FOi: PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

D.M., et al., Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 96-1340 (AET)

v.
JACK TERHUNE, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiffs:

IIII I

Patricia P. Perlmutter, Esquire Seton Hall University Schoo! of Law Center for Social Jwstiee 833 McCarter Highway Newark, NJ 07102

Sandra L. Cobden, Esquire DeBevoise & Plimpton 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022

For Defendants:

Deputy Attorney General Diane M. Mcratti, Esquire Office of the New Jersey Attorney General Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 112 Trenton, NJ 08625

D.M. v. Terhune PC-NJ-001-004
ORIGINAL FILED
Jin 3 u

1 The original caption was C.F. v. Fauver and has be<en changed to reflect the substitution of the current class representative and the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Stephen D. Holtzman, Esquire Lally, Holtzman, Gilligan, Duffin & Quasti 2106 New Road Suite F-6 Linwood, NJ 08221
Paul R. Murphy, Esquire Kalison, McBride & Jackson 645 Martinsville Road P.O. Box 814 Liberty Corner, NJ 07938

HUGHES. U.S.M.J.

This matter comes before this Court pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e) for approval of a

proposed settlement agreement ("the Settlement") entered into by the Plaintiffs and Defendants.

The Court has considered the written submissions of the parties, 350 responses to the Settlement

by certain members of the class, the record of the fairness hearing, held on July 6, 1999, and the

Settlement itself.

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge, for all

purposes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636 and FED. R. Crv. P. 73.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege civil rights violations, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and violations of

the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C.A. §12132. Specifically, Plaintiffs, a

group of inmates with mental disorders in the New Jersey State Prison system, assert that they

have been unlawfully denied treatment and medication for their mental disorders. Plaintiffs

contend that the deprivation of medical treatment violates their right against cruel and unusual

punishment as well as their right to be free from discrimination for their disabilities pursuant to

the ADA. Defendants, to the contrary, contend that Plaintiffs' mental health treatment is adequate and that it complies with the United States Constitution and the ADA. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 11, 1996, a class action complaint was filed against the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections and various other officials in the Department of Corrections ("DOC"). On November 20, 1996, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class action, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23.
On July 18, 1997, a motion was granted allowing Plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The amended complaint joined Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS"), and Correctional Behavioral Services, Inc. ("CBS"), as co-defendants. CBS and CMS are private contractors engaged by the state of New Jersey to provide mental health services to inmates.
CBS, CMS, and the DOC moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a cross- motion for summary judgment thereafter. The summary judgement motions were dismissed as moot on April 29, 1999, after the parties agreed to settle this matter.
Discovery related to this case has been immense, leading to the production of more than 12,000 pages of documents. In addition, the parties took over thirty depositions and conducted three extensive inspections of the New Jersey prisons.
Intense settlement negotiations and conferences began in November of 1998 and continued through March ot 1999. The result of these conferences and negotiations was the Settlement. The Court conducted a fairness hearing on July 6, 1999, and the Court hereby grants final approval of this Settlement.

III. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT2 The Settlement consists of five major parts: (1) amendments to the DOC disciplinary
regulations, (2) a mental health treatment plan, (3) a statement on new policies and procedures by the DOC, (4) the funding, monitoring and enforcement of the Settlement, and (5) liability of Defendants. Separate and apart from the Settlement, the parties entered into an agreement on attorneys fees and costs, but only after the Settlement benefitting the inmates had been agreed upon. The following discussion in this section will summarize each part of the Settlement and the fee agreement.
A. Amendments to the DOC Disciplinary Regulations The DOC agreed to change parts of its disciplinary regulations. Under the new regulations, all prisoners with pending disciplinary charges will have their names given to the mental health staff before their disciplinary hearing. The mental health staff will inform the disciplinary hearing officer whether the individual charged is undergoing mental health treatment. The hearing officer, based on all the information available to him, will decide whether or
* not to request a psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the prisoner. The hearing officer will consider all the information, including the evaluation, before deciding whether punishment will be imposed on the prisoner. Instead of, or in addition to, the sanctions imposed on the prisoner, the hearing officer may also refer a mentally ill prisoner to the mental health unit for appropriate care and treatment. ~
Additionally, if a prisoner is confined in disciplinary detention, and suffers a deterioration
2 The settlement document, without appendices, has been filed with the Clerk of Court and, by reference, is made part of this Opinion and accompanying Judgment Orders and Settlement Stipulations.

on his or her mental health status, the mental health staff will refer the matter to the administrator of the prison where the inmate is held. The Special Administrative Segregation Review Committee shall release the prisoner from Administrative Segregation if the prisoner has a history of mental illness and the Committee decides that continued confinement in the unit would be harmful to the prisoner's mental health.
B. Plan for Mental Health Treatment All new prisoners will receive a mental health assessment within 72 hours of arrival. The DOC will ensure that there is an adequate number of staff to serve the entire prison population. Correction officers, internal affairs investigators, disciplinary hearing officers and administrators will receive additional training about mental illness and dealing with mentally ill prisoners. The DOC will create three Stabilization Units ("SU"), for the purpose of treating mentally ill prisoners experiencing a mental health crisis. These units will be located at Northern State Prison, New Jersey State Prison, and the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women. The DOC will also create Residential Treatment Units ("RTU"), and Traditional Care Units ("TCU"). After discharge from the SU, the RTU will provide a structured and supportive environment for mentally ill prisoners unable, due to their illness, to be transferred to the general population. The TCU will help prisoners with less severe mental illness to make a gradual adjustment to the general population. The decision about placing prisoners in these units will be determined by the mental health staff. C. Policies and Procedures The DOC agrees to review or create five general types of policies and procedures in order to implement the Settlement: (1) any policies and procedures consistent with the goals of the plan

and the amendments to the disciplinary regulations; (2) involuntary medication policies and procedures, including those describing the difference between emergency and non-emergency involuntary medication; (3) polices and procedures on the use of force situations involving class members which provide for input from the mental health staff; (4) medication policy and procedures regarding medication administration, medication prescription, management of medication, inmate non-compliance and formulary lists; and (5) discharge planning for class members in anticipation of their release from DOC facilities with minimum requirements, as outlined in the Settlement, that must be met.
Defendants will submit the new or revised policies and procedures to the Monitor. Additionally, Defendants agree to implement these policies and procedures to ensure continued compliance with the Settlement.
D. Funding. Monitoring and Enforcement The Settlement requires that enough funding must be allocated by the State of New Jersey to implement this program through the Fiscal Year 2000. The Governor recommended, and the
* New Jersey Legislature approved $16,000,000 to implement the Settlement. The Commissioner of the Department of Corrections certifies that $16,000,000 is sufficient to implement the Settlement. Therefore, the Court finds that funding is available to implement the program.
Dr. Raymond F. Patterson, a forensic psychiatrist, will be appointed as an independent mental health expert to oversee Defendants' compliance. Dr. Patterson has a distinguished career in psychiatry and correctional services. (See Class Counsel Decl., Exhibit A, Patterson Curriculum Vitae ("Patterson C.V.").) He graduated from Northwestern University in 1973 and went on to receive his M.D. from Howard University College of Medicine in 1977. (See

Patterson C.V.) In medical school, Dr. Patterson received the National Medical Fellowship Incorporated Scholarship Clinical Psychiatry Award. (See id.) His numerous professional awards include the Mental Hygiene Administration Certificate of Appreciation for Risk Management/Quality Assessment Program, and the Department of Human Services Distinguished Service Award; both of which were awarded in October 1992. (See id.) Presently, Dr. Patterson is serving as the Director of Forensic Services for the Commission on Mental Health Services in Washington, D.C. (See id.) From May 1997 until February 1998, he worked as the Chief Psychiatrist for the Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services in Baltimore, Maryland. (See id.) In addition, Dr. Patterson is currently on staff as an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the following schools: Howard University College of Medicine, the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at University of Maryland School of Medicine, and Georgetown University Department of Psychiatry. (See id.) Dr. Patterson has also authored numerous papers on mental health and spoken to various professional groups across the country on this topic.
Dr. Patterson will inspect the DOC facilities four times a year. He will be able to *
interview prisoners and staff during his inspection. After each inspection, Dr. Patterson will write a report explaining whether the DOC has substantially complied with the Settlement. Dr. Patterson's report will be confidential, except for copies to the medical and mental health service providers under contract with the DOC, Defendants, counsel to the Plaintiffs, and any former employee witnesses, outside non-party consultants, or experts listed in the Settlement. The inmates will not have access to the report. If the DOC has not substantially complied with the Settlement, it has a limited number of chances to correct the problem. Once the DOC is in full compliance for twelve continuous months, then the Settlement will terminate.

Prisoners concerned with their mental health care may submit their grievances directly to the Director of Health Services Unit or to the Plaintiff class counsel, who will then forward these concerns to Dr. Patterson, as well as to the contractors providing medical and health services.
The Plaintiffs, only through class counsel, may sue to enforce this agreement in New Jersey State Court. No other individual or group of prisoners may sue to enforce this agreement, and Plaintiffs' counsel may not bring such a suit unless Dr. Patterson finds that the DOC is not in compliance with the Settlement.
E. Liability This Settlement is an agreement between Plaintiffs and the DOC. The DOC makes no admission of liability as to the Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs agree to dismiss their claims against the DOC, CMS and CBS with prejudice. All cross-claims between Defendants will be dismissed with prejudice. F. "Attorneys Fees and Costs As part of this agreement, the DOC will pay the Plaintiff class counsel a total of $1,220,000, in resolution of all attorneys fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs' counsel in litigating this case. Plaintiffs' counsel normal rate for fees and costs would have amounted to more than $3,900,000. Since counsel undertook the representation on a pro bono basis, and since their primary objective was the improvement of mental health care for prisoners, they agreed to cut their costs over 67% and accept a lower amount. Significantly, this agreement was reached after the substantive settlement was agreed upon.

IV. NOTICE TO CLASS On May 15, 1999, this Court signed an order requiring distribution of the notice of the
proposed Settlement to all class members. Approximately 2,455 notices were distributed to the class. The notice contained a copy of the Settlement, a plain language summary in English and Spanish, and a comment sheet, all of which were enclosed into a sealed envelope. The class members were required to have all comments postmarked by June 25, 1999. The Court, on its own initiative, decided to consider any comment received by July 28, 1999. (Only two additional comments were received).
The Court determined that this distribution of the proposed settlement and comment sheets was the most appropriate means for providing notice to the class members in accordance with the FED. R. Crv. P. 23(e). V. RESPONSE OF CLASS3
The members of the Plaintiff class submitted comments in response to the Settlement. As a result, class counsel received comments from 345 inmate class members. (See Sandra L. Cobden, Esquire letter, dated July 1, 1999 ("Cobden's July letter").) The Court directly received 14 responses, of which 9 were duplicates of responses sent to class counsel. A total of 350 different responses were received and read. After reviewing the inmate responses and class counsel's assessment of the comments, the Court is satisfied that, on balance, the class members support the Settlement.
3The Court was presented with two sets of responses (four binders in each set from class counsel) which were identical except that one set had the name/number of inmates redacted. Judge Hughes read each one of the 345 individual responses, and an intern was assigned to read every response in the redacted set. Both sets were then cross-checked to assure that each and every response was considered before deciding whether to approve the Settlement

