Defendant’s Supervisor of Language Arts for the District and the Education Monitor’s Observations. This documentation was requested in STEP One of the “Good Faith” document.
I have additional documentation and will render as requested. Thank You
Thandiwe Peebles

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 12
Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree Report

Step #1.

Steps to Achieve “Good Faith” Compliance
Defendants shall conduct a 45-day review of Ms. Decuir’s performance and provide plaintiff’s counsel with any documents evidencing such review.

Education Monitor’s Findings The Defendants Complied with this step.

Date
October 1, 2013 Present

Comments:

Evidence of Compliance
• The Principal formally observed Ms. Decuir ( 2) times during this period
• OPSB Language Arts Supervisor visited Ms. Decor weekly from August. 2013 to the present
• OPSB Science Supervisor observed Ms. Decuir in Oct. 2013
• The Local Education Monitor observed Ms. Decuir’s performance during October and November visits

• OPSB deployed staff to review the “teacher’s” performance and provide technical support in August and it still continues. The documentation from these visits will vary based on the purpose of the visit. Formal/Informal observations will clearly focus on teacher performance. Technical assistance visits will also review performance, but not as directly.

• The principal observed the teacher at the beginning of the term and placed her on an Intensive Assistance Plan. This plan is for teachers whose performance is less than satisfactory.

Recommendations:

1. The Principal should continue to observe “the teacher” informally once a week and provide written documentation related to the “Intensive Assistance Plan”.

2. By January 2014, the principal should make some determination about the “teacher’s ” performance in relation to her ability to plan effectively and provide standards-based instruction aligned to the CCSS for the students in her class.

1

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 3 of 12
Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree Report

Step # 2.

Steps to Achieve “Good Faith” Compliance
Defendants shall ensure that Ms. Decuir shall immediately stop the practice of providing the same lesson plan for all students, no matter what grade the students are enrolled in.

Education Monitor’s Findings
The Defendants Complied with this step before the Court Stipulation.
The Defendants continue to address this issue. (See Comments)

Date
Sept. 1, 2013 to Present
By October 3, the LA Supervisor was assigned to visit the teacher weekly .

Evidence of Compliance
The OPSB Language Arts Supervisor was assigned to review the teacher’s plans weekly.
Teacher’s lesson plans Oct. 1, 2013-Present.

Ms. Decuir shall provide an educationally appropriate The Defendants Complied September 1, 2013

lesson plan for each student in her class.

with this step to some

to Present

degree. (See Comments.)

Lesson plan reviews by OPSB staff and the Education Monitor at the district’s request.

Comments
A. Lesson Plans Differentiated Across Grades:
• Shortly after the school term began, the OPSB Executive Director of Curriculum & Instruction assigned the Language Arts Supervisor of the district to meet with “the teacher” on a weekly basis and provide technical assistance emphazing writing Lesson Plans. The impact of the assistance was noticed immediately in the plans submitted during the week of September 9, 2013 were good.

2

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 4 of 12
Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree Report
• During the 45-Day period, the “teacher’s “ plans varied from week to week for all groups. However, it was noticed that the teacher developed a new pattern of providing no variation in a particular component of the plan for all students. For example, the Objectives for all grades were different. However, the Guided Practice, Student Activities, Evaluation, etc. were exactly the same for all students across all grades regardless of the Objective being taught .
• During the week of October 7, 2013 the “teacher” submitted a lesson plan with the same Objective for the 8th and 10th Graders. Other components of the plan were the same or varied ever so slightly. For all intents and purposes, the plan was the same.
• The OPSB Language Arts Supervisor has reviewed the “teacher’s” plans and made comments . However, the “teacher” still regressed into poor planning practices and had to be advised repeatedly.
B. Educationally Appropriate Lesson Plan for Each Student:
• The Defendant’s have assigned staff to monitored the “ teacher’s” lesson plans weekly. In some instances, the teacher’s plans that needed revisions were not posted on the Oncourse website, the OPSB website for teachers’ lesson plans. The teacher was also given model plans to follow.
• The step of providing an “educationally appropriate lesson plan for each student” can be open to various interpretations in the world of education. For example, a plan can be considered educationally approproate if standards are identified for the specific grade being taught. The plan can be considered educationally appropriate if subject specific content at grade-level is presented. As a result, unless an evaluation standard is used, a lesson plan can be considered educationally appropriate with minimum input by the teacher. In addition, the designation of “each “ was interpreted as each student in the class collectively. Given the extremely transient nature of the student population and the current lesson planning process, it would be extremely difficult, and in some instances impossible, for the teacher to provide an individual plan for each student in this type of setting.
• This “teacher’s” lesson plans on face value can meet a minimum standard when it comes to being educationally appropriate. However, as Local Education Monitor, I believe that “good faith’ was intended to reflect quality planning as identified in the
3

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 5 of 12
Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree Report
COMPASS Evaluation Instrument used in OPSB. Based on COMPASS, I have reviewed a selected sample of the “teacher’s” lesson plans and found three (3) key components where the plans should be considered unsatisfactory and subsequently not “educationally appropriate”. I have listed these areas below with comments:
1a. DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF CONTENT AND PEDAGOGY
The elements of component 1a are:
• Knowledge of content and the structure of the discipline: In the”teacher’s” plans, it seems that comprehension skills are pulled from the textbook and mixed randomly. i.e. “ensure that students understand plot and the events in the story and the theme of the story. Discuss the conflict in the story.” This practice addresses too many comprehension skills and does not allow students an opportunity to master any particular skill in context. This is not sound pedagogy.
• Knowledge of prerequisite relationships i.e. literal comprehension skills to inferential comprehension skills. Most of the skills incorporated in the “teacher’s” plans focus on literal comprehension skills. However, students are not given the opportunity to develop strategies that enable them to use the literal comprehension skills as a vehicle to understand inferential comprehension skills. This is not sound pedagogy.
1c. SETTING INSTRUCTIONAL OUTCOMES
The elements of component 1c are :
• Outcomes represent significant learning in the discipline reflecting, where appropriate, the Common Core State Standards. The “teacher’s” plans have a laundry list of numbers at the end of the lesson that are supposed to represent the standards being addressed in the selection. When asked to identify which standard was being addressed in a given story, the teacher could not tell.
• Clarity: Outcomes must refer to what students will learn, not what they will do, and must permit viable methods of assessment. The outcomes in the “teacher’s” lessons do refer to what students will learn, but there are multiple taskoriented activities and few viable methods of assessment. Clarity is not evident.
4

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 6 of 12
Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree Report
• Balance: Outcomes should reflect different types of learning, such as knowledge, conceptual understanding, and thinking skills. The “teacher’s” plans do not reflect learning beyond the knowledge level as indicated by a barrage of literal questions in the written exercises.
• Suitability for diverse students: Outcomes must be appropriate for all students in the class. There is no evidence that outcomes are appropriate for all students .
1e. DESIGNING COHERENT INSTRUCTION
The elements of component 1e. are :
• Learning activities : Instruction is designed to engage students and advance them through the content. The “teacher’s” plans do not reflect the kind of engagement of students that would advance them through the content. There is too much silent reading and writing to answer text-related questions.
• Instructional materials and resources: Aids to instruction are appropriate to the learning needs of the students. The “teacher’s” plans do not reflect this component. Many students entering the YSC have weak reading and writing skills and other performance challenges. They need a variety of instructional aids to engage them in the lesson. With very few exceptions , journals, newspaper articles and magazines are the only resources identified in the “teacher’s” lesson plans week after week.
• Instructional groups: Teachers intentionally organize instructional groups to support student learning. The “teacher’s” plans do not reflect an intentional organization of groups to support student learning. There are references to grouping in her plans, but the assignment is always the same. This practice does not reflect intent.
• Lesson and unit structure: Teachers produce clear and sequenced lesson and unit structures to advance student learning. The “teacher’s” plans do not reflect a clear and sequenced lesson. Plans seem to move from one activity to another with no visible connection between the activities and the lesson outcomes.
5

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 7 of 12
Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree Report
Recommendations: 1. The “teacher” should be given scripted lesson plans for the balance of the semester. The teacher should be monitored closely to
assure that the scripted lesson plans are being followed. Any variation in the delivery of instruction by this “teacher” should be addressed in writing. 2. The Principal should continue to observe the teacher weekly and advance the process associated with the “Intensive Assistance Plan”. 3. Given the transient nature of the population at the YSC school facility, it would actually be a good idea for all teachers to use standards-based thematic units designed to be completed in one or two class periods. One teacher at the YSC school facility already uses such materials when she is absent and the students are actively engaged for the entire class period.
6

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 8 of 12
Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree Report

Step #3.

Steps to Achieve “Good Faith” Compliance An A+ Assessment for all students must be completed and placed in each student’s SEP within 5 days of enrollment.

Education Monitor’s Findings The Defendants Complied with this step.

Date
September 30, 2013 to Present

Evidence of Compliance A+ Weekly Assessment Report A+ Profile in Students’ folder

Comments:
• The Local Education Monitor reviewed 44 file copies of A+ assessments dating back to August 16, 2013. The A+ Weekly Assessment Report identified that 36 students entered the facility during Oct. 1 to the present. Twenty-two (22) of these students were enrolled and tested within 5 days. Records were on file for all students tested.
• During Oct. 1, 2013 to the present, records indicated that 14 students were not tested. Thirteen (13) of these students were in attendance 4 days or less. One student was in attendance at the facility for seven (7) days, never enrolled in the school and subsequently was not tested. There was no reason given why this student was not in school.
• Records indicate that there are many instances where students enter the facility on one date and not enter school until several days later. Some students in the facility never entered the school. This procedure makes it extremely difficult for the school to effectively assess students and comply with Court and other administrative regulations.
Recommendations:
1. Given the extremely transient nature of the population at YSC, the school should establish procedures to ensure that all students are enrolled, assessed, accounted for appropriately and provided with an educational program in a timely manner. For example, there is a 5-day turnaround for testing. There could also be a time established for entering school, requesting records, etc.

7

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 9 of 12
Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree Report

Step # 4.

Steps to Achieve “Good Faith” Compliance An appropriate letter requesting transfer of student records and a system of follow up in the event the request is unanswered must be in place and followed.

Education Monitor’s Findings The Defendants complied with the step.

Date
September 30, 2013 to Present

Evidence of Compliance
A+ Weekly Assessment Report
Request for Records letters on file.
YSC hired a Transition/Reentry person who began in October 1, 2013.

Comments:
• Since October 1, 2013, the YSC has dramatically strengthened their pupil accounting procedures. The hiring of a person dedicated to going out and physically getting student records is a plus. In addition, the use of the A+ Weekly Assessment Report seems to be effective in summarizing data efficiently.
• The Education Monitor reviewed Mr. Goodman’s visitation logs from October 1, 2013 to the present. The logs reflect that his visits are mostly related to reentry and transition even though he is expected to handle retrieving records too. There were a few requests for records on the A+ Weekly Assessment report that were reported to Mr. Goodman for follow up.

Recommendations:
1. The YSC should continue to use the A+ Weekly Assessment Report with fidelity. Eventually the document should be generated electronically
2. The A+ Weekly Assessment Repot should be shared with the Mr. Goodman, the Transition /Reentry person. His log should reflect efforts to retrieve records when necessary on a weekly basis.

8

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 10 of 12
Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree Report

Step # 5.

Steps to Achieve “Good Faith” Compliance
On October 18, 2013, a second day of co-training between school and custody staff shall be conducted by Randall Farmer. Defendants will provide plaintiffs’ counsel with a copy of the agenda and any written materials used in said cotraining. YSC Superintendent Glen Holt shall be allowed to attend this training.

Education Monitor’s Findings The Defendants Complied with the step. However, the workshop date was changed.

Date November 8, 2013

On the third Friday of each month school and custody administrative staff shall have appropriate professional development training. Defendants will provide plaintiffs’ counsel with a copy of the agenda and any written materials used in said professional development training. YSC Superintendent Glen Holt shall be allowed to attend this training.

The Defendants Complied with the step. However, the workshop dates were changed.

August 23, 2013 September 3, 2013

Evidence of Compliance
Letter of contact between OPSB and Randall Farmer
YSC Professional Development Calendar sent to YSC Superintendent, Mr. Holt
Emails to Mr. Holt, YSC Superintendent Agendas
Sign-in sheets
Emails to Mr. Holt, YSC Superintendent

Comments:
• The October 18, 2013 day of co-training was rescheduled to Nov. 8, 2013 because the presenter was not available to attend. Superintendent Holt attended and his signature is on the sign-in sheet. Other facility staff also attended.
• A member of the YSC Facility has presented at one of these Friday professional development trainings.

9

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 11 of 12
Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree Report
Summary
This summary outlines the Education Monitor’s review of the defendants’ steps to achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree over a 45-day period following the entry of an order approving this stipulation.
Step 1. Defendants shall conduct a 45-day review of Ms. Decuir’s performance and provide plaintiffs’ counsel with any documents evidencing such review. Finding: The Defendants have complied with this stipulation. ( See Exhibits B,C,and D)
Step 2. Defendants shall ensure that Ms. Decuir shall immediately stop the practice of providing the same lesson plan for all students, no matter what grade the students are enrolled in. Finding: The Defendants complied with this stipulation prior to the 45-day period. However, there is evidence that the OPSB Language Arts Supervisor has had to continually monitor the teacher’s plans and provide feedback in order to ensure continued compliance. The Defendants should follow the Education Monitor’s suggestion to provide this teacher with Scripted Lessons Plan. (See Comments p. 6)
Step 2a. Ms. Decuir shall provide an educationally appropriate lesson plan for each student in her class. Finding: The Defendants have complied with this stipulation to some degree. Plans are educationally appropriate at a basic level. (See Comments pp.3-5)
Step 3. An A+ Assessment for all students must be completed and placed in each student’s SEP within 5 days of enrollment. Finding: The Defendants have complied with this stipulation. The Education Monitor reviewed each A+ Assessment document on file and compared to the students enrolled. (See Comments p.7 and Exhibit A)
Step 4. An appropriate letter requesting transfer of student records and a system of follow up in the event the request is unanswered must be in place and followed. Finding: The Defendants have complied with this stipulation in an exemplary manner. The letter of request is on file and additional personnel has been hired to retrieve unreceived records. The Defendants should follow the Education Monitor’s recommendations in order to enhance this process. (See Comments p.8)
Step 5. On October 18, 2013, a second day of co-training between school and custody staff shall be conducted by Randall Farmer. Defendants will provide plaintiffs’ counsel with a copy of the agenda and any written materials used in said co-training. YSC Superintendent Glen Holt shall be allowed to attend this training. Finding: The Defendant’s complied with this stipulation. The date of the meeting was changed due to a conflict with the Presenter’s schedule. However, YSC Superintendent Holt and a member of his staff did attend.
10

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301 Filed 11/26/13 Page 12 of 12
Steps to Achieve Good Faith Compliance with the Education Consent Decree Report
Step 6. On the third Friday of each month school and custody administrative staff shall have appropriate professional development training. Defendants will provide plaintiffs’ counsel with a copy of the agenda and any written materials used in said professional development training. YSC Superintendent Glen Holt shall be allowed to attend this training. Finding: The Defendant’s complied with this stipulation. The date of the meetings have not always occurred on the third Friday. YSC Superintendent Holt has been given a Professional Developent Calendar from the School Administrator. In addition, emails are on file indicating notification to YSC Superintendent Holt. Superintendent Holt has attended some meetings and/or a member of his staff attends. On one occasion, a member of the facility presented to both sides of YSC at the Professional Development Meeting.
11

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 1 of 18
EXHIBITS
A. Education Monitor’s Log B. Education Monitor’s Observation in October C. Monitor’s Observation in November D-P. Defendant’s Supervisor’s Technical Assistance Log: Compliance with
supporting Ms. Decuir

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 18
Exhibit A.
Education Monitor’s Log
October 3-5, 2013
• Entry conference logistics by phone with Executive Director of C & I • Written communication with YSC School Principal
October 7-8 2013 Site Visit
• Entry conference with Principal and Executive Director of C& I Communication • Observed Ms. Decuir’s lesson • Reviewed Ms. Decuir’s lesson plans • Reviewed student folders • Reviewed A+ Assessment Weekly and Assessment roster • Reviewed the materials in Ms. Decuir’s room • Conference with Ms. Decuir • Reviewed student folders for records and/or requests for requests • Exit conference with the Principal and follow up
November 11-13, 2013 Site Visit
• Entry conference with Principal and Executive Director of C& I Communication • Observed Ms. Decuir’s lesson • Reviewed student folders • Reviewed A+ Assessment roster • Conference with Ms. Decuir • Reviewed student folders for records and/or request for records • Exit conference with the Principal and follow up
Documents Reviewed:
• A+ Assessments rosters and student file copies • Ms. Decuir’s Lesson Plans from August 12 , 2013, to November 11, , 2013 • Requests for Record letters from August 12, 2013 to November 13, 2013 • Workshop agendas, sign-in sheets, handouts • Mr. Goodman’s log • Danielson Framework • Mr. Casby’s Observation Reports • OPSB Language Arts Supervisor’s reports on Ms. Decuir’s performance

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 3 of 18

EXHIBIT B.

Thansani Instructional Observation Form

Framework of Effective Practice

Teacher: Ms. Decuir

A. Planning and Setting Instructional Outcomes • Value, sequence, and alignment

Date: Oct. 8, 2013 Time: 10:00-10:45 A.M.

• Outcomes of a challenging cognitive level: No. Copying and answering questions.

• Statements of student learning, not student activity

• Outcomes central to the discipline and related to those in other disciplines

• Assessment of student attainment: Not evident

• Outcomes differentiated for students of varied ability: Not Evident

B. Instruction

• Questions of high cognitive challenge, formulated by both students and teacher • Questions with multiple correct answers, or multiple approaches even when there is a

• single correct response

• Effective use of student responses and ideas

• Academically Productive Talk

• Writing as an integral part of English Language Arts

C. The Classroom Environment

• Smooth functioning of all routines. No.

• Little or no loss of instructional time. No. Time wasted copying from the board.

• Students playing an important role in carrying out the routines. No. Totally teacher-directed

• Students knowing what to do, where to move. No Movement. May be due to the nature of the facility.

• Classroom Environment Conducive to Rigorous Learning. No. Cluttered with outdated books.

Teaching Components Observed: (Select 2 Focus Areas from above Domains) Check all that apply

Planning:

Instruction:

1. Outcomes of a challenging cognitive level : No

1. Questions of high cognitive challenge, formulated by

2. Statements of student learning, not student activity :

both students and teacher: No

Not evident

2. Questions with multiple correct answers, or multiple

approaches even when there is a single correct

3. Outcomes central to the discipline and related to those

response: No

in other disciplines: Not Evident

3. Effective use of student responses and ideas: No

4. Assessment of student attainment: No

opportunity for expression of ideas.

5. Outcomes differentiated for students of varied ability : 4. Academically Productive Talk: No

No. All students completing the same assignment.

5. Writing as an integral part of English Language Arts: Most writing related to answering questions.

School’s Next Steps: 1. The room needs to reflect a standards-based classroom with current materials.

2. Teacher needs to connect the lesson with the lesson plan.

3. Teacher need not write the questions from the workbook on the board for students to copy. This is a big waste

of time.

4. Teacher needs to use sample lesson plans.

5. Learn to differentiate instruction when so few students are in class.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 4 of 18

EXHIBIT C

Thansani Instructional Observation Form

Framework of Effective Practice

Teacher: Ms. Decuir Date: Nov. 11, 2013

A. Planning and Setting Instructional Outcomes • Value, sequence, and alignment

Time: 10:00-10:45 A.M.
Observer: Thandiwe Peebles

• Outcomes of a challenging cognitive level: Statements of student learning, not student activity.

• Outcomes central to the discipline and related to those in other disciplines

• Assessment of student attainment

• Outcomes differentiated for students of varied ability

B. Questions of high cognitive challenge, formulated by both students and teacher • Questions with multiple correct answers, or multiple approaches even when there is a
single correct response • Effective use of student responses and ideas • Academically Productive Talk • Writing as an integral part of English Language Arts

C. The Classroom Environment

• Smooth functioning of all routines. No.

• Little or no loss of instructional time. No. Time wasted playing the entire story on tape.

• Students playing an important role in carrying out the routines. No. Totally teacher-directed

• Students knowing what to do, where to move. No Movement. May be due to the nature of the facility.

• Classroom Environment Conducive to Rigorous Learning. Much neater. No evidence of centers.

Teaching Components Observed: (Select 2 Focus Areas from above Domains) Check all that apply

Planning:

Instruction:

• Outcomes of a challenging cognitive level : No

• Questions of high cognitive challenge, formulated by

• Statements of student learning, not student activity :

both students and teacher: No-Bloom’s Level 1.

Not evident

• Questions with multiple correct answers, or multiple

approaches even when there is a single correct

• Outcomes central to the discipline and related to those

response: No. Single word answers

in other disciplines: Not Evident

• Effective use of student responses and ideas. Teacher

• Assessment of student attainment: Never got to the assessment in 45 minutes. Teacher was about to put on another tape.

did elicit students’ thoughts but she guided the conversation by posing another question before the students had time to answer.

• Outcomes differentiated for students of varied ability: • Academically Productive Talk: Very little.

No. Teacher asked questions and students responded.

• Writing as an integral part of English Language Arts: Most writing related to answering questions.

School’s Next Steps: 1. Teacher needs to connect the lesson with the lesson plan.

2. Teacher need not write the questions from the workbook on the board for students to copy. This is a big waste

of time.

3. Teacher needs to use the graphic organizers in the workbook in order to facilitate learning.

4. Again, the teacher needs to be creative with only two students in the room. The students could have played the

characters Alfonso and Ernie and read the part of the selection where they were getting into a conflict.

5. Locate sample lessons plans and use some components in the lesson.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 5 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 6 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 7 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 8 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 9 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 10 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 11 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 12 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 13 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 14 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 15 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 16 of 18

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 301-1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 17 of 18

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 303 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DAMEKIA MORGAN, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 07-9755

C. RAY NAGIN, ET AL.

SECTION “B”(4)

ORDER

Considering the foregoing Joint Motion to Dismiss and

Relinquish Jurisdiction over the Conditions of Education Consent

Decree ("Consent Decree") entered herein (Rec. Docs. No. 302 &

242),

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Dismiss and Relinquish

Jurisdiction (Rec. Doc. No. 302) isGRANTED in part, and the above-

captioned litigation is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice ,

conditioned upon implementation of recommendations made by the

Education Monitor ( see Rec. Doc. 301) and with reservation of

jurisdiction for court review and Defendants' compliance with good

faith implementation of those recommendations within a reasonable

period of time. No later than February 14, 2014 , parties shall

submit a joint report on compliance efforts with each directive

and, if good cause is shown, file a motion to dissolve the consent

decree.

Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 303 Filed 12/03/13 Page 2 of 2 Jurisdiction is retained for a reasonable period to hear and
resolve timely motions to reopen case and/or reinstate Consent Decree in accordance with above directives.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of December, 2013. ____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 Case 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR Document 310 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DAMEKIA MORGAN, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 07-9755

C. RAY NAGIN, ET AL.

SECTION “B”(4)

ORDER
Considering the foregoing Status Report and Joint Motion to Dissolve the Education Consent Decree entered herein (Rec. Docs. 308, 307, & 242),
IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Dismiss and Relinquish Jurisdiction (Rec. Doc. No. 308) is hereby GRANTED and the matter DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Consent Decree issued herein, as modified and amended, is hereby DISSOLVED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 19th day of May, 2014.

____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

J.D, L.E., AND R.A., MINORS BY AND THROUGH THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, DAMEKIA MORGAN

VERSUS

C. RAY NAGIN, ET AL.

ORDER

CIVIL ACTION
NO: 07-9755 SECTION: “B” (4)

Before the Court is a Motion for Sanctions and/or Contempt (R. Doc. 101), filed by the

Defendants, the City of New Orleans, Mayor C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard Winder, and

Mubarek Kareem (collectively referred to as “the Defendants”), seeking an Order from this Court

sanctioning the Plaintiff, Damekia Morgan, guardian ad litem on behalf of/and minors J.D., L.E.,

and R.A. (collectively r eferred to as “the Plai ntiffs”) for allegedly disobeying a Court Order by

performing expert examinations at the Youth Study Center on August 18, 2008.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

et seq ., the United State s

Constitution, and various federal statutes on be half of all children who currently are or will be

confined at the Youth Study Center (“YSC”) in New Olerans, Louisiana. (R.Doc. 1). The Plaintiffs

challenge the alleged illegal conditions of conf inement a t YSC, which include: (1) grossly

unsanitary conditions; (2) inadequate medical care; (3) cruel psychological and verbal harassment

and abuse; (4) im proper and excessive use of loc kdown; (5) inadequate education; and ( 6) other

unconscionable and illegal conditions of confinement. (R. Doc. 1).