Of the 350 responses, 270 prisoners submitted responses relevant to the issues raised by this action. The other 80 comments raised general complaints concerning treatment by mental health, correctional, and disciplinary personnel; asked for a referral; or sought clarifications regarding the Settlement. (See Cobden's July letter at n. 1.) Of the 270 comments addressing this action, 170 responses addressed the terms of the Settlement. Of those 170 letters, 89 prisoners indicated that they approved of the Settlement. Notably, 15 of those 89 prisoners who approved of the Settlement also expressed concerns or criticism regarding particular provisions. {See id. at 2, n.2.)
A. Objections to the Settlement Agreement Eighty-one responses objected to the Settlement. (See Declaration of Sandra L. Cobden and Patricia Perlmutter ("Class Counsel Decl.") at 5.) The objections to the Settlement raised the following issues: (1) the relief sought was merely injunctive; (2) the Settlement did not provide for monetary relief; (3) inmates protested as to their inclusion in the class; (4) inmates expressed their concern that the Settlement will not be enforced; (5) the Settlement failed to modify the
* parole process for mentally ill prisoners; (6) the Settlement did not include a provision for retroactive relief for prisoners who lost commutation ("good time") credits and/or were sanctioned with administrative segregation based on behavior predating the Settlement which was a product of their mental illness; (7) the scope of relief provided under the Settlement to prisoners being released was inadequate; (8) criticism of class counsel's fee award; (9) a need for heightened security measures for class members; (10) the dangers of forced medication; (11) a need for bilingual mental health clinicians. Many responses addressed more than one issue.
The first two objections, concerning the availability of injunctive and/or monetary relief,
10

were grounded on a misunderstanding of the nature of the action which sought only injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) provides, in pertinent part:
An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied [numerosity, commonality of claims, typicality of claims, and adequacy of representation], and in addition: . . . the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. . . . " FED. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) (emphasis added). Given the nature of this action and the relief sought, it is appropriate that the Settlement solely provides for injunctive relief. Although monetary damages were not available here, class members are not precluded, as a result of their participation in this action, from pursuing individual claims for monetary damages as otherwise permitted by law. Approximately 21 inmates protested their inclusion in the class. Some argued that they were not suitable class members because they did not suffer from a mental illness; others feared retribution from prison personnel; and others simply did not want to participate. The Court is certainly aware of, and sensitive to, the respective positions of these 21 inmates. Considering that less than 10% of the inmates who submitted responses do not want to participate in the Settlement, however, the Court is not convinced that class composition should be disturbed or that the Settlement is~not a positive resolution of this matter for the class members.
Approximately 24 comments expressed concern about the adequacy of the Settlement's enforcement mechanisms. Under the Settlement, Dr. Patterson, an expert in correctional mental
health care, (see supra atHI( D)), will conduct inspections of DOC facilities four times per year.
11

If Dr. Patterson finds that the DOC is not in compliance with the Settlement, Plaintiffs' counsel may bring an enforcement action in New Jersey State Court. (See Class Counsel Decl. at 6.) Plaintiffs are foreclosed from suing for enforcement in Federal Court or to sue on claims with the substantially same facts as alleged in this action. (See Class Counsel Decl. at 6.) However, Plaintiffs can sue for any new claims in Federal Court arising after the date of the Settlement, as otherwise permitted by law. The Court is convinced, due to Dr. Patterson's impressive qualifications, the commitment of Plaintiffs' counsel, and the availability of New Jersey State Courts, that the Settlement has a satisfactory enforcement mechanism.
Several objectors commented that the Settlement does not address the weight given mental illness in assessing prisoners' eligibility for parole. However, parole procedures were outside the scope of this litigation. (See Class Counsel Decl. at 8.) Parole procedures are governed by the New Jersey Board of Parole, which was not a defendant here.
Similarly, several inmates complained that the Settlement did not provide for retroactive relief for prisoners who lost commutation ("good time") credits and/or were sanctioned with administrative segregation based on behavior, which was a product of their mental illness, predating the Settlement. During the settlement negotiations, Plaintiffs' counsel declined to pursue this demand for several reasons. First, the regulatory changes in the Settlement "allow for the transfer of appropriate candidates from administrative segregation to the new mental health units beginning-on July 1, 1999, even if the prisoner's confinement was the result of actions prior to the Settlement. . . . " (Class Counsel Decl. at 9.) The regulatory changes also allow for the removal of mentally ill prisoners from administrative segregation of a prospective basis, if the confinement endangers their mental health. (See id.) Second, the DOC refused to undertake such
12

a retrospective review on the grounds that it "would require a reconstruction of prisoners' mental states at the time of the infractions at issue, often in the absence of a contemporaneous mental evaluation." (See id.) Third, class counsel indicated that such relief may be more appropriate as part of an individual 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 action, rather than this class action Settlement.
A number of prisoners commented on what they perceived to be insufficient attention to discharge planning. However, the Settlement contains several provisions addressing this concern. The Settlement provides for a two week supply of medication to all class members upon their release and for the dissemination of information on social service assistance available in the community. (See id. at 8.) The relief available concerning discharge planning was limited by practical considerations because discharged prisoners are obviously no longer in the DOC's custody. Therefore, the Court is satisfied with the Settlement in this regard.
Several class members criticized die $1.22 million fee awarded to class counsel. As discussed infra at VIII, the Court is satisfied that the fee award is reasonable. Moreover, the Court finds that the fee award does not reduce the benefits to be obtained by Plaintiff class as a result of the Settlement. In fact, the fee award was not negotiated with counsel for Defendants until all other terms of the Settlement had been resolved. (See id. at 6.)
Plaintiffs' responses also expressed concerns regarding the dangers of forced medication. The Court is confident that the provisions of the Settlement will address this concern by virtue of the vastly increased mental health staff and periodic inspections of DOC facilities by Dr. Patterson. Under the Settlement, the DOC will create special needs units in which mentally ill prisoners will receive an extensive program of treatment. (See Class Counsel Decl. at 14.) For instance, SUs will provide acute care to prisoners in crises. (See id.) In an SU, each prisoner's
13

care will be decided upon by a treatment review committee, and will be set forth in a comprehensive treatment plan. {See id.) The Settlement also provides for specific prisoner/staff ratios which must be maintained. In the SUs, there will be 1 psychiatrist for every 35 prisoners, 1 psychologist for every 50 prisoners, and one licensed clinical social worker for every 25 prisoners. (See id. at 15.) The special needs units will also be staffed by psychiatric nurses. By stark contrast, one year ago, there was the equivalent of 5 full-time psychiatrists in the entire DOC system, each serving approximately 400 mentally ill prisoners. (See id.)
Finally, several responses noted a need for heightened security for class members and bilingual mental health clinicians. Although these concerns were not addressed directly by the Settlement, the Court is persuaded that the Monitor will serve as a safeguard against any abuse of the Settlement.
B. Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem t h e next issue before the Court is whether the appointment of a guardian ad litem is necessary for the approval of the Settlement. Pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 17(c), the Court shall appoint a guardian ad litem "for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant or incompetent person." The decision to appoint a guardian ad litem is subject to the Court's discretion. See Gardner by Gardner v. Parson, 874 F.2d 131, 140 (3d Cir. 1989). While the Court is empowered to appoint a guardian, "it may decline to do so if the child's interests may be protected in an alternative manner." Gardner, 874 F.2d at 140. Here, Plaintiff class consists of prisoners with serious mental disabilities. Some members of the class are legally incompetent, but many members are not incompetent. (See Sandra L.
14

Cobden, Esquire letter, dated December 7, 1998 ("Cobden Dec. letter").) Nevertheless, the Court has presided over this case for over three years and has developed a sufficient degree of familiarity with the facts of the case to determine the Settlement's fairness for Plaintiffs. See Eagan by Eagan v. Jackson, 855 F. Supp. 765, 782 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (the court declined to appoint guardian ad litem, in light of familiarity with the case). In addition, the Court has heard and assessed the views of Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Koson, on several occasions, including an evidentiary hearing. Notably, in assessing the Settlement, Dr. Koson recently stated that "the proposed reforms represent a tremendous improvement over the prior state of affairs. If successfully implemented, I believe these changes will significantly improve the quality of care afforded mentally ill prisoners in New Jersey." (Koson Decl. at 4.)
The Court has also reviewed the letters submitted by the members of the class in response to the Settlement. The Court found the inmates' letters to be highly instructive in determining the need for a guardian ad litem. Moreover, class counsel believes that the interests of mentally incompetent prisoners will be adequately protected by the Settlement. (See Cobden Dec. letter at 2.) The Court also notes that the appointment of a guardian ad litem would be time consuming and expensive, delaying implementation of a settlement that will vastly improve mental health care in the New Jersey State Prison system. Finally, the Court firmly believes that Dr. Patterson's role in inspection and reporting is the functional equivalent of a guardian ad litem, ensuring compliance with a Settlement that the Court fmds to be fair, reasonable and adequate. As a result, the Court finds that the appointment of a guardian ad litem is neither necessary nor warranted. The Court also notes for those who might review the record that the substantial number of responses and the clarity of the thought expressed in many of the comments belies a
15

finding of incompetence requiring appointment of a guardian ad litem for the class. VI. LEGAL STANDARD FOR APPROVAL
A class action "shall not be dismissed without the approval of the court." FED. R. CIV. P. 23. "The decision of whether to approve a proposed settlement of a class action is left to the sound discretion of the district court." Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 156 (3d Cir. 1975). "To approve a proposed settlement, the court must be satisfied that the agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable and not the product of fraud or collusion." In re Matzo Food Products Litigation, 156 F.R.D. 600, 604 (D.N.J. 1994) (citing Stoetzner v. United States Steel Corp., 897 F.2d 115, 118 (3d Cir. 1990)).
In determining whether a settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, a court must weigh the following factors: (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation, (2) the reaction to the class settlement, (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed, (4) the risks of establishing liability, (5) the risks of establishing damages, (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial, (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment, (8) die range of the reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best possible recovery, and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. Girsh, 521 F.2d at 157; Stoetzner v. United States Steel Corp., 897 F.2d 115, 118 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d-448, 463 (2nd Cir. 1974)). "The findings required by the Girsh test are factual . . . which will be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous." In Re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank, 55 F.3d 768, 786 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals outlines general principles to be followed to determine
16

whether a settlement "represents a good value for a relatively weak case or a sell-out of an otherwise strong case." In Re General Motors, 55 F.3d at 806 (holding that the settlement was not fair, adequate or reasonable since it was agreed upon too quickly with too little development on the merits). "According to Girsh, courts approving settlements should determine a range of reasonable settlements in light of the best possible recovery . . . and a range in light of all the attendant risks of litigation." Id. In cases primarily seeking monetary relief, the present value of the damages the plaintiffs would likely recover, if successful, discounted by the risk of not prevailing, should be compared to the proposed settlement. Id. "The evaluating court must. . . guard against demanding too large a settlement based on its view of the merits of litigation; after all, settlement is a compromise, a yielding of the highest hopes in exchange for certainty and resolution." Id. VII. FAIRNESS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Factors one and three of the Girsh analysis require an evaluation of the complexity and likely duration of the litigation, the stage of the proceedings, and the amount of discovery completed. At the time of this settlement, the parties involved had undergone extensive discovery, including the production and review of over 12,000 pages of documents, over thirty depositions, and three extensive inspections of New Jersey prisons attended by each party's experts. (See Class Counsel Decl. at 11.) The production of this work spanned a period of over three years. The parties had not yet argued their summary judgment motions, filed any pre-trial motions, nor prepared a final pretrial order.
The likely duration of the trial would have been many weeks, judging from the extensive witness lists by both parties and the broad sweep of the subject matter before the Court.
17

Regardless of the outcome of the trial, post-trial briefings and appellate arguments would have likely required substantial time commitments by the litigants and the Court. This settlement occurs at an appropriate time in the litigation process, saving vast amounts of time and resources while still immensely benefitting inmates.
In addition, proceeding with the litigation would only postpone the implementation of necessary measures to remedy the deficiencies in the DOC's system for the delivery of mental health treatment. Such a delay would leave the class members without necessary care and increase the chance that untreated mentally ill patients would harm themselves or others. (See Class Counsel Decl. at 4). It is prudent at this time to accept the Settlement since the potential costs of the trial in time and resources is outweighed by the benefits of the Settlement.
The second Girsh factor requires an analysis of the reaction of the class to the settlement. As noted supra at V(A), the Court is satisfied that the class members' responses, when viewed collectively, endorse the Settlement.
The fourth Girsh factor concerns the risks of establishing liability. The Plaintiffs acknowledge that there are significant risks in establishing liability. In addition, they also acknowledge that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. §1997, places limits on the scope of relief for prisoners in federal court. Class counsel believe they could have prevailed, but the risks were significant. (See Class Counsel Decl. at 11-12). A settlement of this type avoids such risks. The Settlement is also otherwise compliant with the PLRA.
The fifth factor, the risk of establishing damages, is not applicable here because Plaintiffs only sought injunctive relief. Therefore, this factor does not disfavor settlement.
The seventh Girsh factor is the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment.
18