The Plaintiffs contend that YSC is an adult-style punitive correctional institution built in 1959, which has been poorly managed, with worsening conditions after Hurricane Katrina. (R. Doc. 1). They argue that YSC is understaffed and thatht e limited remaining staff at YSC are incompetent and inadequately trained and supervised. (R. Doc. 1).
The Plaintiffs assert that they ar e deni ed basic needs and services at YSC, including meaningful access to the courts and counsel. (R. Doc. 1). They clai m that they are subjected to substandard educational, medical, and mental services. (R. Doc. 1). The Plaintiffs also allege that they are placed in oppressively small and dark cells for at least 20 hours daily, forced to wear dirty and worn clothes, and reside in unsanitary quarterswith vermin, spiders, and rodents. (R. Doc. 1).
Furthermore, the Plaintiffs allege that they aresubjected to excessive restraints and that staff often does not intervene to prevent violence a nd physical altercations between children or to otherwise protect the children fromharm. (R. Doc. 1). In fact, the Plaintiffs maintain that the YSC staff berate them and arbitrarily and maliciously punish them, using isolation or unduly harsh and oppressive tactics, including lockdown periods of 22 to 23 hours a day. (R. Doc. 1).
The Plaintiffs allege that YSC also f ails to provide adequate medical care, a nutritionally adequate diet, and basic education. (R. Doc. 1). Particularly, theycontend that YSC is deliberately indifferent to the serious mental needs of the youth, including children who are mentally retarded and developm entally disabled, and YSC fails to em ploy a sufficient num ber of psychiatric or psychological specialists to treat the youth. (R. Doc. 1). The Plaintiffs assert that YSC’s educational curriculum fails to meet the state standards, and the classrooms are overcrowded, and have scarce educational m aterials. (R. Doc. 1). The Plaintiffs also ar gue that YSC is seriously lacking in adequate special education and rehab ilitation programs, and also f ails to have family unification and community re-integration programs. (R. Doc. 1).
2

On August 18, 2008, representatives for both parties and the undersigned magistrate judge attended a tour of the YSC at 1100 Milton Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. (R. Doc. 100). Also present were two experts for the Plaintiffs, Dr. Mraty Beyer, a clinical psychologist, and Mr. James Balsamo, an environmental conditions expert. (R.Doc. 100; R. Doc. 111, Ex. B). During the tour, counsel for the Plaintiffs requested permission from the Court to conduct expert inspections of the facility. (R. Doc. 100). In an Order issued that same day, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ request on the grounds that the Plaintiffs neither afforded the Defendants adequate notice of their experts’ proposed activities, nor provided the Defendants w ith an opportunity to respond. (R. Doc. 100). The undersigned concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to properly present the issue to the Court. (R. Doc. 100).
Thereafter, on August 21, 2008, the Defendants filed the instant motion, seeking an Order from this Court finding the Plaintiffs in contempt and/or imposing sanctions on the grounds that the Plaintiffs deliberately ignored this Court’s aforementioned order by permitting their psychological expert to conduct interviews of the youth inmates. (R. Doc. 101-2. pp. 3, 5)1. They argue that “there was never any mention whatsoever, nor was it ever agreed upon between the parties or the Court that experts would be allowed to perform examinations during the tour.” (R. Doc 101-2, p. 3). Accordingly, they request that the Court: (1) strike the Plaintiffs’ psychological expert, Dr. Marty Beyer, as a witness and prohibit the Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence obtained from the interviews; (2) issue an Order finding the Plainti ffs in contempt of Court based on this purported violation; (3) admonish the Plaintiffs and compel them to proceed in good faith; and (4) aw ard
1 The Defendants also submit that the Plaintiffs ignored earlier discovery requests in violation of this Court’s order. (R. Doc. 101-2, p. 3). However, they info rmed the Court that they intend to address this conduct in a future motion. (R. Doc. 101-2, p. 4, n. 3).
3

attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing this motion. In response, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants’ motion is both procedurally and
substantively deficient and urge the Court to strike the motion for failure to comply with the Local Rules. (R. Doc. 111, p. 1). Alternatively, the Plaitniffs suggest that the Court deny the Defendants’ motion with prejudice. (R. Doc. 111, p. 2). In support of theriposition, the Plaintiffs argue that: (1) the Court’s August 18th Order was not a limitation on the Plaintiffs’ right of access to counsel – a right firmly established by this Court’s Local Rule 23.1D; (2) Plaintiffs provided fair notice to both the Defendants and the Court regarding the experts’ presence at the YSC ; and (3) the Defendants must do m ore than broadly state, without a ny support, that the Plaintiffs have engaged i n sanctionable conduct. (R. Doc. 111, pp. 5-9). Thus, they request that the Defendants’ motion for sanctions and/or contempt be denied. II. Standard of Review
A. Sanctions Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 37 authorizes courts to appropriately respond to and deal with parties which have disobeyed discovery orders. Chilcutt v. U.S., 4 F.3d 1313, 13191320 (5th Cir. 1993). A “court’s discretion in fa shioning appropriate sanctions for parties who disobey their orders is quite broad, though not unlimited.” Id. Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides that if a party fails to obey an order to provide discovery, the Court m ay: (1) direct that facts be e stablished as the prevailing party claim s; (2) prohibit the disobedient party from introducing information into evidence or supporting or opposing claims or defenses; (3) strike the pleadings ; or (4) dism iss the action in whole or in part. F ED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Additionally, “the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, inculding attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless
4

the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”

FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(C); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii), (c)(1).

The Fifth Circuit has noted that sanctions under Rule 37 are “predicated upon the presence

of such factors as willful disobedience, gross indifference to the right ofthe adverse party, deliberate

callousness, or gross negligence.” Dorsey v. Academy Moving & Storage, Inc., 423 F.2d 858, 860

(5th Cir. 1970); see also Marrocco v. General Motors Corp., 966 F.2d 220, 224 (7th Cir.1992)

(reasoning that “sanctions are proper upon a finding ofwillfulness, bad faith, or fault on the part of

the noncom plying litigant.”) W hile “the Federal Rules do not explicitly provide an avenue to

sanction attorneys who fail to comply with discovery orders . . . . there isno doubt” that a Court may

exercise its inherent powers to sanction discoveryabuses and to discipline attorneys who engage in

obstructive behavior. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Energy Gathering, Inc,.2 F.3d 1397,

1410-11 (5th Cir. 1993).

B. Contempt

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 37(b)(2)(A)(vii), a court may treat as

contempt of court a party’s failure to obey an order to provide or permit discovery. FED.R.CIV.P.

37(b)(2)(A)(vii). Specifically, Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides:

If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or perm it discovery . . . the court in where the action is pending m ay issue further just orders. They m ay include the following:

(i) directing that the m atters em braced in the order or other

designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action,

as the

prevailing party claims;

(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;

(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;

5

(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to
submit to a physical or mental examination. FED.R.CIV.P. 37(b)(A). Civil contempt vindicates the rights of aggrieved persons under valid cout rorders. Louisiana Ed. Ass’n v. Richland Parish Sch. Bd,. 421 F.Supp. 973, 975 (D.C. La. 1976). It is well-settled that a party seeking an order of civil contempt must establish by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) a court order was in e ffect; (2) the order required certain conduct by the respondent; and (3) the respondent failed to comply with the court’s order. Piggly Wiggly Clarksville, Inc. v. Mrs. Baird’s Bakeries, 177 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 1999). A party commits contempt by violating a definite and specific order of the court which requires him or her to perform or refrain from perform ing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court’s order. Id. (internal citations omitted). “A civil contem pt sanction is coercive rath er than punitive and is intended to f orce a recalcitrant party to comply with a command of the court.” Whitfield v. Pennington, 832 F.2d 909, 913 (5th Cir. 1987). However, civil contempt can serve two different purposes: (1) it can enforce, through coerciveness, compliance with a court’s order; or (2) it can be used to compensate a party who has suffered unnecessary injuries or co sts because of the contemptuous conduct. Petroleos Mexicanos, 826 F.2d 392, 400 (5th Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, the courtmay exercise its power with discretion, and some courts have held that the power should be used sparingly. Richland Parish, 421 F.Supp. at 975.
6

III. Analysis The Defendants urge the Court to sanction the Plaintiffs or, alternatively, to hold them in
contempt, because the Plaintiffs’ psychological expert allegedly proceeded to interview inmates at the YSC in direct defiance of the August 18, 2008 Order. (R. Doc. 101-2, p. 5). They also assert that “it was abundantly clear to all who were presetnat the tour of the YSCthat the experts were not allowed to perform any inspections or conduct any testing.” (R. Doc. 101-2, p. 5).
The Plaintiffs contend that they engaged in a “traditional legal visit” during which “designative representatives” spoke with the youth about “their legal concerns.” (R. Doc. 111, p. 5). They insist that “no additional testing or observations were conducted.” (R. Doc. 111, p. 5). Refuting the Defendants’ core allegation regarding the Plaintiffs’ a lleged defiant behavior , the Plaintiffs maintain that they followed proper procedures for legal visits with youth. (R. Doc. 111, pp. 5, 9). Specifically, they allege that “no youth housed at YSC were visited by Plaintiffs’ expert who had not formally requested representation in the manner outlined in Judge Lemelle’s March 5, 2008 Order.” (R. Doc. 111, p. 9).
The Plaintiffs also emphasize that they contacted the Defendants’ counsel beforehand as a courtesy, outlining various instances between May 23, 2008 and August 15, 2008 where they advised the Plaintiffs and the Court that an expert would be present during the August 18th tour. (R. Doc. 111, pp. 6-7. See also R. Doc. 111, pp. 13-47, Exs. A-C). Ultimately, the Plaintiffs assert that they abided by the Court’s express ruling and insist that the Plaintiffs’ litigation team, including the experts, merely visited their clients after the tour. (R. Doc. 111, p. 8). The Plaintiffs therefore contend that the Defendants’ motion is frivolous, misstates facts, ignores the law, and mischaracterizes both the Plaintiff’s actions and the Court’s August 18th Order. (R. Doc. 111, p. 3).
In the Fifth Circuit, various options are available where a party fails to comply with a court 7

order. For example, a judgment by default for violation of a discovery order is appropriate if: (1) the r efusal to com ply results from bad faith or willfulness and is accom panied by del ay or contumacious conduct; and (2) a less drastic sanction would not achieve the same result. See Smith v. Smith, 145 F.3d 335, 344 (5th Cir. 1998). Likewi se, a decision to strike a party’s pleadings generally arises where the party’s conduct amounts to a flagrant, callous disregard for its responsibilities. McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1486 (5th Cir. 1990). However, a f ine for civil contempt may be appropriate to co mpensate petitioner for actual damages shown or t o c ompel contem nor to com ply with court order. NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu Television & Radio, Inc., 583 F.Supp. 115, 122 (D.C. La. 1984).
The critical issue here is whether Dr. Beyer asked any questions and/or participated in any manner beyond observation during the “visit.” The level of Dr. Beyer’s participation in the vi sit bears directly upon: (1) whether the Plaintiffs’ conduct rises to the level of “willful disobedience, gross indifference to the right of the adverse pa rty, deliberate callousness, or gross negligence” required in order to issue sanctions; and (2) whether the Pla intiffs acted contrary to the “specific and de finite” instructions set forth in the August 18 th Order, so as to justify an order of c ivil contempt. See Dorsey, 423 F.2d 858, 860; In re Baum, 606 F.2d 592, 593.
During the hearing, the Court inquired about the nature of Dr. Beyer’s participation in the visit. W esley Ware, the youth advocate, took the stand and t estified that Dr. Beyer was m erely present during Plaintiff counsel’s “legal visits” with Plaintiffs and/or other confined youth that formally requested the meeting.
In light of the foregoing, the Cour t de termines, in its discretion, that sanctions are not warranted under the circumstances. Furthermore, this case did not involve multiple violations of Court orders or “abusive discovery tactics” likehtose typically in cases where an Order of contempt
8

is deemed fitting. See, e.g., McLeod , 894 F.2d at 1486. However, at the very least, the Cour t admonishes the Plaintiffs for their seeming attempts to circumvent the ruling of the undersigned by conducting a psychological inspection under the guise of a “legal visit.” Counsel is forewarned; efforts to play “fast and loose” with the rules cannot and will not be countenanced by this Court.
The Court also notes that the Plaintiffs setforth three arguments in support of their position: (1) the Court’s August 18th Order was not a limitation on the Plaintiffs’ right of access to counsel – a right firmly established by this Court’s Local Rule 23.1D; (2) Plaintiffs provided fair notice to both t he Defendants and the Court regarding the experts’ presence at the YSC ; and (3) the Defendants must do more than broadly state, without any support, that the Plaintiffs have engaged in sanctionable conduct. (R. Doc. 111, pp. 5-9)I.n rendering its opinion above, the Court addressed the Plaintiff’s third argument. However, the Court will briefly address the two remaining arguments below.
A. Right of Access To Counsel The Plaintiffs first argue that their visitswere permissible, because the Court’s August 18th Order was not a limitation on their right of access to counsel as provided by Local Rule 23.1D. (R. Doc. 111, p. 5). They assert that Local Rule 23.1D requires the Defendants to apply in writing for an order prohibiting communications between the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel and/ordesignated representatives. (R. Doc. 111, p. 3) (emphasis added). They claim that the Defendants failed to comply with the Rule, because t hey di d not follow this procedure. (R. Doc. 111, p. 3). The Plaintiffs maintain that they, unlike the Defendants,acted within the scope of Judge Lemelle’s order regarding visitation at YSC by following proper pro cedures for legal visits wi th youth. (R. Doc. 111, pp. 5, 9). Judge Lemelle’s March 4, 2008 Odr er expressly states “under the Supreme Court’s reasoning
9