The DOC defendants are government employees. The ability of a governmental unit to withstand a greater judgment is not particularly applicable and is not a factor considered by this Court.
The eighth factor is whether the Settlement is reasonable in light of the best possible recovery after a trial. The Settlement achieves most of what Plaintiffs could have hoped to accomplish through an order following a trial. It grants relief addressing the central problems asserted in this litigation. The Settlement amended the DOC's disciplinary regulations to allow for the consideration of mental illness in its proceedings. The Settlement will create other avenues of treatment for mentally ill patients besides psychotropic medications. The Settlement will substantially enlarge the mental health staff and require the maintenance of certain prisonerstaff ratios. It also calls for yearly mental health training for each correctional officer. The Settlement also creates a more efficient information system to track the.status of each class member's health. Finally, it provides for a qualified mental health expert to ensure compliance.
The last factor to consider is the range of reasonableness of the Settlement to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. The Settlement establishes a greatly improved system for addressing the needs and problems of mentally ill prisoners in New Jersey. Given the extent to which Plaintiffs achieved their ultimate goals, there is no reason for Plaintiffs to incur the risks of litigation by proceeding with a lengthy trial. Therefore, the Court finds that the Settlement is a fair, reasonable and entirely adequate resolution for Plaintiffs, considering the attendant risks ot litigation and the marginal additional relief possible from a favorable outcome.
The In re General Motors analysis used the present value of the damage award as a comparison against the present value of the potential award minus the risks of litigation. Unlike the In re General Motors case, the instant case does not easily lend itself to a present value calculation
19

because the main remedy sought was injunctive relief. Therefore, this Court will look at the reasonableness of the Settlement as compared to the potential maximum recovery through litigation while taking into account the risks facing Plaintiffs.
In part, the Settlement creates three new mental care units and provides for a larger staff with better training. The Settlement also was contingent on the State of New Jersey funding $16,000,000, to implement the various elements of the agreements, which it allocated in this year's budget. The Court finds that $16,000,000 is sufficient for the implementation of the entire Settlement. The Settlement was within the range of the best possible recovery for the Plaintiffs.
There are also risks and costs associated with continuing the litigation. There are risks that Plaintiffs would lose or achieve less than this Settlement at the completion of litigation. Some costs of the litigation, which are essentially unquantifiable, include damage to the class members' mental health due to a lack of adequate mental health treatment during the protracted litigation and the increase'd risks of injuries or death to class members or others. Additionally, attorneys fees, and costs, as well as the Court's time and resources, would be substantial. Therefore, this Court finds that the value of immediate mental health service and care to the class outweighs the potential maximum benefit to the class in light of the risks and costs of litigation.
According to the principles set forth in the In re General Motors, this Court finds that the Settlement is a "good value" for Plaintiffs' case. The Settlement falls within the best possible recovery Plaintiffs could hope for in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. Additionally, unlike the In re General Motors case, this Settlement was agreed upon after three years of litigation, with extensive discovery and a great deal of development of the merits of the case with which this Court is intimately familiar. This Settlement represents a compromise between the parties, where
20

Plaintiffs yielded their highest hopes of achievements in exchange for certainty and resolution. Therefore, this Court concludes that this Settlement adheres to the principles outlined by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the In re General Motors decision. VIII. REASONABLENESS OF FEES AND COSTS
42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) allows the prevailing party in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs. "To qualify as a prevailing party, a civil rights plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim. The plaintiff must obtain an enforceable judgment against the defendants . . . through a consent decree or a settlement." Alexander v. Boyd, 113 F.3d 1373, 1388 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111, 113 (1992)). As discussed throughout this Memorandum of Opinion, Plaintiffs achieved substantial relief on the merits through the Settlement. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff class was the prevailing party in this litigation.
The calculation of the amount of attorneys fees is normally calculated by determining the "lodestar." The "lodestar" is the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the applicable hourly market rate for legal service. Hensley v. Eckernart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Section 803(d) of Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. §1997e(d)(3), places a cap on the size of attorneys fees. The award of attorneys fees shall be based on an hourly rate no greater than 150% of the hourly rate allowable under 18 U.S.C. § 3OO6(A). (The Criminal Justice Act). Martin vrHadix, 527 U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1998 (1999). Additionally, § 803(d) only limits "attorney fees with respect to . . . services performed after the PLRA's effective date but it does not so limit fees . . . before the effective date." Id. at 2000.
The fees awarded in the instant case are well within the PLRA guidelines. The class
21

counsel completed approximately 13,860 hours of work. The current hourly rate under §

3006(A) in the District of New Jersey is $75, which comes to $112.50 after the multiplier of the

PLRA, therefore establishing a total cap of approximately $1,559,250. (75*1.50*13,860). This

cap does not account for the hours worked before the enactment of the PLRA, which is not

limited in the hourly fee charged nor fees permitted by the ADA.

The Settlement grants $1,220,000 to class counsel, including costs. This is well below the

cap allowed under the PLRA. Defendants do not object to this amount, and they negotiated it at

arms length after the substantive Settlement had been consummated. The Court is not permitted

to "decrease a fee award based on factors not raised at all by the adverse party." See Rode v.

Dellarciprete, 829 F.2d 1177, 1183 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing Bell v. United Princeton Properties,

Inc., 884 F.2d 713 ( 3d Cir. 1989)). Therefore, the Court finds that the agteement on attorneys

fees is reasonable.

'

IX. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated in this opinion, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair,

reasonable, and adequate. The Court further finds that the Settlement provides for a significant

modernization of mental health treatment in New Jersey State Prisons, that would not have been

realized but for this litigation. In addition, the Court finds that the resolution of attorneys fees

and costs is reasonable, given the work expended and the result achieved. Finally, the Court

finds that both the Settlement benefitting the Class and the settlement on fees and costs are within

the restrictions imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

22

Accordingly, the Court will file the following Orders and Stipulations along with this Memorandum Opinion:
(1) "Order entering Judgment and Dismissal with Prejudice", (2) "Order of Dismissal as to Defendant, Correctional Behavioral Solutions of New Jersey, Inc.", (3) "Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant Correctional Behavioral Solutions of New Jersey, Inc.", (4) "Order of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Correctional Medical Services, Inc." (5) "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Correctional Medical Services, Inc.", (6) "Order of Dismissal as to All Crossclaims", and (7) "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice with respect to all Cross Claims." X. POSTSCRIPT From April 19, 1996 to July 27, 1999, the Court conducted approximately forty-three (43) conferences (telephonic or in person) and Court hearings in this case. At least eleven (11) conferences were devoted to settlement negotiations where the Court required the participation of, along with the attorneys and experts, representatives of the DOC (including the Commissioner), CMS and CBS. This Settlement is the result. Every day, in various prisons throughout this State, professional correctional officers struggle to maintain order while the vast majority of inmates struggle to serve out their time without incident. The Court firmly believes that this Settlement, though not perfect, will provide basic modern mental health treatment for those inmates who require it. The Court further believes that the Monitor will insure that the privatization of health services in New Jersey State
23

Prisons will enhance, not diminish, effective mental health treatment. This Settlement should also have a positive effect on the general prison population by assisting officers and inmates in their continuing struggle to "get through the day."
The Court commends all the attorneys for their hard work and professionalism, the experts for their assistance to the Court, the representatives of the DOC, CMS, and CBS for their meaningful involvement in the process, and particularly the class members for their many thoughtful and straightforward comments regarding the Settlement.

Dated:

l<\«n

24

PLAINTIFFS' COMMENTS TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IN C.F. V. TERHUNE
You are invited to comment on the proposed settlement in C.F. v. Terhune. In order for the Court to consider your comments in deciding whether to approve the settlement agreement, your comments must be post marked by June 25, 1999. Comments and/or questions concerning the proposed settlement should be sent to the following address, using the regular prison procedures for legal mail:
Steven Vaccaro, Esq. Debevoise & Plimpton 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022
As your comments will be shared with the Court and opposing counsel, please remember that your comments will NOT be considered privileged attorney-client communications.
You may use the remainder of this page to comment or you may attach separate pages to express your comments.
Name: Prison Identification Number: Address:

Settlement Summary
The following is a summary of the proposed settlement agreed to by the parties in C.F. v. Terhune, a class action suit brought on behalf of mentally ill prisoners against officials of the Department of Corrections, Correctional Medical Services, Inc., and Correctional Behavioral Solutions of New Jersey, Inc. The suit brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 29 U.S.C. § 504 (the Rehabilitation Act), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), and breach of contract claims. As part of their requested relief, Plaintiffs sought widespread changes to the delivery of mental health care provided to mentally ill prisoners, and disciplinary process as it relates to mentally ill prisoners.
The purpose of this summary is to give class members a better understanding of the basic elements of the settlement The description below is not intended to alter in any manner the Proposed Settlement Agreement ("the Agreement"), and this document will be given no weight in interpreting the Agreement. The summary does not contain a complete description of all aspects of the Agreement, and does not discuss certain parts of the Agreement at all. Please review the Agreement to learn the full details of the settlement
summary.wpd

The District Court will need to approve the fairness of this settlement before it can be fully implemented. The District Court has scheduled a fairness hearing for July 6, 1999, and has requested that all prisoners, who would like to comment on the settlement, mail their comments to Plaintiffs' counsel by June 25, 1999. Comments mailed after June 25, 1999 will not be considered by the Court in determining the fairness of settlement. Accordingly, you are invited — but are not required — to submit your comments to Steve Vaccaro, Esq., who is one of Plaintiffs' counsel, on the form provided with this packet. A pre-addressed envelope to Mr. Vaccaro is also enclosed for your convenience. Under the procedures set by the District Court, your comments will not be protected by attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs' counsel must collect all comments mailed to them and forward copies of them to the Defendants and to the Court.
Proposed Amendments to DOC Regulations The Department of Corrections has agreed to change parts of its disciplinary regulations. The proposed amendments are set forth in Exhibit C of the Agreement. Under the new regulations, the names of all prisoners with pending disciplinary charges will be given to the mental health staff before their disciplinary hearings take place. The mental health staff will tell the disciplinary hearing officers whether prisoners charged with disciplinary violations are receiving mental health treatment. Based on this information, the nature of the charge against the inmate, and any
summary.wpd

other relevant information, the hearing officer will decide whether or not to request a psychological or psychiatric evaluation. The hearing officer will consider the information contained in that evaluation in deciding what punishment to impose on the prisoner. The prison administrator or his/her representative will also consider this information in deciding any appeal. Instead of or in addition to the sanctions which previously could be imposed following a finding of guilt for a disciplinary violation, hearing officers may also refer a mentally ill prisoner to the mental health unit for appropriate care and treatment.
Under the new regulations, if a prisoner is confined in disciplinary detention, and suffers a deterioration in his mental health status, the mental health staff will refer the matter to the prison Administrator. The Special Administrative Segregation Review Committee shall release a prisoner from Administrative Segregation if the prisoner has a history of mental illness and the Committee decides that his/her continued confinement in administrative segregation would be harmful to that prisoner's mental health.
Proposed Plan for Mental Health Treatment The Agreement includes a plan for providing enhanced mental health services to prisoners, which is described in Exhibit B of the Agreement. That plan includes the following:
summary.wpd

All prisoners will receive a mental health assessment within 72 hours of arrival. Details of the assessment process can be found on pages 1-3 of Exhibit B. The DOC will create "stabilization units" ("SUs") at Northern State Prison ("NSP"), New Jersey State Prison ("NJSP") and Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women ("EMCFW"), for the purpose of treating mentally ill prisoners who are experiencing a mental health crisis. The decision whether to place a prisoner in an SU, and when to release him or her, will be made by mental health staff. Prisoners will generally stay in the units for a period of 3-10 days. Details about these units can be found on pages 3-8 of Exhibit B. The DOC will also create Residential Treatment Units ("RTUs") and Transitional Care Units ("TCUs") at NJSP, NSP, EMCFW, and Southwoods State Prison ("SSP"). The RTUs will provide a more structured and supportive environment for mentally ill prisoners who have been discharged from an SU or cannot function effectively in the general population and will stabilize prisoners who have gone through a mental health crisis, and help them adjust to general population. Some prisoners in the RTU may never adjust to general population, and will always remain in an RTU. The prisoners in the RTU will be allowed out of their
summary.wpd

cells for as much time as called for by the prisoners' mental health needs.