in Gulf Oil as well as the requirem ents set forth in Local Rule 23( D), this Court cannot prohibit Plaintiffs’ counsels’ access to putative class members . . . without a clearer record warranting such relief.” (R. Doc. 51, pp. 5-6) (referencingGulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981)). This Order was issued after the Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for an Order Prohibiting Obstruction of Access to Counsel (R. Doc. 20).
In the Emergency Motion, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants “denied all attorneys representing the Plaintiffs as well as paralegals working with them” access to the children at the YSC.” (R. Doc. 51, p. 2. See also R. D oc. 20) (em phasis added) . They conceded that the Defendants eventually permitted communication between Plaintiffs’ counsel and named Plaintiffs or other confined youths who requested meeting with counsel. (R. Doc. 51, p. 2. See also R. Doc. 20). However, the Plaintifs maintained that the Defendants violated localrules and Supreme Court precedent “by prohibiting communication between Plaintiff’s counsel and putative class member without a court order. (R. Doc. 51, p. 3) (emphasis added).
Essentially, the question is whether Local Rlue 23.1D contemplates the presence of counsel and its representatives during communication with a potential or actual class member. Local Rule 23.1D explicitly provides:
Whenever a party or counsel desires t o pr ohibit another party or counsel from communicating concerning such action withany potential or actual class member not a formal party to the action, he or she shall apply in writing to the court for such an order. In such application, the parties must set forth with particularity the abuses they fear will result from such communication, along with the form of remedy they believe would be appropriate to prevent frustration of the policies L.R. 23.1D. (emphasis added). The Court notes that there is no mention of the word “representatives” in Judge Lemelle’s Order or in the Plaintiff’s earlier Motion. (R. Doc. 51; R. Doc. 20) . Furtherm ore, Rule 23.1D only references parties and attorneys, not their representatives. See L.R. 23.1D. Thus, while the
10

Plaintiffs correctly note that the Defendants were required to com ply with Rule 21.3D, the Cour t finds that the Rule does not, as the Plaintiffs assert, contemplate the presence of “representatives” such as experts.
The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs acotins exceeded the scope of Judge Lemelle’s Order. The Court notes that Judge Lemelle’s Order involved a different factual circumstance. The Order was issued to halt the De fendants’ efforts to pr eclude Plaintiffs’ counsel from meeting with the Plaintiffs. (See generally R. Doc. 51). This case centers around whether an expert is guaranteed access to the Plaintiffs absent an obj ection from the Defendants. In light of the aforem entioned factual distinction, the Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Judge Lemelle’s ruling regarding the right of access is overly expansive.Having made this determination, the Court reiterates its admonishment as set forth above.
B. Fair Notice of Experts’ Presence The Court next addresses the issue of whether fair notice was given regarding the presence of experts at the tour. The Defendants argue tha“tthere was never any mention whatsoever, nor was it ever agreed upon between the parties or the C ourt that experts would be allowed to perform examinations during the tour.” (R. Doc 101-2, p. 3) The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, assert that tehy provided fair notice to both the Defendants and the Court regarding the experts’ presence at the YSC. They point to various instances between May 23, 2008 and August 15, 2008, where they advised the Plaintiffs and the Court that an expert would be present during the August 18th tour. (R. Doc. 111, pp. 6-7. See also R. Doc. 111, pp. 1347, Exs. A-C). The Court acknowledges that the Plaintiffs did, in fact, indicate that one of their experts, Marty Beyer, would be flying in fromout of townand that she would be present during the YSC tour
11

during the oral hearing on July 23, 2008.2 (FTR Audio Files, Hr’g Before J. Roby, July 23, 2008). The Court agrees, however, with the Defendant’s agrument that Plaintiffs’ counsel made no mention of their proposed experts’ intentions to conduct on-site inspections or testing.
Based on this fact alone, the Cour t i ssued its August 18 th Order expressly denying the Plaintiffs’ request that their experts be permitted to concurrently inspect or test the facility during the tour. (R. Doc. 100, p. 2). Ultimately, the Court concludes that there was fair notice regarding the presence of Dr. Beyer only. The Court, however, reiterates its earlier ruling; there was not fair notice as to the experts’ intention to conduct inspections and/or testing on-site. IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and/or Contempt (R. Doc. 101) be hereby DENIED. The Court, however, admonishes Plaintiffs’ counsel to refrain from any future attempts to circumvent rulings of the undersigned.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of February 2009
KAREN WELLS ROBY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 The Court notes that no discussion regarding the presence of James Balsamo, the environmental conditions expert, took place during the hearing.
12

 
 Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 1 of 29
CLASS,CLOSED
U. S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07−cv−09755−ILRL−KWR

Morgan v. Nagin et al Assigned to: Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle Referred to: Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/21/2007 Date Terminated: 07/28/2010 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Damekia Morgan J.D., L.E., and R.A., minors by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Damekia Morgan, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated

represented by Carol Anne Kolinchak Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70113 504−522−5437 Ex. 234 Fax: 504−522−5430 Email: ckolinchak@jjpl.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E. Schulz , Jr. Holland &Knight, LLP (Jacksonville) 50 North Laura St. Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 904−798−5462 Email: buddy.schulz@hklaw.com TERMINATED: 01/04/2013 PRO HAC VICE

John S. Williams Law Offices of John S. Williams, LLC 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70113 504−486−0300 Email: jwilliams@jswlawoffices.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LaKeytria W. Felder Holland &Knight LLP (Washington) 2099 Penn. Ave. N.W. Suite 100 Washington, DC 20005 202−955−3000 Email: lakeytria.felder@hklaw.com TERMINATED: 08/03/2009

Sharon Y. Eubanks Holland &Knight LLP (Washington) 2099 Penn. Ave. N.W. Suite 100 Washington, DC 20005 202−955−3000 TERMINATED: 04/03/2009

Stephen F. Hanlon Holland &Knight LLP (Washington) 2099 Penn. Ave. N.W. Suite 100 Washington, DC 20005 202−955−3000

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 2 of 29
Email: sfh29@law.georgetown.edu PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
C. Ray Nagin Mayor, City of New Orleans

represented by Joseph Vincent DiRosa , Jr. Joseph Vincent DiRosa, ,Jr., Attorney at Law 329 North Woodlawn Ave. Metairie, LA 70001 504−289−2739 Email: jdirosa1@cox.net TERMINATED: 06/01/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Eraka W. DeLarge City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street 5th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 504−658−9800 Fax: 504−658−9868 Email: evwilliams@cityofno.com TERMINATED: 05/18/2011
Franz L. Zibilich Martiny &Associates 131 Airline Hwy. Suite 201 Metairie, LA 70001 504−834−7676 Email: fzibilich@bellsouth.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather M. Valliant Curry &Friend, APLC (New Orleans) Whitney Bank Bldg. 228 St. Charles Ave. Suite 1200 New Orleans, LA 70130 504−524−8556 Email: heathervalliant@curryandfriend.com TERMINATED: 09/12/2008
James J. Carter James Carter &Associates 1100 Poydras Street Suite 2900 New Orleans, LA 70163 504−914−1847 Email: jcarterlaw@hotmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Bryan Mullaly City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street 5th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 504−658−9800 Email: mulljtc@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 3 of 29

Matthew J. Lindsay Matthew Lindsay, Attorney at Law 601 Poydras Street Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130 504−523−2500 Fax: 504−523−2500 Email: mlindsay@jonesswanson.com TERMINATED: 04/30/2013

Nannette V. Jolivette U. S. District Court 500 Poydras St. Room C−151 New Orleans, LA 70130 504−589−7505 TERMINATED: 05/18/2011

Nolan Patrick Lambert Lambert &Lambert 631 St. Charles Ave. New Orleans, LA 70130 504−581−3301 Email: nolanplambert@aol.com TERMINATED: 05/18/2011

Penya M. Moses−Fields City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street 5th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 504−658−9910 Email: pmfields@cityofno.com TERMINATED: 06/01/2011

Sharonda R. Williams City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street 5th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 504−658−9920 Email: shrwilliams@nola.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Richard W. Winder Director, Department of Human Services, City of New Orleans

represented by James Bryan Mullaly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nolan Patrick Lambert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Eraka W. DeLarge (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2011

Heather M. Valliant (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2008

James J. Carter

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 4 of 29

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew J. Lindsay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2013

Nannette V. Jolivette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2011

Penya M. Moses−Fields (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2011

Sharonda R. Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Mubarek A. Kareem Social Services Coordinator, Department of Human Services

represented by James Bryan Mullaly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nolan Patrick Lambert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Eraka W. DeLarge (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2011

Heather M. Valliant (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2008

James J. Carter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew J. Lindsay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2013

Nannette V. Jolivette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2011

Penya M. Moses−Fields (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2011

Sharonda R. Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ozzie Williams Acting Supervisor, Youth Study Center

represented by Joseph Vincent DiRosa , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 5 of 29

Eraka W. DeLarge (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2011

Franz L. Zibilich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather M. Valliant (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2008

James J. Carter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Bryan Mullaly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew J. Lindsay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/30/2013

Nannette V. Jolivette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2011

Nolan Patrick Lambert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2011

Penya M. Moses−Fields (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2011

Sharonda R. Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Darryl Kilbert Superintendent of New Orleans Public Schools

represented by Clare Jupiter Bryan &Jupiter 650 Poydras St. Suite 2247 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 561−8933 Email: cjupiter@bryanjupiter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Michael Morris Orleans Parish School Board 3520 General de Gaulle Drive Suite 5082 New Orleans, LA 70114 504−304−5705 Email: edward_morris@opsb.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trevor G. Bryan Bryan &Jupiter 650 Poydras St. Suite 2247

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 6 of 29

New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 561−8933 Email: tbryan@bryanjupiter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Phyllis Landrieu President of Orleans Parish School Board TERMINATED: 06/04/2009

represented by Clare Jupiter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Michael Morris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trevor G. Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Orleans Parish School Board in their official capacities

represented by Clare Jupiter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Michael Morris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trevor G. Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Woody Koppel President of Orleans Parish School Board

represented by Clare Jupiter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Michael Morris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trevor G. Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guardian Damekia Morgan

represented by Carol Anne Kolinchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F. Hanlon (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 7 of 29

12/21/2007
12/21/2007 12/21/2007 12/31/2007 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008
01/22/2008

1 COMPLAINT against Orleans Parish School Board, C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams, Darryl Kilbert, Phyllis Landrieu (Filing fee $ 350.) filed by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(cl, ) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
2 MOTION to Certify Class by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 1/23/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Notice of Hearing)(cl, ) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
55 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. Motion filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(cab) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
3 Summons Issued as to Orleans Parish School Board, C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams, Darryl Kilbert, Phyllis Landrieu. (cl, ) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
4 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Lakeytria W. Felder (Filing fee $5.) by Damekia Morgan. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
6 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Stephen F. Hanlon (Filing fee $5.) by Damekia Morgan. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
8 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Sharon Y. Eubanks (Filing fee $5.) by Damekia Morgan. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
5 ORDER granting 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to LaKeytria W. Felder.. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 1/14/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
7 ORDER granting 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Stephen F. Hanlon.. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 1/14/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
9 ORDER granting 8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Sharon Y. Eubanks.. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 1/14/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed; C. Ray Nagin served on 1/16/2008, answer due 2/6/2008. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Richard W. Winder served on 1/16/2008, answer due 2/6/2008. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
12 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Mubarek A. Kareem served on 1/16/2008, answer due 2/6/2008. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
13 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Ozzie Williams served on 1/16/2008, answer due 2/6/2008. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Darryl Kilbert served on 1/16/2008, answer due 2/6/2008. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Phyllis Landrieu served on 1/16/2008, answer due 2/6/2008. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
16 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Orleans Parish School Board served on 1/16/2008, answer due 2/6/2008. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
17 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing on Class Certification by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 1/22/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 01/18/2008)
18 DEFICIENT MOTION Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel and Expedited Briefing and Consideration by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Hearing # 2 Proposed Order # 3 Memorandum in Support # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Wesley Ware# 5 Exhibit Declaration of Carol Kolinchak# 6 Exhibit In support of Carol Kolinchak Declaration# 7 Exhibit Declaration of Dana Kaplan# 8 Exhibit Declaration of Jolon McNeil)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 1/22/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 01/18/2008)
19 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 17 MOTION to Continue Hearing on Class Certification ; Motion should be designated "Exparte/Consent" by selecting "yes" when prompted. ALSO, images were facing sideways. All future pleadings must

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 8 of 29

01/22/2008
01/22/2008 01/23/2008 02/05/2008 02/06/2008 02/07/2008 02/07/2008 02/07/2008 02/07/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008 02/14/2008
02/14/2008

have images facing correctly. Clerk took corrective action. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
20 MOTION Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Hearing # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Wesley Ware# 4 Exhibit Declaration of Carol Kolinchak# 5 Exhibit Exhibits to Declaration of Carol Kolinchak# 6 Exhibit Declaration of Dana Kaplan# 7 Exhibit Declaration of Jolon McNeil# 8 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 1/23/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 01/22/2008)
21 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Consideration Regarding Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
22 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 20 MOTION Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel ; Motion is set for hearing and should not have been designated "Exparte/Consent". Clerk took corrective action. (lag, ) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
23 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(DiRosa, Joseph) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
24 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(DiRosa, Joseph) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
25 RESPONSE to Motion filed by all plaintiffs re 23 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint. (Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
26 RESPONSE to Motion filed by all plaintiffs re 24 MOTION to Continue Hearing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email Communication)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
27 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Hearing on Emergency Motion filed January 18, 2008 by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 2/8/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 02/07/2008)
28 DEFICIENT REPLY to Response to Motion filed by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams re 23 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint, 24 MOTION to Continue Hearing. (DiRosa, Joseph) Modified on 2/8/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 02/07/2008)
29 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 27 MOTION for Hearing on Emergency Motion filed January 18, 2008 ; Motion should be designated "Exparte/Consent" and should not be set for a hearing date. Clerk took corrective action. (lag, ) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
30 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Response Memorandum by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Proposed Pleading)(DiRosa, Joseph) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
31 ORDER granting 21 MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Consideration Regarding Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel; granting 24 MOTION to Continue Hearing; granting 27 MOTION for Hearing on Emergency Motion filed January 18, 2008; Setting Hearing on 20 MOTION Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel : Motion Hearing set for 2/28/2008 before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. Opposition due 2/22/08; granting 30 MOTION for Leave to File Response Memorandum ; granting 23 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 2/13/08.(lag, ) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
32 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams re 23 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint. (lag, ) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 9 of 29

02/20/2008 02/21/2008
02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/25/2008 02/26/2008 02/27/2008 02/27/2008 02/27/2008 02/27/2008 02/27/2008 02/28/2008 02/29/2008

33 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by all plaintiffs re 20 Emergency MOTION to Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 2/21/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 02/20/2008)
34 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 33 Request/Statement of Oral Argument; Document should have been linked to another document by checking the box "Should the document you are filing link to another document". Clerk took corrective action by linking document to doc. no. 20 − Motion to Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel. (lag, ) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
35 DEFICIENT MOTION to Dismiss Case by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams. Motion Hearing set for 3/19/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 2/25/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 02/22/2008)
36 DEFICIENT EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6) by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 2/25/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 02/22/2008)
37 DEFICIENT Request/Statement of Oral Argument by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams regarding 35 MOTION to Dismiss Case. (Mullaly, James) Modified on 2/25/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 02/22/2008)
38 DEFICIENT RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams re 20 MOTION Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel. (Mullaly, James) Modified on 2/25/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 02/22/2008)
40 ORDER denying 33 Request/Statement of Oral Argument filed by Damekia Morgan. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle.(lag, ) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
39 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Franz Zibilich, Heather Valliant and James Mullaly by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(DiRosa, Joseph) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
41 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit supplemental Ware declaration# 2 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
42 ORDER granting 39 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Franz L. Zibilich, Heather M. Valliant, James Bryan Mullaly for C. Ray Nagin,Ozzie Williams. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 2/26/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
43 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams re 20 MOTION Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel. (Mullaly, James) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
44 MOTION to Dismiss Case by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams. Motion Hearing set for 3/19/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Mullaly, James) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
45 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
46 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams regarding 44 MOTION to Dismiss Case. (Mullaly, James) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
47 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Mullaly, James) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
48 ORDER granting 41 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 2/28/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 02/29/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 10 of 29

02/29/2008 02/29/2008 03/04/2008
03/10/2008
03/14/2008 03/17/2008 03/20/2008 03/21/2008 03/26/2008 04/14/2008 04/14/2008 04/16/2008 04/17/2008 04/18/2008 04/21/2008 04/23/2008 04/28/2008 05/14/2008

49 ORDER granting 47 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 2/28/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
50 Supplemental Memorandum filed by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, in Opposition of 20 MOTION Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel. (lag, ) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
51 ORDER granting 20 Motion to Prohibit Obstruction of Access to Counsel ; FURTHER ORDERED that plas shall provide dfts with list of names of plas and guardians of those plas within 5 days. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (lag, ) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
52 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 45 MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 44 MOTION to Dismiss Case, 46 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
53 ORDER denying 46 Request/Statement of Oral Argument filed by Ozzie Williams, C. Ray Nagin. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 3/13/08.(lag, ) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
54 ORDER granting 52 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (lag, ) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
56 ORDER Setting ORAL ARGUMENT on 55 MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem : Motion Hearing set for 4/22/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle.. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle.(lag, ) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
57 ANSWER to Complaint by Orleans Parish School Board, Darryl Kilbert, Phyllis Landrieu.(Jupiter, Clare) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
58 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 44 MOTION to Dismiss Case. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
59 RESPONSE to Motion filed by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams re 55 MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. Motion filed. (Valliant, Heather) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
60 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Nolan P. Lambert by C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Valliant, Heather) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
61 ORDER granting 60 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Nolan Patrick Lambert for C. Ray Nagin and Ozzie Williams. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 4/15/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
62 STATUS REPORT by Damekia Morgan. (Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
63 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 55 MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem: Motion Hearing reset for 4/23/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle.. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 4/17/08.(lag, ) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
64 ORDER that plas' counsel produce evidence at the 4/23/08 hearing as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle.(lag, ) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
65 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer by Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Valliant, Heather) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
66 ORDER granting 65 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint as to Richard W. Winder, Mubarak A. Kareem. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 4/24/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
67 MOTION to Dismiss Party by Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Valliant, Heather) Modified on 5/15/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 05/14/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 11 of 29

05/14/2008
05/15/2008 05/16/2008
05/19/2008 05/23/2008 05/28/2008 06/02/2008 06/04/2008 06/10/2008
06/12/2008 06/12/2008 06/13/2008
06/17/2008 06/17/2008

68 DEFICIENT First MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 5/15/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 05/14/2008)
69 First MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Proposed Order # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 5/16/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 05/15/2008)
70 DEFICIENT Second MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Proposed Order # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 5/19/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 05/16/2008)
71 Second MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 5/20/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 05/19/2008)
72 STATUS REPORT and Proposed Discovery Schedule by all plaintiffs (Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
73 Third MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 5/29/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 05/28/2008)
74 Fourth MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 6/3/2008 (gec, ). (Entered: 06/02/2008)
75 Memorandum by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams In Response to Plaintiffs' 72 "Status Report" (Mullaly, James) Modified on 6/5/2008 to add linkage (bbc, ). (Entered: 06/04/2008)
76 MOTION for Protective Order or, Alternatively, to Stay Discovery by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 6/11/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 06/10/2008)
77 MOTION Status Conference and Tour of Youth Study Center by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
78 Request/Statement of Oral Argument re 77 MOTION for Status Conference and Tour of Youth Study Center by Damekia Morgan. (Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 6/13/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 06/12/2008)
79 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 78 MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Status Conference and Request to Tour the Youth Study Center ; Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Pleading should be filed as "Request/Statement of Oral Argument" under "Responses and Replies to Motions" and linked to said motion. Clerk took corrective action. (lag, ) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
80 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 67 MOTION to Dismiss Party. (Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
81 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams re 71 Second MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs, 73 Third MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs, 74 Fourth MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs, 69 First MOTION for Joinder

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 12 of 29

06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/24/2008
06/24/2008 07/03/2008
07/10/2008 07/11/2008 07/15/2008 07/16/2008 07/17/2008 07/18/2008

of Additional Plaintiffs. (Mullaly, James) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
82 ORDER that counsel for Plaintiffs and their designated representatives shall be allowed access in accordance with current procedures for attorney/client visitation as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 6/19/08.(lag, ) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
83 ORDER granting 55 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem ad Litem. Damekia Morgan appointed. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 6/19/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
84 ORDER denying 44 Motion to Dismiss Case. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 6/19/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
85 ORDER REFERRING MOTIONS: 71 Second MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs, 73 Third MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs, 77 MOTION Status Conference and Tour of Youth Study Center, 74 Fourth MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs, 76 MOTION for Protective Order or, Alternatively, to Stay Discovery, 69 First MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs : Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby.. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 6/20/08.(lag, ) (NEF to J.Roby) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
86 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 76 MOTION for Protective Order or, Alternatively, to Stay Discovery. (Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
87 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that plas' 78 Request for Oral Argument on MTN for Status Conference and Tour of Youth Study Center is GRANTED; FURTHER ORDERED that HEARINGS on plas' 69 First MTN for Joinder of Additional Plas, 71 Second MTN for Joinder of Additional Plas, 73 Third MTN for Joinder of Additional Plas, 74 Fourth MTN for Joinder of Additional Plas, 76 MTN for Protective Order or, Alternatively, to Stay Discovery, 77 MTN to Set Status Conference and Tour of Youth Study Center are CONTINUED and reset for 7/23/2008 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby with oral argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 7/3/08.(rll, ) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
88 Fifth MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 7/30/2008 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 7/11/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 07/10/2008)
89 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 88 Fifth MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs ; Motion was not set for a valid hearing date. Motion Hearing is RESET for 7/30/08 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (lag, ) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
90 RESPONSE to Motion filed by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams re 77 MOTION Status Conference and Tour of Youth Study Center. (Lambert, Nolan) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
91 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Eraka V. Williams by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Valliant, Heather) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
92 ORDER granting 91 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Eraka V. Williams for C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem and Ozzie Williams. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (lag, ) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
93 Sixth MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 8/20/2008 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 7/21/2008 (blg). (Entered: 07/18/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 13 of 29

07/18/2008 07/23/2008 07/23/2008 07/23/2008
08/06/2008 08/13/2008 08/18/2008 08/21/2008 08/22/2008 08/27/2008 09/08/2008 09/08/2008
09/09/2008

94 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 93 Sixth MOTION for Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs; Motion was not set for a valid hearing date. Motion Hearing is RESET for 8/20/08 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (blg) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
95 NOTICE: Scheduling Conference set for 8/20/2008 10:00 AM before courtroom deputy by telephone, by Clerk.(bjj, ) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
96 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney John S. Williams (Filing fee $5.00 PAID) by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Affidavit)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 7/23/2008 (lag, ). Modified on 8/12/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 07/23/2008)
97 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby: Hearing held on 7/23/2008: IT IS ORDERED that 69 71 73 74 88 93 Motions for Joinder are GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED; FURTHER ORDERED that any future motions for joinder filed by the Plaintiffs must address the issue that joinder is the most appropriate legal means by which to add additional plaintiffs to the action; FURTHER ORDERED that 76 Motion for Protective Order is DENIED AS MOOT; FURTHER ORDERED that 77 Motion to Set Status Conference and Request to Tour the Youth Study Center IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth therein; FURTHER ORDERED that after the parties obtain a hearing date as to the outstanding motion for class certification, parties must file a request for status conference no later than 14 days after securing the hearing date, so that the undersigned magistrate judge fashion a pre− and post−class certification discovery plan in the matter. (Court Reporter Diane Gertjejansen.) (rll, ) Modified on 9/18/2008 (rll, ). (Entered: 07/29/2008)
98 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams.(Mullaly, James) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
99 ORDER granting 96 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to John S. Williams.. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (lag, ) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
100 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby: Status Conference held on 8/18/2008; Plas' request to permit experts to perform inspections is DENIED as set forth therein. (rll, ) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
101 MOTION for Sanctions and/or Contempt by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2008 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Mullaly, James) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
102 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/4/2009 02:00 PM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. Bench Trial set for 6/29/2009 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 8/20/08. (Attachments: # 1 Pretrial Notice Form)(bjj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
103 ORDER denying 67 Motion to Dismiss Party. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 8/26/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
104 ORDER Setting/Resetting Hearing on 101 MOTION for Sanctions and/or Contempt : Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2008 11:00 am WITH ORAL ARGUMENT before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 9/8/08.(gbw, ) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
105 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 101 MOTION for Sanctions and/or Contempt and MOTION to vacate &Continue Hearing Date of September 10, 2008 by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 9/9/2008 (lag, ). Modified on 9/9/2008 to edit text (bbc, ). (Entered: 09/08/2008)
106 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 105 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, MOTION to Continue ; Motion is designated "Exparte" and

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 14 of 29

09/09/2008 09/09/2008
09/12/2008 09/16/2008 09/16/2008 09/17/2008 09/18/2008
09/19/2008
09/23/2008 09/24/2008
09/29/2008 09/30/2008 10/01/2008 10/15/2008

should not be set for a hearing date. Clerk took corrective action. (lag, ) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
107 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Heather M. Valliant as Attorney by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Valliant, Heather) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
108 ORDER re 105 MOTION to Continue Hearing on 101 MOTION for Sanctions and/or Contempt: Motion Hearing reset for 9/24/2008 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby with oral argument; any opposition memoranda must be filed in accordance with the local rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 9/9/08.(rll, ) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
109 ORDER granting 107 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Heather M. Valliant terminated. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 9/11/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
110 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 5/13/2009 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 9/16/08.(rll, ) (NEF to Judge Lemelle) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
111 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 101 MOTION for Sanctions and/or Contempt. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
112 DEFICIENT NOTICE of Hearing on Motion filed by Damekia Morgan re 2 MOTION to Certify Class. Motion Hearing set for 10/23/2008 10:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 9/18/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 09/17/2008)
114 ORDER granting 17 Motion to Continue hearing on class certification provided that parties submit to the Court no later than 10 days from the date of the signing of this order a joint proposal as set forth in document. FURTHER ORDERED that 2 Motion to Certify Class is dismissed without prejudice to re−urge once classwide discovery is complete. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 9/18/08. (gec, ) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
113 TRANSCRIPT of Motion hearing held on 07/23/2008 before Judge Karen Wells Roby. Court Reporter/Recorder Diane Gertjejansen, Telephone number (504) 589−7725. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2008. (bgh, ) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
115 DEFICIENT NOTICE by all plaintiffs re 111 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. (Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 9/24/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 09/23/2008)
118 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby: Motion Hearing held on 9/24/2008 re 101 MOTION for Sanctions and/or Contempt filed by Richard W. Winder, Ozzie Williams, C. Ray Nagin, Mubarek A. Kareem; motion argued &submitted; Court shall issue an order. (Court Reporter Arlene Movahed.) (rll, ) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
116 STATUS REPORT and scheduling proposal by all plaintiffs (Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
117 STATUS REPORT Opposition to Plaintiffs' Status Report and Proposed Scheduling Order and Proposed Scheduling Order by Defendants by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams (Mullaly, James) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
119 STATUS REPORT by all plaintiffs (Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
120 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION To Take Deposition of Incarcerated Persons, MOTION to Take Deposition of DA by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby.