The TCUs will help less severely mentally ill prisoners make a gradual

adjustment to General Population. The decision whether to place a

prisoner in these units, and when to release him or her, will be based on

determinations made by mental health staff. Details about these units can

be found in pages 8-12 of Exhibit B.

•

The Department of Corrections will ensure that there is enough staff to

provide mental health services to the prisoners who are discharged from

the special units described above, and for the rest of the prison population,

who require some form of mental health services. Mental health staff will

continue to make rounds in administrative segregation units at least once

every ten days. The staffing which will be used to provide these services

is described on page 12 of Exhibit C.

•

Prisoners who are civilly committed at any point during their incarceration

will continue to receive mental health treatment at the Forensic Psychiatric

Hospital.

•

Corrections officers, internal affairs investigators, disciplinary hearing

officers and administrators will receive additional training in mental

illness and dealing with mentally ill prisoners. In particular, all

correctional officers staffed on the SUs, RTUs and TCUs will receive

summary.wpd

advanced training. The details of this training can be found at pages 13-14 of Exhibit C.
Policies and Procedures The DOC agrees to review, or create if not currently existing, a variety of policies and procedures, described on pages 14-16 of the Agreement as well as successfully implement these policies and procedures.

Monitoring and Enforcement

•

This suit will not be dismissed until the Defendants certify that they have

received enough funding to pay for the mental health care and training

described above through the Fiscal Year 2000. Governor Whitman has

recommended that the legislature appropriate $16,000,000.00 for fiscal

year 2000 to fund the services contained in the Plan for mental health

treatment. If the DOC does not obtain this funding, Plaintiffs will have

the option of agreeing to an amended plan, or of continuing this suit. If

Plaintiffs agree to an amended plan, the amended plan will then be

submitted to the District Court for another fairness hearing. Prisoners will

have an opportunity to comment on the amended plan at that time. The

effect of funding on this Agreement is described on pages 10-13 of the

Agreement.

summary.wpd

If the DOC certifies that it has received full funding by July 9, 1999, the case will be dismissed, and the DOC will continue to carry out the Plan. The schedule for putting the Plan into effect is described on pages 13-14 of the Agreement. Dr. Patterson, a forensic psychiatrist, will be appointed as an independent mental health expert to oversee the Defendants' compliance with the terms of the Settlement. For details, see Agreement at pages 17-18. Dr. Patterson will inspect New Jersey Department of Corrections facilities four times a year, for five days. He will be able to interview inmates and staff members during the inspections. He will also receive certain DOC documents. For details, see Agreement at pages 19-23 and 43-49. After the inspection, Dr. Patterson will write a report, explaining whether the DOC has substantially complied with the terms of the Settlement. The DOC does not have to provide perfect treatment in order to substantially comply with the terms of the Settlement. If the DOC has not substantially complied with certain terms of the Settlement, it may have a limited number of chances to fix the problem. A description of the issues Dr. Patterson's report will address as well as the definition of substantial compliance and noncompliance that he will be required to apply during his inspections is set forth in the Agreement on pages 23-27. The monitor's
summary.wpd

report will be confidential, except in circumstances described on pages 33-

36. Prisoners will not have access to it.

•

If prisoners have a concern regarding mental health care, they may submit

their grievances directly to Thomas Farrell, Director of the Health Services

Unit, Whittlesey Rd., P.O. Box 863, Trenton, NJ 08625, who will be

responsible for addressing those complaints and/or copy Steve Vaccaro,

Esq., who is one of Plaintiffs' counsel, at Debevoise & Plimpton, 875

Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022. All documents related to these

complaints will be sent to Dr. Patterson, as well as to contractors

providing medical and mental health services. This process is described at

page 50 of the Agreement.

•

When Dr. Patterson decides that the DOC is in compliance with one of the

categories described on page 24 of the Agreement for 12 months, he will

not report on or review that category any longer as set forth on pages 50-

51. When the DOC has been in continuous substantial compliance with

all categories, the Settlement will terminate.

•

Plaintiffs, through their class counsel, can sue to enforce this agreement in

New Jersey state court. No other individual or group of prisoners may sue

to enforce the terms of this agreement, and Plaintiffs' counsel may not

summary.wpd

bring such a suit unless Dr. Patterson finds that the DOC is not complying with it. The Agreement discusses such a suit on pages 54-56.
Liability This is a settlement agreement between the Plaintiffs and the DOC. The DOC makes no admission of liability as to Plaintiffs' claims as described on pages 52-53. Plaintiffs have agreed on page 6 of the Agreement to dismiss their claims against CMS and CBS with prejudice.
Attorneys' Fees As part of this Agreement, the DOC will pay Plaintiffs' counsel a total of $1,220,000.00 for the costs of bringing, and working on, this suit.
summary.wpd

Resumen de Transaction
Lo siguiente es un resumen del propuesto convenio de transaction acordado por las personas involucradasen el caso, C.F. v. Terhune, una accion popular traida de parte de los prisioneros con enfermedades mentales contra oficiales del Departamento de Correcciones (Department of Corrections), Correctional Medical Services, Inc., y Correctional Behavioral Solutions of New Jersey, Inc. El pleito interpone reclamos bajo la ley 42 U.S.C. § 1983 por supuestas violaciones de las enmiendas Octavay Decimacuarta de las Constitution de los EEUU, 29 U.S.C. § 504 (el Acto de Reorganization), y reclamos de incumplimientode contrato. Como parte del pedimento, los Demandantes han procurados vastos cambios en la manera que los prisioneros con enfermedades mentales reciben cuidado de salud mental y el proceso disciplinario referente a los prisioneros con enfermedades mentales.
El proposito de este resumen es de dar les a los miembros de la accion popular un mejor conocimiento de los elementos basicos del convenio. La siguiente descripci6n no es encaminado a cambiar en ninguna manera el Propuesto Convenio de Transaction (uel Convenio"), y este documento no se le dara ningun valor cuando se inteprete el Convenio. El resumen no contiene una descripcidn completa de todo los aspectos del Convenio y no menciona algunas partes del Convenio en lo minimo. Por favor lea el Convenio para conocer los detalles completos del transamiento.

RESUMEN

1

La Corte del Distrito debe aprobar la integridad del transamiento antes que se puedaponer en ejecucion. La Corte del Distrito ha fijado una audienciade integridadpara el July 6, 1999, y ha pedido que todo los prisioneros que deseen comentar al respecto le hagan llegar su comentariospor correo al abogado de lo Demandates antes del June 25,1999. Comentarios que sean enviados despues del June 25,1999 no seran aceptados por la Corte para determinar la integridad de las transaction. De tal manera, se le invita a Ud.~ pero no se le requiere — someter sus comentarios al Licenciado Steve Vaccaro, uno de los abogados de los Demandantes, en la forma proveida en este paquete. Para su conveniencia, un sobre dirigido al Lie. Vacaro tambien esta incluido. Segun los procedimientos impuestos por la Corte del. Distrito, sus comentarios no seran considerados information confidencial entre abogado y cliente. El abogado de los Demandantes debe juntar todo los comentarios recibidos y enviarles copias a los Demandados y a la Corte.
Enmiendas Propuestas a las Regulaciones del DOC El Departamento de Correciones (DOC, segiin sus siglas en ingles) ha acordado cambiar porciones de sus regulaciones disciplinarias. Las enmiendas propuestas se encuentran en el Annexo C del Convenio. Segun las nuevas regulaciones, los nombres de todo los prisioneros con acusaciones disciplinarias pendientes seran dado al personal de salud mental antes que se lleve acabo la audiencia disciplinaria. El personal de salud mental le informaran al los oficiales de audiencia disciplinaria si los prisioneros acusados con violaciones disciplinarias estan recibiendo tratamiento de salud mental. Basado en esta
RESUMEN

f •
informacion, el nivel de la acusacion contra el recluido y cualquier otra informacion pertinente, el oficialde audienciadecidirasi es necesariosolicitarunaevaluacion sicologica o siquiatrica. El oficial de audiciencia tomara en cuenta la informacion contenida en la evaluation en decidir cual castigo imponerle al prisionero. El administrador de la prision o su representative tambidn tomara en cuenta esta informacian en decidir cualquiera apelacion. En vez de o como parte de las sanciones que previamente podian ser impuesta despuds de encontrarculpabilidadpor una violation disciplinaria, el oficial de audiencia tambien puede referir a un prisionero con enfermedad mental a la unidad de salud mental para cuidado y tratamiento apropiado.
Bajo las nuevas regulaciones, si el prisionero esta clausurado en detention disciplinaria y sufre un detenonamento en su estado de salud mental, el personal de salud mental le referirael problemaal administrador de la prision. El Comite Especial de Revision de Segregacion Administrativa (Special Administrative Segregation Review Committee) sacara a un prisionero de Segregacion Administrativasi el prisionero tiene un historia clinica de enfermedad mental y el Comit6 decide que el mantener el prisionero clausurado en segregacion administrativa seria daftino a la salud mental del prisionero.
Plan Propuesto de Tratamiento de Salud Mental El Convenio ademas incluye un plan para proveer servicios realzado de salud mental a los prisioneros.descrito en el Anexo B del Convenio. Ese plan incluye lo siguiente:
RESUMEN

•

Todos los prisioneros recibiran una evaluacion de salud mental en un plazo

de 72 horas de llegada. Detalles sobre el proceso de evaluacion se encuentra

en las paginas 1 a 3 del Anexo B.

El DOC creara "unidades de estabilizacion"("SU" segun sus siglas en ingles)

en Northern State Prison ("NSP"), New Jersey State Prison ("NJSP") y Edna

Mahan Correctional Facility for Women ("EMCFW"), con el proposito de

tratar a los prisioneros con enfermedad mentales que esten sufnendo una

crisis de salud mental. El personal de salud mental tomara la decision de

cuando poner a un prisionero en un SU y de cuando darle de alta.

Generalmente, los prisioneros se mantendran en las unidades por un periodo

de 3 a 10 dias. Detalles sobre estas unidades se encuentran en las paginas 3

a 8 del Anexo B.

•

El DOC tambien recreara unidades de tratamiento residencial ("RTU" segun

sus siglas en ingles) y unidades de cuidado transitorio ("TCU" segun sus

siglas en ingles) en el NJSP, NSP, EMCFW y el Southwoods State Prison

("SSP")- El proposito de los RTU sera de proveer un ambiente mas

estructurado y de apoyo para prisioneras que hayan sufrido una crisis mental

y ayudarlos adaptarse a la poblacion general. Algunos prisioneros en RTU

nunca podran adaptarse a la poblacion general y siempre se mantendran en

RTU. Los prisioneros en RTU se les permitiran salir de sus celdas por el

RESUMEN

tiempo que requieran su salud mental. El TCU ayudara a los prisioneros con enfermades mentales menos severas adaptarse gradualmente a la poblacion general. El personal de salud mental tomara la decision de cuando poner a un prisionero en una de estas unidades y de cuando darle de alta. Detalles sobre estas unidades se encuentran en las paginas 8 a 12 del Anexo B. El Departamento de Correcciones asegurara que haya suficiente empleados para proveerle servicios de salud mental a los prisioneros que sean sacados de una de las unidades especiales previamente mencionadas y al resto de la poblacion de las prisiones que requieran alguna forma de servicio de salud mental. El personal de salud mental visitara a las unidades de segregation administrativa por lo menos una vez en cada diez dias. En la pagina 12 del Anexo C se describe los empleados que se utilizaran para proveer estos servicios. Los prisioneros que hayan sido intemados civilmente en cualquier momento durante su encarcelamiento seguira recibiendo tratamiento de salud mental en el Hospital de Siquiatria Forensica. Oficiales penitenciares, investigadores de asuntos internos, oficiales de audiencia disciplinaria y administradores recibiran entrenamiento adicional sobre enfermedadesmentalesy como tratarconprisioneroscon enfermedades mental. En particular, todo los oficiales penitenciares que trabajen en las
RESUMEN

SUs, RTUs y TCUs recibira entrenameniento advanzado. Los detalles sobre

este entrenamiento se encuentran en las paginas 13 a 14 del Anexo C.

Normas y Procedimientos

El DOC acuerda analizar, o implementar si no existen en la actualidad, una

variedad de normas y procedimientos y darle cumplimiento a estas normas y procedimientos.

Detalles sobre estas normas y procedimientos se encuentran en las paginas 14 a 16 del

Convenio.

Vigilancia y Medidas de Ejucuci6n

Este pleito no sera anulado hasta que los Demandados certifiquen que tienen

los recursos suficientes para cubrir los gastos de cuidado y entrenamiento de salud mental,

previamente mencionados, hasta el aflo fiscal del 2000. La Governadora Whitman le ha

recomendado a la legislatura que asignen $16,000,000,00 para el aflo fiscal del 2000 para

financiar los servicios contenido en el Plan para tratamiento de salud mental. Si el DOC no

obtiene este financiamiento, los Demandantes tendran la opcion de acordar un plan corregido

or continuar con este pleito. Si los Demandantes acuerdan un plan corregido, el plan

corregido entonces tendra que ser sometido a la Corte del Distrito para otra audiencia de

integridad. Los prisioneros tendran otra oportunidad to comentar sobre el plan corregido en

ese momento. El efecto del financiamiento de este Convenio se describe en las paginas 10

a 13 del Convenio.

*

Si el DOC certifica que ha recibido elfinanciamientocompleto para la fecha

RESUMEN

del 9 de julio de 1999, el caso sera anulado, y el DOC continuara a darle cumplimiento al Plan. Una description del cronograma para darle efecto al Plan se encuentra el las paginas 13 a 14 del Convenio. El Dr. Patterson, un siquiatra forensico, sera designado como un experto del salud mental independientepara vigilar el cumplimiento de los Demandados con los teiminos de la Transaccion. Para detalles, refiera al Convenio en las paginas 17 a 18. El Dr. Patterson inspeccionara las instaliciones del New Jersey Department of Corrections (Departamentode Correciones) cuatro veces al afio por cinco dias. Durante las inspecciones, el podra entrevistar a reclusos y empleados. Tambien recibira ciertos documentos del DOC. Para detalles, refiera al Convenio en las paginas 19 a 23 y 43 a 49. Despues de la inspeccion, el Dr. Patterson preparara un reporte explicando si el DOC a cumplido sustanciosamentecon los terminos de la Transaccion. El DOC no tiene que proveer tratamiento perfecto para cumplir sustanciosamente con los terminos de la Transaccion. Si el DOC no ha cumplido sustanciosamente con ciertos terminos de la Transaccion, posiblementetengaunas oportunidades limitados para corregir el problema. Una descripci6n de los asuntos que el reporte del Dr. Patterson presentara, como tambien una definicionde la frase "cumplimiento sustancioso" y "no-
RESUMEN

RESUMEN

cumplimiento" que el tendra que aplicar durante sus inspecciones, se encuentran en las paginas 23 a 27 del Convenio. El reporte del observador sera confidencial, excepto en las circumstancias descritas en las paginas 33 a 36. Los prisioneros no tendran acceso a los reportes. Si los prisioneros tienen algiina inquietud referente al cuidado de salud mental, ellos puedan presentar sus quejas directamente a Thomas Farrell, Director de laUnidadde Servicios de Salud, Whittlesey Rd., P.O. Box 863, Trenton, NJ 08625, quien sera responsablede abordar las quejas y/o notificar al Lie. Steve Vaccaro, que es uno de los abogados de los Demandantes en la firmade Debevoise & Plimpton, 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022. Todo los documentos referente a las quejas seran eviados al Dr. Patterson, asi como a los contratantesque proveen servicios medicos o de salud mental. Una description de este proceso se encuentra en la pagina 50 del Convenio. Como se estipula en la paginas 50 a 51, cuando el Dr. Patterson decida que el DOC haya cumplido con una de las categorias descritas en la pagina 24 del Convenio por 12 meses, el ya no tendra que prepararun reporte o revisar esa categoria. Cuando el DOC haya cumplido sustanciosamente con toda las categorias la Transaction se dara por terminado. Los Demandantes, a traves de los abogados de la accidn popular, pueden entablar un pleito para hacer cumplir el Convenio en las cortes estatales de
8

New Jersey. Ningiin otro individuo o grupo de prisioneros podran entablar un pleito para hacer cumplir los terminos de este Convenio y los abogados de los Demandantes no pueden presentar tal pleito a menos que el Dr. Patterson encuentre que el DOC no este cumpliendo. El Convenio se refiere a tales pleitos en las paginas 54 a 56.
Responsabilidad Legal Este es un convenio de transaction entre los Demandantes y el DOC. Asi como se describe en las paginas 52 a 53, el DOC no hace ninguna admision de responsabilidad hacia los reclamos de los Demandantes. Los Demandantes nan acordado en la pdgina 6 del Convenio anular sus reclamos contra CMS y CBS con detrimento de derechos.
Honorarios de Abogado Como parte de este Convenio, el DOC le pagara a los abogados de los Demandantes un total de $1,220,000.00por los costos de presentar y trabajar en este pleito.
RESUMEN

 
 D.M. v. Terhune

PC-NJ-001-001

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Patricia P. Perlmutter (PP 1666) Seton Hall University School of Law Center For Social Justice Inmate Advocacy Law Clinic 833 McCarter Highway Newark, NJ 07102

D.M., L.K., A.O. and J.W., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
WILLIAM F. FAUVER, GARY J. HILTON, HOWARD L. BEYER, EUGENE F. O'NEILL, JOHN FORKER, DR. THOMAS FARRELL, DR. RICHARD CEVASCO, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., AND CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY, INC.

Index No.
Civil 96-1840 (AET) FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

DEFENDANTS.

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, allege as follows, upoti personal belief as to themselves and on information and belief as to all other matters:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a class action brought by plaintiffs on behalf of a class consisting of themselves and all persons who suffer DSM IV, Axis I and/or Axis II disordera such that they are unable to meet the functional requirements of prison life

30272S0C.03

Exhibit A

without mental health treatment, who now or in the future will be confined within the facilities of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (the "Class"). The Court certified the Class in an order dated November 20, 1996.
2. The plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Eightii and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, 29 U.S.C. § 504 (the Rehabilitation Act), and 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). Defendants William F. Fauver, Gary J. Hilton, Howard L. Beyer, Eugene F. O'Neill, John Forker, Dr. Thomas Farrell and Dr. Richard Cevasco (hereinafter, collectively referred to as "the DOC defendants") are New Jersey State government officials who are responsible for the housing, treatment services, discipline and health care for Class members within the facilities of the New Jersey Department of Corrections ("DOC"). Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS") is responsible, pursuant to a contract wim DOC, for carrying out DOC's obligation to provide medical, psychological and psychiatric services to Class members. Defendant Correctional Behavioral Solutions of New*Jersey, Inc., ("CBS") is responsible under a subcontract with CMS for carrying out DOC's and CMS's obligations to provide psychological and psychiatric services to Class members. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy die illegal and unconstitutional conditions for which the DOC defendants, CMS and CBS (collectively the "Defendants") are responsible and to which Class members are or will be subjected. Due to the highly private and personal
20272S0C.03

nature of the facts surrounding the claims of the representative plaintiffs, only their initials are used herein to protect their dignity and privacy.
3. This action arises from DOC's policies and practice of imposing punishment, rather than providing treatment, when Class members violate prison rules and regulations. Through the DOC defendants' deliberate indifference, Class members are placed in facilities referred to as disciplinary detention and administrative segregation, where they are locked in their cells for over 23 hours a day for alleged disciplinary infractions resulting from their serious mental disorders. Class members assigned to administrative segregation remain there, isolated and virtually untreated, often for years at a time.
4. Even the most hardened offenders generally are able to adjust to prison life and avoid receiving administrative segregation time. Because Class members do not receive adequate mental health care, they find it extremely difficult or impossible to comply with institutional rules, the violation of which may subject them to discipline. Class members are often sentenced to disciplinary detention and/or administrative segregation aftet breaking those rules. Once confined in administrative segregation, these prisonen are even less able to conform to prison rules because their mental conditions worsen. As a result, they receive additional disciplinary charges and often additional administrative segregation time, leading to a further deterioration in their mental conditions. In addition, the accrual of disciplinary sanctions ultimately
aoa7aso«.oa

causes Class members to spend more time in prison by delaying their parole eligibility date, thus reducing the likelihood that Class members will receive parole and delaying their ultimate release date.
5. In administrative segregation, Class members have minimal contact with other prisoners or with custody staff and may leave meir cell only for a daily shower and a few hours of outdoor recreation each week. The most severely mentally ill prisoners are housed on the first floor of each of the units, known as "flats." Severely depressed or delusional prisoners are stripped of clothing (except for a paper gown) and bedding, sometimes for weeks at a time. Due to their mental disorders, some Class members become increasingly unable to care for themselves, fail to shower, and smear themselves and their cells with feces and urine.
6. Defendants have equipped each of the prisons with restraining chairs to punish psychotic behavior. Defendants permit untrained officers to administer these and other mechanical means of behavioral control without adequate supervision by trained mental health personnel.
7. Defendants rail to provide Class members with constitutionally adequate and appropriate mental health care. DOC's few designated housing units for mentally ill prisoners are insufficient in number, unavailable to female prisoners altogether, and generally not available to prisoners with records of disciplinary infractions.
20372S0«.03

8.. The effects of this system of punishment have been devastating to

the representative plaintiffs.

•

Plaintiffs A.O., D.M. and J.W. have numerous scars from suicide

attempts in administrative segregation.

•

Plaintiff A.O. once resorted to swallowing a belt buckle and another

time set herself on fire in a desperate plea for help.

•

Plaintiff J.W., a twenty-one-year-old nonviolent offender, has spent the

last five years in administrative segregation. When he is charged with a

disciplinary infraction, he is often placed in a dry cell without lights,

without a toilet that flushes and without water.

•

Plaintiff D.M., now committed to FPH, is terrified at the prospect of

being returned to administrative segregation. She is fearful of the

corrections officers and the other prisoners in administrative

segregation.

•

Plaintiff L.K. has difficulty distinguishing persons trying to help him

from those trying to hurt him. His mental disorder is such that

traditional sanctions do not deter his behavior.

9. The DOC defendants have known for years that a substantial

number of prisoners in administrative segregation have serious mental disorders.