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 15 of 29

10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008
10/17/2008
10/21/2008
10/21/2008

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
121 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 120 MOTION To Take Deposition of Incarcerated Persons MOTION to Take Deposition of DA; Name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary. (lag, ) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
122 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Take Deposition of JD by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 10/17/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 10/16/2008)
123 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Take Deposition of RA by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion referred to Magistrate Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 10/17/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 10/16/2008)
124 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Take Deposition of TB by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 10/17/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 10/16/2008)
125 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Take Deposition of RM by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 10/17/2008 (lag, ). (Entered: 10/16/2008)
127 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle: Telephone Conference held on 10/16/2008. Parties are ordered to comply with deadlines as set forth in document. (lag, ) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
128 ORDER granting 120 Motion to Take Deposition of D.A.; IT IS ORDERED that Superintendent of Youth Study Center produce plaintiff, D.A., for deposition on 10/27/2008 03:00 PM before dft's attorney at address provided therein; FURTHER ORDERED that pla's counsel notify Superintendent of D.A.'s identity prior to the deposition and in sufficient time to allow Superintendent to make necessary arrangements. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 10/16/08. (rll, ) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
126 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 122 MOTION to Take Deposition of JD, 124 MOTION to Take Deposition of TB, 125 MOTION to Take Deposition of RM, 123 MOTION to Take Deposition of RA ; Name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. All future pleadings must contain signature of filing attorney! ALSO, Motions have been referred to the Magistrate Judge. (lag, ) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
129 ORDER granting 122 Motion to Take Deposition of JD; IT IS ORDERED that Superintendent of Youth Study Center produce plaintiff, JD, for deposition on 10/28/2008 10:00 AM before dft's attorney at address provided therein; FURTHER ORDERED that pla's counsel notify Superintendent of JD's identity prior to the deposition and in sufficient time to allow Superintendent to make necessary arrangements. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 10/21/08. (rll, ) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
130 ORDER granting 123 Motion to Take Deposition of RA; IT IS ORDERED that Superintendent of Youth Study Center produce plaintiff, RA, for deposition on 10/30/2008 09:00 AM before dft's attorney at address provided therein; FURTHER ORDERED that pla's counsel notify Superintendent of RA's identity prior to the deposition and in sufficient time to allow Superintendent to make necessary arrangements. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 10/21/08. (rll, ) (Entered: 10/21/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 16 of 29

10/21/2008
10/21/2008
10/21/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008
10/23/2008

131 ORDER granting 124 Motion to Take Deposition of TB; IT IS ORDERED that Superintendent of Youth Study Center produce plaintiff, TB, for deposition on 10/27/2008 04:00 PM before dft's attorney at address provided therein; FURTHER ORDERED that pla's counsel notify Superintendent of TB's identity prior to the deposition and in sufficient time to allow Superintendent to make necessary arrangements. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 10/21/08. (rll, ) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
132 ORDER granting 125 Motion to Take Deposition of RM; IT IS ORDERED that Superintendent of Youth Study Center produce plaintiff, RM, for deposition on 10/30/2008 10:00 AM before dft's attorney at address provided therein; FURTHER ORDERED that pla's counsel notify Superintendent of RM's identity prior to the deposition and in sufficient time to allow Superintendent to make necessary arrangements. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 10/21/08. (rll, ) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
133 ORDER Additional Settlement Conference set for 11/19/2008 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 10/21/08.(rll, ) (NEF to Judge Lemelle) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
134 EXPARTE/CONSENT Amended MOTION to Take Deposition of JD by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 10/23/2008 to add referral (rll, ). (Entered: 10/23/2008)
135 EXPARTE/CONSENT Amended MOTION to Take Deposition of TB by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 10/23/2008 to add referral (rll, ). (Entered: 10/23/2008)
136 EXPARTE/CONSENT Amended MOTION to Take Deposition of RA by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 10/23/2008 to add referral (rll, ). (Entered: 10/23/2008)
137 EXPARTE/CONSENT Amended MOTION to Take Deposition of RM by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 10/23/2008 to add referral (rll, ). (Entered: 10/23/2008)
138 DUPLICATE OF DOC #120. EXPARTE/CONSENT Amended MOTION to Take Deposition of DA by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) Modified on 10/23/2008 (rll, ). (Entered: 10/23/2008)
139 ORDER granting 134 Motion to Take Deposition of J.D.; IT IS ORDERED that Warden of Orleans Parish Prison produce plaintiff, JD, for deposition on 10/28/2008 10:00 AM before dft's attorney at address provided therein; FURTHER ORDERED that pla's counsel notify Warden of JD's identity prior to the deposition and in sufficient time to allow Warden to make necessary arrangements. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 10/23/08. (rll, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
140 ORDER granting 135 Motion to Take Deposition of T.B.; IT IS ORDERED that Warden of Orleans Parish Prison produce plaintiff, T.B., for deposition on 10/28/2008 11:00 AM before dft's attorney at address provided therein; FURTHER ORDERED that pla's counsel notify Warden of T.B.'s identity prior to the deposition and in sufficient time to allow Warden to make necessary arrangements. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 10/23/08. (rll, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
141 ORDER granting 136 Motion to Take Deposition R.A.; IT IS ORDERED that Superintendent/Director of Bridge City produce plaintiff, R.A., for deposition on 10/30/2008 09:00 AM before dft's attorney at address provided therein; FURTHER ORDERED that pla's counsel notify Superintendent/Director of R.A.'s identity prior to the deposition and in sufficient time to allow Superintendent/Director to make necessary arrangements. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 10/23/08. (rll, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 17 of 29

10/23/2008 11/14/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 12/05/2008
12/08/2008 12/08/2008 01/08/2009
01/16/2009 01/27/2009

142 ORDER granting 137 Motion to Take Deposition of R.M.; IT IS ORDERED that Superintendent/Director of Bridge City produce plaintiff, R.M., for deposition on 10/30/2008 10:00 AM before dft's attorney at address provided therein; FURTHER ORDERED that pla's counsel notify Superintendent/Director of R.M.'s identity prior to the deposition and in sufficient time to allow Superintendent/Director to make necessary arrangements. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 10/23/08. (rll, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
143 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Deadlines Relating to Class Certification Motion by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
144 ORDER granting 143 Motion for Extension of Deadlines and that the deadline for filing renewed motion is extended to 14 days after receipt of class discovery deposition transcripts. FURTHER ORDERED that plas shall notice an available January or February 2009 hearing date on renewed Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 11/18/08. (lag, ) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
145 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby: Settlement Conference held on 11/19/2008; settlement not reached − negotiations ongoing. IT IS ORDERED that another Settlement Conference is set for 12/8/2008 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (rll, ) (NEF to Judge Lemelle) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
146 MOTION to Certify Class by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing, # 4 Exhibit Affidavit of Dana Kaplan, # 5 Exhibit Depo Excerpts re Typicality, # 6 Exhibit Deposition Transcript J.D., # 7 Exhibit Deposition Transcript T.B., # 8 Exhibit Deposition Transcript R.M., # 9 Exhibit Deposition Transcript R.J., # 10 Exhibit Deposition Transcript D.A., # 11 Exhibit Deposition Transcript R.A., # 12 Exhibit Deposition Transcript D.B., # 13 Exhibit Deposition Transcript J.W., # 14 Exhibit Deposition Transcript L.M., # 15 Exhibit Deposition Transcript T.H.)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
147 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 146 MOTION to Certify Class. Signature line on memorandum and notice of hearing is blank. All future documents must reflect either an original signature or an electronic signature of the filing attorney following the format 's/ (attorney name)'. No further action is necessary. (gec, ) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
148 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby: Settlement Conference held on 12/8/2008; settlement not reached − negotiations ongoing. ORDERED that another Settlement Conference is set for 1/16/2009 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby in addition to currently scheduled settlement conference on 5/13/2009 02:00 PM. (rll, ) (NEF to Judge Lemelle) (Entered: 12/11/2008)
149 AMENDED ORDER: requirements herein are to be met by ptys prior to the 1/16/09 2:00PM settlement conference; ORDERED that plas' counsel provide formal written demand re claims between the City &plaintiff. The demand should be addressed to the undersigned &copied to counsel for the City by Monday, 1/12/09. ORDERED that counsel for the City provide formal written response addressed to the undersigned &copied to counsel for the pla by Wednesday, 1/14/09. FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for pla provide to the undersigned info on available software for the management of juvenile facilities by Monday 1/12/09. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (NEF: Lemelle)(bbc, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
150 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby: Settlement Conference held on 1/16/2009; settlement not reached. The settlement conf sched for 5/13/09 is CANCELLED (NEF: Lemelle) (bbc, ) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
151 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams re 146 MOTION to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Manual Attachment)(Mullaly, James) (Entered:

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 18 of 29

01/28/2009
01/28/2009 01/30/2009 02/02/2009 02/03/2009 02/04/2009 02/04/2009 02/06/2009
02/06/2009 02/11/2009 02/20/2009
02/23/2009 02/27/2009 02/27/2009

01/27/2009)
152 MOTION for Protective Order by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 2/18/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Mullaly, James) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
153 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
154 RESPONSE to Motion filed by all plaintiffs re 152 MOTION for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
155 ORDER granting 153 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on 152 MOTION for Protective Order: Motion Hearing reset for 2/4/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby with oral argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 2/2/09.(rll, ) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
156 Manual Attachment Received and Scanned re 151 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by Richard W. Winder, Ozzie Williams, C. Ray Nagin, Mubarek A. Kareem. (lag, ) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
158 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle: Motion Hearing held on 2/4/2009 re 146 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Damekia Morgan. (Court Reporter Pinky Ferdinand.) (lag, ) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
160 Minute Order. Motion Hearing held on 2/4/2009 before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby re 152 MOTION for Protective Order filed by dfts; IT IS ORDERED that dfts' motion is DENIED AS MOOT (Court Reporter Arlene Movahed.) (bbc, ) Modified on 2/10/2009 to edit text (bbc, ). (Entered: 02/09/2009)
157 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on September 24, 2008 before Judge Karen Wells Roby. Court Reporter/Recorder Arlene Movahed, Telephone number (504) 589−7777. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/7/2009. (clu, ) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
159 ORDER granting 146 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 2/5/09. (lag, ) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
161 ORDER denying dft's 101 Motion for Sanctions contempt; the Court however, admonishes plas' counsel to refrain from any future attempts to circumvent ruling of the undersigned. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 2/11/09. (bbc, ) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
162 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 3/11/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 2/23/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 02/20/2009)
163 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 162 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents; Motion was not set for a valid hearing date. Motion Hearing is RESET for 3/11/09 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (lag, ) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
164 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
165 DEFICIENT MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Proceedings by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 3/11/2009 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 3/2/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 02/27/2009)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 19 of 29

03/03/2009 03/04/2009 03/04/2009 03/04/2009 03/06/2009 03/09/2009 03/10/2009
03/10/2009 03/11/2009 03/13/2009
03/16/2009
03/17/2009

166 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams re 162 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Williams, Eraka) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
167 MOTION to Bifurcate by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 4/1/2009 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
168 MOTION for Protective Order by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 3/25/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Exhibit)(Mullaly, James) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
169 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
170 Letter to Court from Nolan P. Lambert dated 3/4/09 (lag, ) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
171 ORDER granting 164 Motion for Extension of Deadlines as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 3/6/09. (lag, ) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
172 RESPONSE to Motion filed by all plaintiffs re 168 MOTION for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Correspondence with City, # 2 Correspondence with City Attorney, # 3 Correspondence with City Attorney, # 4 Notice of Deposition Mayor Nagin, # 5 Correspondence with City Attorney, # 6 Correspondence with City Attorney, # 7 Exhibit Correspondence with City Atttorney, # 8 Exhibit Re−Notice of Deposition Mayor Nagin, # 9 Exhibit Letter to City Attorney)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
173 ORDER granting 169 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on 168 MOTION for Protective Order: Motion Hearing reset for 3/18/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby with oral argument; FURTHER ORDERED that any opposition be filed no later than 2:00 PM on 3/12/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 3/10/09.(rll, ) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
182 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby: Motion Hearing held on 3/11/2009 re 162 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by Damekia Morgan. Motion argued; continued until 3/18/09. Movant shall supplement their pleading to provide necessary documentation for the Court's review. (Court Reporter Pinky Ferdinand.) (bbc, ) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
174 DEFICIENT Supplemental MOTION to Compel Production of Documents by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 3/18/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs first Request for Production of Documents, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents, # 3 Exhibit Defendant's Response to RFP No. 32)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 3/16/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 03/13/2009)
175 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Motion to Compel by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Supplemental Motion to Compel, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production, # 4 Exhibit Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents, # 5 Exhibit Defendants' Response to Request for Production 32)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 3/17/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 03/16/2009)
176 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 175 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Motion to Compel; Motion is designated "Exparte" and should not be set for a hearing date. Clerk took corrective action. ALSO, Name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary. (lag, ) (Entered: 03/17/2009)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 20 of 29

03/17/2009 03/17/2009
03/18/2009 03/18/2009 03/27/2009
03/30/2009 04/03/2009 04/07/2009 04/14/2009 04/16/2009 04/17/2009 04/23/2009

177 ORDER granting 175 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 3/17/09. (rll, ) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
178 Supplemental MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by all plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 3/18/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plas' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Admission and Second Request for Production of Documents, # 3 Exhibit Defendants' Response to Request for Production 32)(rll, ) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
181 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby: Motion Hearing held on 3/18/2009 re 178 MOTION to Compel filed by Damekia Morgan, 162 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by Damekia Morgan. Motion argued; submitted. (Court Reporter Diane Gertjejansen.) (bbc, ) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
183 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby: Motion Hearing held on 3/18/2009 re 168 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Richard W. Winder, Ozzie Williams, C. Ray Nagin, Mubarek A. Kareem. Motion argued; submitted.(Court Reporter Diane Gertjejansen.) (bbc, ) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
179 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on February 4, 2009 before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. Court Reporter/Recorder Pinkey Ferdinand, Telephone number (504) 589−7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/25/2009. (clu, ) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
180 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Sharon Y. Eubanks as Attorney by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
184 ORDER granting 180 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Sharon Y. Eubanks terminated. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 4/1/09. (lag, ) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
185 ORDER granting 167 Motion to Bifurcate; The liability phase of trial shall proceed during the week of 6/29/09, per the Courts Scheduling Order. If necessary, a remedy phase of trial may be scheduled upon conclusion of the liability phase. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 4/3/09. (lag, ) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
188 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $5.00 PAID) by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(lag, ) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
186 DEFICIENT EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Discovery Production and Expert Inspection by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 4/17/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 04/16/2009)
187 DEFICIENT EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Discovery Production and Expert Inspection by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 4/20/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 04/17/2009)
189 MOTION for Entry of Order for March 18, 2009 Bench Rulings by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 5/13/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 4/24/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 04/23/2009)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 21 of 29

04/23/2009 04/23/2009 04/23/2009 04/23/2009 04/24/2009 04/24/2009 04/27/2009 04/27/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009

190 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion for Entry of Order for March 18, 2009 Bench Rulings by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
191 DEFICIENT EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Memorandum in Support, # 4 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 4/24/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 04/23/2009)
192 MOTION for Shorter Discovery Deadlines by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion Hearing set for 5/13/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 4/24/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 04/23/2009)
193 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion for Shorter Discovery Deadlines by Damekia Morgan. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 4/24/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 04/23/2009)
194 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 193 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Shorter Discovery Deadlines; Motion is designated "Exparte/Consent" and should not be set for a hearing date. Clerk took corrective action. (lag, ) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
195 ORDER granting 188 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to George E. Schulz, Jr.. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 4/20/09. (lag, ) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
196 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence About Construction Plans for the Youth Study Center by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 6/10/2009 9:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 4/28/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 04/27/2009)
197 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Any Recently Enacted Policies and Procedures by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 6/10/2009 9:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 1)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 4/28/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 04/27/2009)
198 CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on February 4, 2009 before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. Court Reporter/Recorder Pinkey Ferdinand, Telephone number (504) 589−7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/27/2009. (clu, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
199 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 196 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence About Construction Plans for the Youth Study Center, 197 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Any Recently Enacted Policies and Procedures; Motions were not set for valid hearing dates/times. Clerk took corrective action. Motion Hearings are RESET for 6/10/2009 9:00 AM before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (lag, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
200 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists by Damekia Morgan. Motion Hearing set for 6/10/2009 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Memorandum in Support, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Notice of Hearing)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
201 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Witness and Exhibit Lists by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 22 of 29

04/28/2009 04/28/2009 04/29/2009
04/30/2009 05/01/2009 05/01/2009
05/01/2009 05/04/2009 05/05/2009 05/05/2009 05/06/2009 05/06/2009 05/14/2009 05/19/2009 05/20/2009

202 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine filed April 27, 2009 by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
214 Letter to Court from Stephen F. Hanlon dated 4/23/09 (lag, ) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
203 ORDER GRANTING 201 , 202 MOTIONS to Expedite motion hearings; FURTHER ORDERED that the Hearing on 196 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence About Construction Plans for the Youth Study Center, and 197 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Any Recently Enacted Policies and Procedures are reset for set for 5/13/2009 WITHOUT Oral Argument; FURTHER ORDERED that the Hearing on 200 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists is reset for 5/6/2009 WITHOUT Oral Argument. Any oppostion to motion for extension of time due 5/1/09. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle.(lag, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)
204 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 5/22/2009 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 4/30/09.(rll, ) (NEF to Judge Lemelle) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
205 RESPONSE to Motion filed by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams re 200 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists. (Mullaly, James) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
206 ORDER granting plas' 190 Motion for Expedited Consideration on their 189 Motion for entry of an order for the 3/18th bench rulings on plas' requests for production of documents. FURTHER ORDERED that the 189 Motion for entry of an order is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 5/1/09. (bbc, ) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
207 ORDER denying 192 plas' Motion for Shorter Discovery Deadlines; granting 193 plas' Motion for Expedited Consideration as set forth therein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 5/1/09. (rll, ) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
208 ORDER denying 200 Motion for Extension of Time to File witness and exhibit lists. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 5/1/09. (lag, ) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
209 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams re 196 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence About Construction Plans for the Youth Study Center. (Mullaly, James) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
210 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams re 197 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Any Recently Enacted Policies and Procedures. (Williams, Eraka) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
211 Witness and Exhibit List by C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams. (Williams, Eraka) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
212 Witness and Exhibit List by all plaintiffs. (Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
215 ORDER denying 196 , 197 Motions in Limine. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 5/13/09. (lag, ) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
218 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle: Telephone Conference held on 5/19/2009. The parties shall submit to the Court proposed settlement procedures on 6/1/09 and hearing shall be held 6/4/2009 02:00 PM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (lag, ) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
216 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 03/18/2009 before Judge Karen Wells Roby. Court Reporter/Recorder Diane Gertjejansen, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/18/2009. (bgh, ) Modified docket text on 5/21/2009 (jtd). (Entered: 05/20/2009)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 23 of 29

05/20/2009
06/01/2009
06/03/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/05/2009
06/08/2009 06/08/2009 06/10/2009 07/29/2009 08/03/2009 08/20/2009

217 ORDER: undersigned notified that negotiations successful − settlement reached; therefore, Settlement Conference set for 5/22/2009 10:00 am is cancelled; parties have additional steps to engage in before matter is ripe for dismissal; undersigned will notify District Judge when all remaining issues have been resolved. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 5/20/09.(rll, ) (NEF to Judge Lemelle) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
219 Response/Reply by all parties to 218 Minute Entry, Parties' Joint Filing Regarding Agreed Upon Settlement Procedure (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Settlement Procedure Re: Education Claims), # 2 Exhibit B (Settlement Procedure Re: Conditions of Confinement Claims), # 3 Exhibit C (Paul DeMuro C.V.), # 4 Exhibit D (Carol Brooks C.V.), # 5 Exhibit E (Joint Memo of Law Re: s.1983 Liability), # 6 Exhibit F (Proposed Class Notice Re: Settlement Procedure))(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 6/2/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 06/01/2009)
220 ORDER denying without prejudice: 162 Motion to Compel; 168 Motion for Protective Order; 178 Supplemental Motion to Compel as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 6/2/09. (gec, ) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
221 Response/Reply by all parties to 218 Minute Entry (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 6/5/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 06/04/2009)
222 NOTICE by Damekia Morgan of Substitution of Party. (Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 6/5/2009 (lag, ). Modified on 6/8/2009 (lag, ). (Entered: 06/04/2009)
223 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle: Settlement Conference held on 6/4/2009. Status Report due 8/20/09. Telephone Conference set for 8/26/2009 10:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. (Court Reporter Vic DiGiorgio.) (lag, ) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
224 ORDER that the revised settlement procedures on the conditions of confinement and education claims are approved. Pre−trial conference and trial set for 6/4/2009 and 6/29/2009 are CANCELLED; Parties shall submit by 6/8/09 a proposed order approving the Settlement Procedure in view of todays hearing; Parties shall submit to the Court a joint report on the general status of settlement efforts by 8/20/09; Telephone Status Conference set 8/26/09 10:00 AM. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 6/4/09.(lag, ) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
225 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 222 Notice (Other); Notice of Substitution of Party no longer deemed deficient; Per FRCP 25(d), party for Public Officer (President of Orleans Parish School Board) was updated by clerk. (lag, ) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
226 Response/Reply by all parties to 224 Order,, Notice of Filing Proposed Order (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Parties' Agreed Upon Settlement Procedures)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
227 ORDER Approving parties' revised Agreement re: Procedure for Settlement of Education Claims and parties' revised Agreement re: Procedure for Settlement of Conditions of Confinement Claims; Telephone Status Conference set for 8/26/2009 10:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 6/9/09.(lag, ) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
228 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw LaKeytria W. Felder as Attorney by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
229 ORDER granting 228 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney LaKeytria W. Felder terminated. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 7/31/09. (gec, ) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
230 Response/Reply by all parties to 227 Order Joint Report on the Progress and Status of Settlement Efforts (Schulz, George) Modified on 8/21/2009 to edit text. (gec, ). (Entered: 08/20/2009)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 24 of 29

08/27/2009 10/26/2009
10/26/2009
11/02/2009 11/16/2009 11/20/2009
11/24/2009 12/04/2009 12/07/2009 01/15/2010 02/12/2010 02/12/2010 01/04/2011 02/22/2011

231 ORDERED that the parties be given until 10/26/2009 to present to the Court a proposed consent decree for preliminary approval regarding the Youth Study Center and submit the proposedplan of the educational program. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle.(gec, ) (Entered: 08/27/2009)
232 Response/Reply by Orleans Parish School Board, Damekia Morgan, Damekia Morgan, Woody Koppel, Darryl Kilbert to 231 Order, Joint Filing of Proposed Consent Decree (Education Claims) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Consent Decree (Education Claims), # 2 Exhibit Proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement, # 3 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Schulz, George) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
233 Response/Reply by Damekia Morgan, Damekia Morgan, C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams to 231 Order, Joint Filing of Proposed Consent Decree (Conditions of Confinement Claims) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Consent Decree (Conditions of Confinement Claims), # 2 Exhibit Material for YSC Policies and Procedures Manual, # 3 Exhibit Proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement, # 4 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Schulz, George) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
234 ORDER that 233 the parties Joint Filing of Proposed Consent Decree For Settlement of Conditions of Confinement Claims is set for Oral Argument on 12/2/2009 10:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 10/29/09.(lag, ) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
235 ORDER that 232 the parties Joint Filing of Proposed Consent Decree For Education Claims is set for Oral Argument on 12/2/2009 10:00 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 11/12/09.(lag, ) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
236 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment Preliminarily by Orleans Parish School Board, Damekia Morgan, Damekia Morgan, C. Ray Nagin, Richard W. Winder, Mubarek A. Kareem, Ozzie Williams, Woody Koppel, Darryl Kilbert. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Proposed Consent Decree (Conditions of Confinement Claims), # 2 Memorandum in Support of Proposed Consent Decree (Education Claims))(Schulz, George) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
237 ORDER that hearing on 232 Proposed Consent Decree for Educational Claims shall be held 12/2/2009 08:15 AM before Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 11/23/09.(lag, ) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
238 Amendment/Supplement to Document by all parties re 232 Response/Reply, 233 Response/Reply, Parties' Joint Filing of Revised Notice of Class Action Settlement (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Revised Notice of Class Action Settlement)(Schulz, George) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
239 NOTICE of Proposed Class Action Settlement. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle.(lag, ) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
240 NOTICE by all parties re 238 Amendment/Supplement to Document, Regarding Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement. (Schulz, George) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
241 Consent Decree for Conditions of Confinement Claims. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle.(lag, ) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
242 Consent Decree for Education Claims. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle.(lag, ) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
243 ORDER that parties shall meet by 2/7/2011 to address report sections as set forth in document; Joint statement shall be submitted to Court by 2/22/2011. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 1/4/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(lag, ) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
244 **DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION Modify Consent Decree re Conditions of Confinement by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 2/23/2011 (gec, ). (Entered: 02/22/2011)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 25 of 29