Indeed, as long as a decade ago, the New Jersey State legislature, recognizing both the

prevalence of mental illness in State prisons and the lack of adequate mental health care

therein, directed DOC to make adequate and appropriate treatment available. The

DOC defendants nave refused to modify DOC's disciplinary policies to take mental

disorders into account, to provide the Class with treatment and housing that

203T2S0C.03

accommodate their needs, or to provide adequate mental health staffing to deliver meaningful treatment to the Class.
10. The DOC defendants are aware that their disciplinary policies and practices exacerbate the mental disorders of Class members. Yet they continue to abdicate their statutory obligations and to violate the constitutional rights of Class members by failing to provide them with adequate and appropriate care and treatment.
JURISDICTION 11. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a) and 1367(a). 12. Venue in the District of New Jersey is proper. Plaintiffs reside in the District of New Jersey, and all events relevant to this action occurred in the District of New Jersey.
Plaintiffs
13. The representative plaintiffs are citizens of the United States with serious mental disorders who are confined in New Jersey state prisons. These facilities are operated by and under the control of the DOC, CBS and CMS.
14. The representative plaintiffs are "handicapped" individuals as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(B) and 42 U.S.C. § 12102.
15. DOC receives federal financial assistance.
20272S04.03

16. A.O. is a prisoner currently confined to Northern State Prison's administrative segregation unit for women in Newark, New Jersey. A.O. has been diagnosed by DOC psychiatrists as suffering from schizophrenia, adjustment disorder and multiple personality disorder, and she also suffers from seizures as a result of a stroke which she experienced at age fifteen. Her mental illness makes it difficult for her to control her behavior. She has received numerous disciplinary charges, including several for self-mutilation, drug overdoses and assaults on correctional staff. While housed in administrative segregation at Northern State Prison - for over four of the last five years — A.O. has attempted suicide or engaged in self-mutilation approximately 15 times. Although she attempted to explain the role her mental disorder played in her suicidal behavior at her disciplinary hearings, she received additional time in both disciplinary detention and administrative segregation as a result of her suicidal behavior. On several occasions, A.O.'s behavior reached an acute crisis and she was transferred to the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital ("FPH") in Trenton, New Jersey, only to be returned to administrative segregation upon release from FPH.
17. J.W. is 9 prisoner currently assigned to the administrative segregation unit of New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey. Except for brief commitments to the FPH, J.W. has been in virtual isolation in administrative segregation for nearly six years, since he was 16 years old. He suffers from schizoaffective disorder, a borderline personality disorder and an antisocial personality
20272S0C.03

disorder. While incarcerated at New Jersey State Prison, J.W. has received no psychiatric or psychological treatment except for psychotropic medications. He has attempted suicide on numerous occasions, and has been committed to FPH approximately eight times. As a result of actions stemming from J.W.'s inability to control his frustration and anger at being isolated, he has on several occasions been placed by prison officials in a "dry cell" - a cell without lights or running water from which urine and feces are removed on approximately a weekly basis - for generally two to three weeks at a time. On other occasions, prison officials have responded to his suicide attempts by transferring him to a "strip cell", an empty cell where no clothes are permitted, or to a "restraining chair" where his hands are cuffed either to his sides or behind his back and his feet are shackled to the chair.
18. L.K. is a prisoner currently assigned to the administrative segregation unit of New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jerssy. He has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, antisocial personality disorder, organic mood disorder, explosive personality disorder and paranoid personality disorder. As a result of his mental condition, L.K. has on several occasions struck corrections officers believing that the officers intended to harm him. Prison officials have committed L.K. to FPH on five occasions, yet have failed to provide L.K. with appropriate follow-up treatment upon his release from FPH.
8
20272S0C.03

19. D.M. is a prisoner currently assigned to the administrative segregation unit of Northern State Prison in Newark, New Jersey. She has been diagnosed by psychiatrists at FPH as suffering from recurrent major depression, adjustment disorder, histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and acute paranoid disorder. Since her transfer to administrative segregation, she has mutilated her arms and wrists with sharp objects on at least eight occasions and has been placed in a restraining chair and in a strip cell as punishment. She also has been committed repeatedly to FPH where she currently remains.
20. Defendant William F. Fauver is the Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer of DOC and is sued herein in his official capacity. DOC is obligated under State law to provide for the custody, care, discipline, training and treatment of persons committed to State correctional institutions, N.J.A.C. 10A: 1-1. l(a)(i), including the provision of constitutionally adequate psychiatric care to prisoners with serious mental illnesses. N.J.A.C. 10A:16-2.1(4)(5), 16-13.l(a). In addition, DOC is responsible for providing an environment for incarcerated persons that encourages rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. N.J.S.A. 3O:lB-3(b); N.J.A.C. 10A:l-l.l(a)(2)(7). Defendant Fauver, as Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer of DOC, is responsible for determining all matters of policy and for formulating, adopting, issuing and promulgating rules and regulations for DOC institutions.
20a?2S0«.03

N.J.S.A. 30:lB-6(e), (g); N.J.A.C. 10A:l-2.4(a)(b). Defendant Fauver has refused to adopt or to ensure the implementation of rules, regulations and policies to provide: (1) adequate screening procedures to identify prisoners with mental disorders; (2) training for correctional officers in recognizing and dealing professionally with prisoners with mental disorders; (3) disciplinary procedures which in practice take account of the role that Class members' mental disorders play in prison infractions; (4) adequate mental health care for Class members in disciplinary detention and administrative segregation; and (5) adequate and appropriate inpatient facilities for Class members.
21. Defendant Gary J. Hilton is the DOC's Chief of Staff and is sued herein in his official capacity. He reports directly to Commissioner Fauver on all significant policy matters within DOC. Defendant Hilton has direct oversight and responsibility for creating and implementing policy with regard to the operation of DOC's prisons and the disciplinary process in thoss prisons. He isresponsiblefor the living conditions in, and for the assignment of Class members to, disciplinary detention and administrative segregation. Prior to 1994, defendant Hilton served as the Assistant Commissioner for Adult Institutions, which included DOC's administrative segregation facilities.
22. Defendant Howard L. Beyer is the Assistant Commissioner, Division of Operations, of DOC pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:1-2.2 and is sued herein in his official capacity. Stt N.J.S.A. 3O:lB-5(a), (b). Defendant Beyer has primary
10
30373(04.03

responsibility for directing and supervising the major operational and programmatic activities for the State's prisons as well as the training of custody staff. He, along with defendants Fauver and Hilton, is responsible for both the living conditions in disciplinary detention and administrative segregation, and for the assignment of Class members to those facilities.
23. Defendant Eugene F. O'Neill is the Chief Hearing Officer for DOC and is sued herein in his official capacity. Defendant O'Neill is responsible for overseeing the individual hearing officers at New Jersey's State prisons and ensuring that DOC's disciplinary procedures are followed. Defendant O'Neill is responsible for DOC's failure to adequately supervise hearing officers and its refusal to promulgate disciplinary policies and procedures which take account of the problems of those prisoners with serious mental disorders.
24. Defendant John Forker is the Director of die Office of Institutional Support Services (O.I.S.S.) for DOC and is sued herein in his official capacity. Among defendant Forker's responsibilities-is the development of health care policies for mentally ill prisoners. Defendant Forker is responsible for DOC's policy of assigning Class members to disciplinary detention and administrative segregation facilities, and for DOC's refusal to provide adequate and appropriate special housing units for Class members. In addition, defendant Forker is responsible for foiling to ensure defendant CMS's compliance with the terms of its contract with DOC.
11
20272S0«.01

25. Defendant Thomas Farrell is the Director of Medical Services in the O.I.S.S. and is sued herein in his official capacity. Defendant Farrell has special training in clinical psychology and is responsible for formulating directives and policies for the operation of the medical programs within DOC pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:1622. Defendant Farrell is also responsible for failing to ensure defendant CMS's compliance with the terms of its contract with DOC.
26. Defendant Dr. Richard Cevasco is the Director of Psychological Services for DOC, serving in the O.I.S.S., and is sued herein in his official capacity. Defendant Cevasco is a psychology consultant to DOC. As such, he provides professional review, evaluation and guidance for all DOC psychological programs and activities pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A: 16-4.1 and monitors the performance of the mental health services portion of the contract between DOC and CMS. Defendant Cevasco is responsible for failing to ensure defendant CMS's compliance with the its contract with DOC.
27. Defendant CMS is a private corporation, incorporated in Missouri, which provides health care to prisoners in prisons and jails. Defendant CMS is doing business in New Jersey and has corporate offices at 3000 Atrium Way, Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054. CMS offers "managed health care services." Managed health care is a system of health care delivery with the principal goal of reducing health care cost by imposing limits on access to non-contracted care providers. Defendant CMS
12
20272SOC.03

has entered into a contract with DOC, pursuant to which CMS is responsible for carrying out DOC's responsibilities to provide medical, psychological and psychiatric services for prisoners in DOC's facilities. Defendant CMS has breached its contract with DOC and, acting under color of state law, has continued DOC's practices of providing inadequate mental health care to Class members since it assumed responsibility for providing all psychiatric and psychological services to prisoners confined in DOC facilities.
28. Defendant CBS is a private corporation, incorporated in New Jersey, which provides behavioral health services to prisoners in jails and prisons. Defendant CBS has its corporate offices at 3000 Atrium Way, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054. CBS has entered into a subcontract with defendant CMS pursuant to which CBS is responsible for carrying out defendant CMS's and DOC's responsibilities to provide mental health services to prisoners in DOC's facilities. Defendant CBS has breached its subcontract with CMS and, acting under color of state law, has continued DOC's practices of providing inadequate mental health care to Class members since its assumption on August 19, 1996 of responsibility for providing all mental health services to prisoners confined in DOC facilities.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 29. Pursuant to Rule 23 (a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, therepresentativeplaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on
13
20272SOC.03

behalf of the Class, consisting of all persons who suffer DSM IV, Axis I and/or Axis II disorders such that they are unable to meet the functional requirements of prison life without mental health treatment, who now or in the future will be confined within the facilities of the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
(a) There are approximately 22,000 state prisoners incarcerated in state prison facilities managed by DOC. Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the prevalence of mental disorders among prison inmates in the United States. The most recent prevalence studies have found that between eight and nineteen percent of the total prison population have significant psychiatric or functional disabilities. SS£ Jeffrey L. Metzner, Guidelines for Psychiatric Services In Prisons, Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 3, 252-267 (Whurr 1993). Thus, it is estimated that there are approximately 1700 to 4100 persons in DOC facilities who have serious mental disorders. Many of these mentally ill prisoners have been, currently are, or will in the foreseeable future be, confined in DOC's disciplinary detention and/or administrative segregation facilities, often as a result of the DOC defendants' failure to modify DOC's disciplinary system to adequately address the special circumstances of mentally ill prisoners, and to provide adequate and appropriate mental health care and special needs housing. The Class is thus so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
14
2037250*.01

(b) The conditions, practices and omissions diat form the basis of this Complaint are commpn to all Class members, and the relief sought will apply to all of them.
(c) The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the entire Class. The representative plaintiffs and Class members all have serious mental disorders, have been, currently are, or will in the foreseeable future be confined within DOC's disciplinary detention and administrative segregation units, and are not receiving adequate mental health care and treatment or rehabilitative activities in violation of die Americans With Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
(d) The representative plaintiffs are capable, through counsel, of fairly and adequately representing the Class and protecting its interests.
(e) The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications which would establish inconsistent and incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.
(f) Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to die Class, making appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to die Class as a whole.
(g) There are questions of law and fact common to Class members, including Defendants' violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the
15
30272S0C.03

Rehabilitation Act, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by (1) failing to identify prisoners with serious mental disorders; (2) punishing Class members for actions which are manifestations of their mental disorders without taking into account the role that their disorders play in the charged conduct; (3) subjecting Class to disciplinary hearings notwithstanding their incompetency to participate in such hearings; (4) placing Class members in disciplinary detention and administrative segregation units despite DOC's knowledge that the conditions of disciplinary detention and administrative segregation are counter-therapeutic and lead to the deterioration of the mental conditions of Class members; (5) failing to provide Class members with adequate and appropriate mental health treatment; (6) failing to train corrections officers to recognize the signs of mental illness and respond professionally to the special needs of Class members; (7) failing to provide adequate and appropriate special needs housing for Class members; (8) failing to enforce DOC's contract with defendants CBS and CMS; and (9) failing to perform the duties set forth in the CMS contract and the CBS subcontract
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 30. As set forth in paragraphs 31 through 82 below, the DOC defendants* disciplinary and behavioral control practices and procedures, administered without regard to their effect on the mental health condition of Class members, combined with Defendants' failure to provide adequate mental health care to Class
16
20272S0C.0)

members while they are confined to administrative segregation and disciplinary detention facilities, result in intolerable suffering, deterioration in the mental health status of Class members, and the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Disciplinary Process
31. All prisoners within DOC facilities are required to abide by a series of prison rules. If a prisoner violates a rule, corrections officers must complete a Disciplinary Report and submit the report to the appropriate supervisor. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9. l(a). In the case of "serious" offenses, the supervisor then forwards the report to the facility's Disciplinary Hearing Officer or Adjustment Committee ("hearing officers"). N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.1(b). A prisoner so charged is entitled to a prompt hearing before a hearing officer to explain his or her version of the facts leading to the disciplinary charge. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.8(b); N.J.A.C. 10A-9.8(c); N.J.A.C. 10A-9.14.
32. Hearing officers, who are employees of DOC and are acting under the direction of, and pursuant to policies set by, defendants Fauver and O'Neill, may "sentence" prisoners to one or more regulatory punishments, depending on the severity of the offense, including: verbal reprimand; loss of privileges; disciplinary detention; administrative segregation; and loss of commutation time which is awarded for good behavior. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1. DOC's disciplinary detention and
17
20272S0C.03

administrative segregation facilities house prisoners charged with or found guilty of "serious" disciplinary infractions.
33. When considering a disciplinary charge against a prisoner, hearing officers are required to make individualized determinations that take into account the circumstances surrounding the prisoner's adverse behavior, the prisoner's accountability for such behavior and the underlying reasons for the prisoner's noncompliance with prison rules. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.17. Despite this mandate, hearing officers routinely fail to assess the role that mental illness has played in the conduct at issue or to take the mental health status of the prisoner into account in determining either guilt or the appropriate sanction.
34. In some cases, hearing officers have acknowledged the role that a prisoner's mental disorder played in the conduct charged, but nevertheless imposed substantial sanctions anyway, including disciplinary detention and administrative segregation.
35. As a result of DOC's disciplinary procedures and practices, Class members have been punished fpr displaying symptoms of their disorders and for conduct over which they have no control. For example:
(a) Plaintiff A.O. has been repeatedly sentenced to disciplinary detention and administrative segregation for self-mutilation and suicide attempts.
18
20372S0C.03

(b) In another case which is the subject of a pending federal court lawsuit, a member of the Class alleges that he sought professional assistance because he heard voices telling him to leave the perimeter of the prison. Instead of receiving mental health treatment, the prisoner was punished with administrative segregation for planning an escape.
(c) Another prisoner incurred a series of disciplinary charges resulting in administrative segregation time after being denied his prescribed psychotropic medications for three weeks.
Detention and Administrative Segregation Facilities Detention
36. As described in paragraph 32, prisoners who are found guilty of prison infractions deemed "serious" are subject to a number of potential punishments, including disciplinary detention and administrative segregation. All DOC prisons contain disciplinary detention units. Sfi& N.J.A.C. 10A:5-1.3. In most prisons, die disciplinary detention units are separate frfm the general prison population. Those prisons without a separate disoiplinary detention area utilize the prisoner's own cell as a disciplinary detention unit N.J.A.C. 10A:4-10.1-10.3.
37. Disciplinary detention facilities are used to house prisoners temporarily after they have been charged with or found guilty of an infraction. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-10.1, 10.2. Prisoners may be sentenced to 15 days in disciplinary
19
303?3S0«.01

detention for each offense, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.4; N.J.A.C. 10A:4-10.2, provided that the total time served does not exceed 30 days. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.4(a)(l); N.J.A.C. 10A:4-10.2.
38. While in disciplinary detention, prisoners are kept in isolation and are permitted to shower only once every three to four days. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-10.6. They are not permitted visitors, contact with other prisoners, telephone calls, personal possessions or to leave their cells for meals. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-10.6; N.J.A.C. 10A:410.13.
Administrative Segregation 39. Administrative segregation units are used for the confinement of
prisoners who have been found guilty of disciplinary infractions. Se£ 10A:5-1.3. Unlike disciplinary detention, however, prisoners can be sentenced to administrative segregation for up to a year for each disciplinary offense. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5. l(a). Once confined to administrative segregation, it is not unusual for Class members to incur additional disciplinary charges. As a*result, some Class members are confined in administrative segregation for years at a time.
40. DOC administrative segregation units are located at Northern State Prison in Newark, New Jersey, East Jersey State Prison in Rahway, New Jersey, New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey and the Albert Wagner Youth Correctional Facility in Bordentown, New Jersey. The sole women's administrative
20
203T2SOC.03

segregation unit is located within the men's prison at Northern State Prison. DOC has a total of approximately 1100 administrative segregation cells at these four facilities.
41. Although prisoners within administrative segregation are allowed certain privileges not permitted prisoners in disciplinary detention such as daily showers and some recreational time, the conditions in the two facilities are similar in many other ways. Like prisoners in disciplinary detention, prisoners confined in administrative segregation are left idle with minimal sensory stimulation. They are confined in small cells for all but three or four hours per week. A typical cell holds a metal bed, a mattress, a toilet, a sink and a footlocker. Some of the beds are equipped to permit custody staff to place prisoners in four-point restraints by shackling the prisoner's arms and legs to the bed. There is a narrow window in the cells for natural light at all of the facilities except for New Jersey State Prison, where the cells have no natural light at all.
42. Prisoners in administrative segregation have very little contact with other human beings. They are not permitted to work at their normal prison jobs or to attend programs or otherrehabilitative and vocational activities, and they must eat all their meals alone in their cell. In addition, prisoners in administrative segregation are pennitted visitors on a more limited basis than the general prison population, may not participate in organized religious services and have very limited library access. The only time they are pennitted outside their cells is for a daily shower and for an
21
20372SOC.03

hour or two of recreation two or three times per week. Recreation generally consists of access to a small concrete yard with a basketball net.
43. Prisoners in administrative segregation have very little contact even with corrections officers. Corrections officers open and shut the cell doors using remote automatic controls and pass prisoners' meals through slots in the cell door called food ports. Likewise, medications, including psychotropic drugs are delivered through the food port.
44. In most administrative segregation units, cell doors are solid so that prisoners may speak to other prisoners only through vents or by shouting behavior which may lead to further disciplinary charges.
45. Prisoners in administrative segregation are completely dependent upon custody staff for every need. Some Class members must depend on corrections officers even to flush their toilets.
46. Due to their mental disorders, some Class members never leave their cells, never shower, and smear their cells with urine and feces.
Effect of Administrative Segregation and Disciplinary Detention QD C?888
47. The effects of administrative segregation and disciplinary detention on Class members are profound. Placement of prisoners with serious mental
22
20272S0C.01

disorders in disciplinary detention and/or administrative segregation exacerbates their underlying mental disorders, induces psychosis, and increases the risk of suicide.
48. Even when Class members are transferred to FPH - the State institution used for the confinement of the criminally insane and certain acutely mentally ill prisoners - they do not receive long-term psychiatric care. Instead, because of insufficient space at FPH and the lack of any other appropriate prison facilities for the treatment and housing of Class members, DOC employees, under the supervision and control of defendants Fauver, Hilton and Beyer, generally reassign Class members to administrative segregation once they are returned to the prison. Once returned to administrative segregation, Class members are not permitted to participate in rehabilitative programs, despite FPH discharge instructions that often recommend such participation. Typically, the mental condition of such prisoners further deteriorates with each return to administrative segregation.
49. Although DOC does operate designated housing units for mentally ill male prisoners at Northern State Prison and New Jersey State Prison, Class members are generally not eligible for such housing because of their disciplinary infractions. Although these designated housing units are not punitive, prisoners in
these units similarly do not receive constitutionally adequate mental health care. Nor
do the corrections officers who work in these units receive any special training in dealing with the mentally ill.
23
20272SOC.01

50.. Sentencing seriously mentally ill prisoners to disciplinary detention and/or administrative detention has other adverse effects. Time spent in administrative segregation delays a prisoner's parole eligibility date because it results in the loss of commutation or "good behavior" time, N.J.A.C. 10A:9-5.3. Sfifi N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51. In addition, disciplinary charges reduce a prisoner's chances of being paroled at all. N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b)(2), (7), (10). For example, following the failure of Riverfront State Prison to provide one prisoner with his psychotropic medications for a three-week period, the prisoner broke a number of prison rules and received administrative segregation time. Because of these disciplinary infractions, the New Jersey Parole Board then rescinded the prisoner's previously approved parole date.
51. The inability of prisoners in administrative segregation to participate in jobs and rehabilitative programs also adversely affects an individual prisoner's parole decision, N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(8), (11), no matter that the failure was involuntary. The failure to panicipate'in rehabilitative programs is often cited by the New Jersey Parole Board as a reason for denying parole to Class members who have been assigned to administrative segregation. Thus, Class members are more likely to be required to serve their maximum sentences than are other prisoners as a result of Defendants' policy of punishing rather than treating prisoners with serious
mental disorders.
24
20272S0C.03

52. Finally, the consequences of placement in administrative segregation do not end when Class members are released from prison. Because such prisoners often serve their entire terms and are not paroled, they are unable to take advantage of the mental health services afforded parolees. Without post-release mental health services, Class members have difficulty adjusting to life outside prison, are unlikely to find employment, and, as a result, are more likely to return to prison. Lack of Treatment Opportunities and Inadequate Staffing
53. The deterioration in the mental health condition of Class members caused by the isolation of administrative segregation and disciplinary detention facilities is exacerbated by Defendants' failure to provide adequate mental health care to such prisoners before, during, and after that confinement.
54. As a result of the Defendants' policies and procedures, Class members have been and will in the future be deprived of necessary mental health services in numerous ways, including, but not limited to, those identified in paragraphs 55-69 below.
55. There are insufficient resources, including professional staffing, to provide appropriate mental health care for prisoners. Despite a doubling of the general prison population since 1986 and a corresponding increase in the number of mentally ill prisoners, the DOC defendants significantly reduced psychiatric staffing at DOC facilities over the last five years. An August 1993 article in the fieigsn.
25
20372504.01

reported that at New Jersey State Prison, for example, one psychiatrist - one of only three full-time psychiatrists employed by DOC statewide at that time - supervised medication for about four hundred patients, a caseload that did not permit adequate time for proper monitoring of medication, let alone provision of any other treatment. Today, mental health staffing is so minimal that the professional staff must spend much of their time responding to medical emergencies, preparing parole and institutional assessments, and providing minimal monitoring of the administration of medication.
56. Inadequate professional staffing and lack of proper procedures prevent Defendants from properly identifying prisoners with serious mental disorders.
57. Inadequate staffing has and continues to cause Class members who seek access to psychiatric care to experience delays in receiving that care, causing severe harm to their mental conditions. The Department of the Public Advocate (the "Public Advocate") reported that in July 1993, for example, a prisoner in administrative segregation at East Jersey State Prison remained in his cell for three days eating his own feces. During this time, DOC did nothing to help him because the sole prison psychiatrist was away on vacation. Only after the intervention of an attorney from the Public Advocate did the prison arrange for the prisoner's commitment to FPH.
58. There is no comprehensive, systematic mental health quality
assurance program inDOC's individual prisons, let alone inits administrative
26
202T2SOC.03

segregation facilities. Consequently, errors in treatment and diagnosis are not systematically identified or corrected. Also, prison mental health staff under the supervision of Defendants do not routinely prepare mental health treatment plans, and those that are prepared are inadequate. Moreover, mental health records often lack essential elements, such as recommended action, laboratory test results and frequency of needed follow-up care. In addition, contacts between professional staff and prisoners are often not documented, and mental health records are rarely reviewed or updated because of a lack of clerical support.
59. Defendants do not maintain a current central database to track the mental health treatment and placement for even the most severely mentally ill prisoners.
60. DOC has not allocated sufficient physical facilities and resources to provide the necessary care and treatment for Class members. Due to the lack of appropriate mental health facilities within DOC prisons and a severe shortage of beds at the FPH, defendants CMS and CBS fail to-commit Class members to the FPH until a Class member's condition constitutes an acute crisis. Those prisoners committed to FPH are often discharged before it is medically appropriate to do so. In addition, because of the lack of sufficient space at FPH, even an acute crisis does not always lead to a prisoner's transfer to FPH.
27
202T2S04.01