02/25/2011 02/28/2011 03/01/2011 03/10/2011 03/10/2011 03/10/2011 03/16/2011 03/23/2011 05/13/2011 05/16/2011 05/17/2011 05/17/2011 05/18/2011 05/18/2011
05/20/2011 05/23/2011

245 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Eraka) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
246 ORDER granting 245 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Nannette V. Jolivette for Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (lag, ) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
247 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Modify Conditions of Confinement Consent Decree by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
248 ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 3/10/2011 11:30 AM before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle re 247 MOTION to Modify Conditions of Confinement Consent Decree.. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 3/9/2011.(lag, ) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
249 STATUS REPORT of Education Consultant by Orleans Parish School Board (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Jupiter, Clare) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
250 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle: Telephone Conference held on 3/10/2011. The parties are directed to file a revised proposed order with the modifications discussed by 3/17/2011. (lag, ) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
251 EXPARTE/CONSENT Amended MOTION To Modify Conditions of Confinement Consent Decree by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
252 ORDER granting 251 Motion to Modify Conditions of Consent Decree as set forth in document. FURTHER ORDERED that 247 previous Motion to Modify Consent Decree is dismissed. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (lag, ) Modified on 3/24/2011 (lag, ). (Entered: 03/23/2011)
253 ORDERED that the City of New Orleans shall show cause in writing no later than 5/31/2011 why it should not be sanctioned for alleged failure to timely comply with the Consent Decree as stated within document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle.(gec, ) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
254 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Eraka) Modified on 5/17/2011 (lag, ). (Entered: 05/16/2011)
255 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney Eraka V. Williams by Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Eraka) Modified on 5/18/2011 (lag, ). (Entered: 05/17/2011)
256 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Nolan Lambert as Attorney by Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mullaly, James) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
257 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 254 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Nannette V. Jolivette terminated. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (lag, ) (Entered: 05/19/2011)
258 ORDER granting 255 Motion to Substitute Attorney, 256 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Added attorney Matthew J. Lindsay for Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder. Attorney Nolan Patrick Lambert and Eraka V. Williams terminated. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (lag, ) (Entered: 05/19/2011)
259 STATUS REPORT for 5−24−2011 Status Conference by Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder (Mullaly, James) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
260 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle: Telephone Conference held on 5/23/2011. (lag, ) (Entered: 05/25/2011)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 26 of 29

05/31/2011 06/01/2011 09/12/2011 10/28/2011 10/31/2011 01/26/2012 02/09/2012 02/09/2012 02/10/2012 04/04/2012 04/05/2012
04/10/2012 06/29/2012 09/05/2012 11/09/2012 11/13/2012

261 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Penya M. Moses−Fields and Joseph Vincent DiRosa, Jr. as Attorney by Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lindsay, Matthew) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
262 ORDER granting 261 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Joseph Vincent DiRosa, Jr and Penya M. Moses−Fields terminated. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (lag, ) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
263 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lindsay, Matthew) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
264 STATUS REPORT by Carol Cramer Brooks 4 15 2011 by Orleans Parish School Board (Attachments: # 1 monitor's report on compliance with consent decree)(Jupiter, Clare) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
265 ORDER granting 263 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney James J. Carter for Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 10/31/11. (mmv, ) (Entered: 11/01/2011)
266 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Modify Conditions of Confinement Consent Decree by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A Fifth Monitoring Report)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
267 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Joint Motion to Modify February 12, 2010 Education Consent Decree by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hanlon, Stephen) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
268 ORDER granting 266 Motion to Modify 2/12/10 Conditions of Confinement Consent Decree as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 2/8/12. (mmv, ) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
269 ORDER Granting 267 Joint Motion to Modify 242 February 12, 2010 Education Consent Decree filed by Damekia Morgan as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle.(ijg, ) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
270 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Sixth Report of Conditions Monitor by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Letter from Paul Demuro)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
271 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 270 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Sixth Report of Conditions Monitor. Document does not contain Section and Magistrate Judge. All future pleadings must reflect Section B− Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle and Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby (4). (mmv, ) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
272 ORDER granting 270 Motion for Extension of Time to File Sixth Report of Conditions Monitor. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 4/10/2012. (lag, ) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
273 STATUS REPORT Youth Study Center Monitoring by Orleans Parish School Board (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Monitoring Checklist)(Bryan, Trevor) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
274 NOTICE of Change of Address by Stephen F. Hanlon on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Hanlon, Stephen) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
275 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION Motion to Modify Conditions of Confinement Consent Decree by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hanlon, Stephen) Modified on 11/13/2012 (lag, ). (Entered: 11/09/2012)
276 ORDER re 275 Joint MOTION to Modify Conditions of Confinement Consent Decree, Ordered that the Conditions Consent Decree 241 , as modified by this Court's 252 Order dated March 23, 2011, and this Court's 268 Order dated February 9, 2012, is further modified as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle.(ijg, ) (Entered: 11/13/2012)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 27 of 29

11/13/2012 11/15/2012 12/10/2012 12/11/2012 12/19/2012 12/26/2012 12/27/2012 01/04/2013 01/04/2013 01/10/2013 01/17/2013
04/29/2013 04/30/2013 06/19/2013 06/20/2013

277 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Modify February 12, 2010 Education Consent Decree by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hanlon, Stephen) Modified on 11/14/2012 (lag, ). (Entered: 11/13/2012)
278 ORDER re 277 Joint MOTION to Modify February 12, 2010 Education Consent Decree filed by Damekia Morgan, Ordered that the 242 Education Consent Decree is modified as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle.(ijg, ) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
279 NOTICE by Damekia Morgan Joint Notice of Filing Notice to Proceed. (Hanlon, Stephen) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
280 NOTICE by Damekia Morgan Joint Notice of Filing Notice to Proceed. (Hanlon, Stephen) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
281 DEFICIENT: NOTICE by Damekia Morgan Notice of Substitution of Counsel and Change of Address. (Hanlon, Stephen) Modified on 12/20/2012 (lag, ). (Entered: 12/19/2012)
282 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Modify February 12,2010 Education Consent Decree by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hanlon, Stephen) (Entered: 12/26/2012)
283 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Stephen F. Hanlon, Esq. to be substituted in place of George E. Schultz, Esq. and Notice of Change of Address by Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hanlon, Stephen) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
284 ORDER granting 283 Motion to Substitute Counsel; Ordered that Stephen F. Hanlon shall replace George E. Schulz, Jr. as counsel for plaintiff. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 1/2/2013. (ijg, ) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
285 ORDER granting 282 Motion to Modify Consent Decree 242 as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 12/31/2012. (ijg, ) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
286 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Dismiss and Relinquish Jurisdiction Over Conditions of Confinement Consent Decree by Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lindsay, Matthew) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
287 ORDER granting in part 286 Joint Motion to Dismiss this matter and Relinquish Jurisdiction over the Conditions of Confinement Consent Decree as set forth in document. Further Ordered that the Consent Decree issued herein, as modified and amended, is Dissolved without prejudice as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 1/16/2013. (ijg, ) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
288 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Sharonda R. Williams to be substituted in place of Matthew J. Lindsay by Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, Richard W. Winder. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lindsay, Matthew) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
289 ORDER granting 288 Motion to Substitute Attorney Sharonda R. Williams as counsel of record for Mubarek A. Kareem, C. Ray Nagin, Ozzie Williams, and Richard W. Winder. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (ijg, ) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
290 DEFICIENT: MOTION Modify Consent Decree by Damekia Morgan. Motion set for 7/10/2014 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A Report of Education Monitor)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 6/20/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 06/19/2013)
291 DEFICIENT: MOTION Modify Education Consent Decree by Damekia Morgan. Motion set for 7/10/2014 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A Education Monitor's Report)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 6/21/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 06/20/2013)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 28 of 29

06/21/2013 06/24/2013
06/26/2013
07/10/2013 07/23/2013
09/16/2013 09/19/2013 10/02/2013 10/03/2013 11/26/2013 11/29/2013 12/03/2013 02/13/2014 02/14/2014

292 MOTION to Modify Education Consent Decree by Damekia Morgan. Motion set for 7/10/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit A Education Monitor Report)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
293 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 292 MOTION to Modify Education Consent Decree; Notice of Submission was incomplete. All future Notices must include motion submission date. Motion dates can be found on our website, www.laed.uscourts.gov. Motion is set for 7/10/2013 9:00 AM before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. No further action is necessary for this pleading. (lag, ) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
294 ORDER re 292 MOTION to Modify Education Consent Decree filed by Damekia Morgan, Ordered that the defendants file a response to the Motion no later than 7/9/2013. The Court retains jurisdiction pursuant to its 285 Order dated 12/31/2012. Further Ordered that a Telephone Conference be held on 7/23/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/25/2013.(ijg, ) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
295 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Orleans Parish School Board re 292 MOTION to Modify Education Consent Decree . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Bryan, Trevor) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
296 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle: Telephone Conference was held on 7/23/2013 re 292 MOTION to Modify Education Consent Decree filed by Damekia Morgan. ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED to the extent that the 242 Education Consent Decree, as modified by this Court's Orders of February 10, 2012 269 , November 15, 2012 278 and January 4, 2013 285 , is further MODIFIED to extend this Court's jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Education Consent Decree until September 24, 2013. Further Ordered that the parties are to submit a Joint Status Report to the Court no later than September 17, 2013. (ijg, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
297 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines and STATUS REPORT by Orleans Parish School Board, Damekia Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bryan, Trevor) Modified on 9/17/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 09/16/2013)
298 ORDER Granting 297 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines filed by Damekia Morgan, Orleans Parish School Board as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 9/18/2013.(ijg, ) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
299 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION And Stipulation re Education Consent Decree by Damekia Morgan, Orleans Parish School Board. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A)(Kolinchak, Carol) Modified on 10/3/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 10/02/2013)
300 ORDER re 299 Stipulation filed by the parties on October, 2, 2013; Ordered that the 242 Education Consent Decree is further modified as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle.(ijg, ) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
301 STATUS REPORT of Monitor by Orleans Parish School Board (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bryan, Trevor) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
302 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Dismiss by Orleans Parish School Board. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bryan, Trevor) (Entered: 11/29/2013)
303 ORDER granting in part 302 Joint Motion to Dismiss and Relinquish Jurisdiction over the Conditions of Education Consent Decree 242 302 as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (ijg, ) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
304 STATUS REPORT Education Monitor's 60 Day Review by Orleans Parish School Board (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Bryan, Trevor) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
305 STATUS REPORT on Compliance with Education Consent Decree by Damekia Morgan (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kolinchak, Carol) (Entered: 02/14/2014)

Case: 2:07-cv-09755-ILRL-KWR As of: 06/25/2014 11:26 AM CDT 29 of 29

03/31/2014 04/14/2014 04/28/2014 04/30/2014 05/28/2014

306 ORDER re 305 the Parties' Joint Report; Ordered that the Education Monitor is directed to file another report by 4/14/2014 and the parties are to file another joint report with 15 days of the filing of said Education Monitor's report. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 3/26/2014.(ijg) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
307 STATUS REPORT of Court Appointed Monitor by Orleans Parish School Board (Bryan, Trevor) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
308 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Dissolve the Education Consent Decree by Orleans Parish School Board (Bryan, Trevor) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/30/2014: # 1 Proposed Order) (lag). Modified on 4/30/2014 (lag). (Entered: 04/28/2014)
309 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 308 Status Report; Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Document should have been filed as a Motion. Clerk took corrective action. (lag) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
310 ORDER granting 308 Motion to Dissolve the Education Consent Decree. FURTHER ORDERED that the Consent Decree issued herein, as modified and amended, is hereby DISSOLVED. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (ijg) (Entered: 05/28/2014)