61. Mentally ill prisoners who are prematurely discharged from FPH and returned to administrative segregation often suffer from renewed psychosis or some other form of psychological deterioration. For example, the Public Advocate reported in a letter to defendant Beyer, dated April 5, 1994, that in late November 1993 a member of the Class confined in East Jersey's administrative segregation facility set himself on fire, suffering third-degree burns over thirty percent of his body. He required hospitalization in a burn unit for many months. Upon release from the burn unit, the prisoner, who suffered from severe schizophrenia, was nonetheless returned to administrative segregation where he remained, incoherent, severely mentally ill, in a cell especially designed to prevent him from setting additional fires, for nearly three years until he completed his term. It was only at that time - when he was to be released to the community - that the prisoner was committed to FPH, where he currently remains.
62. DOC's facilities for female Class members are even more inadequate than those afforded male Class members. Despite the fact that a substantial number of the women in administrative segregation at Northern State Prison have serious mental disorders, Edna Mahan Correctional Facility ("EMCF") - DOC's only women's prison - does not have a designated housing unit for mentally ill female prisoners. Thus, although plaintiff D.M.'s mental health needs are such that she is similarly situated to the male prisoners with mental disorders housed in designated
28
20272S0C.03

housing units at Northern State Prison and New Jersey State Prison, she was assigned to general population at EMCF, rather than to a designated housing unit. While assigned to the general population, she incurred disciplinary charges, was transferred to administrative segregation, and experienced a devastating deterioration in her mental health condition. Were EMCF to establish a designated unit, some of the mentally ill women currently confined in administrative segregation cells could be diverted to more appropriate and therapeutic housing. Defendants are aware of the need for designated housing for female Class members but have deliberately failed to take the necessary steps to establish an appropriate long-term alternative to administrative segregation.
63. The dearth of outpatient therapy or other appropriate services for Class members contributes to their psychological deterioration. Defendants' failure to plan and budget for outpatient mental health services is inconsistent with proven, acceptable mental health practices in the community and in other prison systems.
64. The mental health care available to Class members in administrative segregation and disciplinary detention consists almost exclusively of psychotropic medication — medication which, by acting on the mind, is intended to treat the symptoms of mental illness. Even this limited treatment, however, is provided in an inadequate manner. Defendants CMS and CBS and employees subject to their supervision and control fail to explain either the necessity or side effects of psychotropic medications to Class members. Many prisoners receiving such medication
29
20372S0C.03

therefore refuse it either because of the medication's side effects, or out of fear that the medication will render them vulnerable to other prisoners and corrections officers. The serious, oftentimes painful and potentialFy fatal side-effects of psychotropic medications are exacerbated by defendants' CMS's and CBS's failure to adequately monitor the administration of medication to ensure that Class members are correctly taking their prescribed medications and that the medications are having their intended effect. Although many side effects of psychotropic medications may be successfully prevented or treated with medication, A.O., L.K., J.W. and D.M. have not received the proper medications in appropriate dosages to offset these adverse effects. Because of the lack of an effective quality assurance program with respect to mental health care, as well as insufficient staffing, the problems that Class members experience in taking psychotropic medications frequently go undetected and uncorrected.
65. Defendants also fail to make appropriate psychotropic medications available to Class members. In October 1995, for instance, psychiatrists at FPH determined that plaintiff A.O. should-be treated with Clozaril, a medication which the FDA has approved for the treatment of schizophrenia. However, because Northern State Prison does not stock Clozaril, the FPH staff decided not to begin a therapy which could not be continued upon A.O.'s return to the prison. A.O. was thereby deprived of appropriate mental health care treatment. Defendant CBS likewise does not include Clozaril on its list of available medications for Class members. More broadly,
30
20272S0C.0)

defendant CBS has recently begun changing Class members' medications by substituting less expensive drugs, despite the fact that these cheaper drugs are less effective, are associated with greater side effects, and are therefore less safe than the drugs formally used.
66. Unnecessary deaths and injuries occur because of the absence of sufficient staff and adequate practices to identify and monitor Class members who are at risk of committing suicide. Prisoners kept in isolation attempt to commit suicide at a significantly higher rate than prisoners in the general prison population. Defendants Fauver, Hilton, Beyer, Forker, Farrell and Cevasco have failed to take necessary and appropriate measures to prevent suicide attempts among prisoners in administrative segregation and disciplinary detention, including providing corrections officers with adequate training in the area of suicide prevention and providing a physically safe environment for prisoners at risk of suicide.
67. Inadequate and improper policies and practices, adopted by Defendants, are used by DOC custody staff to restrain Class members in either strip cells or mechanical restraints such as restraining chairs and so-called "four point" restraints. The decision to so restrain Class members is often made by prison administrators and custody staff, sometimes without adequate input by mental health professionals. As a result, the mental health of these prisoners is not adequately considered in this decision. The use of such restraining devices often results in the
31
20272S0C.03

further deterioration of the already fragile mental conditions of Class members. An inmate in administrative segregation at East Jersey State Prison, for example, had a history of self-mutilating behavior. He was placed in a restraining chair for four hours on April 5, 1995, after which he was returned to his administrative segregation cell. He proceeded to tear out his eyeball and throw it at a corrections officer.
68. Defendants Fauver, Hilton and Beyer have also failed to adequately train corrections officers to recognize the signs of mental illness among prisoners in the general population as well as in disciplinary detention and administrative segregation. Custody staff assigned to disciplinary detention and administrative segregation facilities do not receive any special training, despite the high concentration of mentally ill prisoners in these facilities. The failure to train corrections officers on how to respond appropriately to prisoners whose mental disorders cause them to engage in extremely bizarre and uncontrolled behaviors places Class members in jeopardy of physical and verbal abuse from the officers. In addition, their lack of training leaves corrections officers enable to determine which prisoners are in urgent need of psychiatric assistance. Consequently, Class members often do not receive any mental health attention until they have suffered further psychological or physical injury.
69. As a result of Defendants' deliberate indifference to these deficiencies in mental health treatment, staffing, training and housing, as well as the
32
20272S04.03

conditions of isolation and sensory deprivation in disciplinary detention and administrative segregation facilities, Class members presently suffer unnecessary physical pain, mental anguish and temporary or permanent exacerbation of their mental disorders while confined in administrative segregation and disciplinary detention.
70. On July 2, 1995, DOC issued an advertised bid proposal to privatize medical, dental, psychiatric and psychological services provided to prisoners incarcerated in DOC-operated facilities. A copy of the portion of the proposal relating to mental health services is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Defendant CMS submitted its bid on September 29, 1995, which DOC accepted. A copy of the portion of the bid relating to mental health services is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
71. The advertised bid proposal and CMS's bid proposal together comprise the contract ("CMS contract") pursuant to which defendant CMS is providing health care services. DOC agreed to pay defendant CMS approximately $62.4 million per year for a three-year contract
72. DOC's purpose in privatizing medical services was to reduce DOC expenditures on health care for prisoners. In a press release issued on November 28, 1995, by DOC, defendant Fauver and Governor Christie Whitman announced that the contract with defendant CMS would result in an annual savings of $20 million. Defendant Fauver and Governor Whitman also announced that under die CMS contract,
33
2017210*.OJ

DOC would reduce annual health care expenditures per prisoner from about $3,800 to $2,800.
73. The formula for determining defendant CMS's compensation is based on the number of prisoners housed in state correctional facilities, regardless of the amount of or cost of the medical, dental, psychological and psychiatric services which defendant CMS provides. Thus, under the managed care CMS contract, CMS's profit is increased by providing the least expensive services to DOC prisoners, including Class members.
74. The CMS contract obligates CMS to provide extensive services to Class members, including the following, which are set forth in full in Exhibits A and B:
(a) psychiatric evaluations of every prisoner housed in administrative segregation and disciplinary detention within three days of their arrival and afterwards, every ten days; (b) psychiatric evaluations of prisoners within 24 hours of the onset of their exhibiting unusual, behavior; (c) psychiatric and psychological crisis care and prompt referrals of prisoners requiring greater care than the State correctional facilities are able to offer.
34
20272S0C.03

(d) psychiatric monitoring of prisoners receiving psychotropic medication; (e) psychological evaluation within 24 hours of prisoners with difficulties adjusting to prison or who request psychological services; and (f) psychological case management, including therapy and crisis care, for mentally ill prisoners.
75. Defendant CMS subcontracted certain of the responsibilities described in paragraph 74 to CBS for approximately $376,341 per month ("the subcontract").
76. Defendants CMS and DOC entered into the CMS contract with the intention that Class members would benefit from the services which CMS agreed to provide. Class members are also the intended beneficiaries of the CBS subcontract.
77. On April 27, 1996, defendant CMS began providing medical and psychiatric services to Class members, pursuant to the CMS contract. The takeover of psychological services by defendant CMS and defendant CBS occurred on August 29, 1996.
78. Since defendant CMS assumed responsibility for prisoners' medical and psychiatric care, defendant CMS has failed to perform the functions
35
2027250*.01

required by the CMS contract and specifically, the functions described in paragraph 74, supra.
79. Since defendant CBS assumed responsibility for prisoners' medical and psychiatric care, defendant CBS has failed to perform the functions required by the CMS contract, the subcontract, and specifically, the functions described in paragraph 74, supra.
80. The privatization of mental health services has not remedied the grossly inadequate mental health care which Class members receive in large part because defendants CMS and CBS have continued DOC's practice of failing to provide adequate mental health professional staff. At New Jersey State Prison, for example, a single psychiatrist is responsible for providing all psychiatric care for all mentally ill prisoners housed in the prison's approximately 2000 bed facility, all while working just half the time of a full-time employee. He reported that the prison required four times the current psychiatric coverage to provide adequate care.
81. As a result of defendants CMS and CBS's failure to provide sufficient professional mental health staff, Class members remain incarcerated in administrative segregation without access to essential mental health treatments. Defendants CMS and CBS are unable to even identify prisoners receiving treatment or those in need of treatment, much less provide the necessary care. Consequently, grossly
36
20272(0*.03

psychotic and dysfunctional Class members have been all but abandoned by the skeleton staff of mental health professionals now employed by defendants CMS and CBS.
82. Despite the obvious failure of defendants CMS and CBS to perform the mental health services required under their respective agreements, defendants Fauver, Hilton, Beyer, Forker and Farrell have failed to take the necessary measures to enforce these agreements to ensure that Class members receive the services promised by the advertised bid proposal and CMS's proposal as well as those services that are constitutionally required.
Defendants' Awareness and Deliberate Indifference to the Inadequacies in DOC's Disciplinary Process and Mental Health Care With Regard to Prisoners With Serious
83. The DOC defendants are aware that Class members' mental disorders are exacerbated by placing them in administrative segregation and disciplinary detention. Despite this knowledge, the DOC defendants and State employees under their supervision continue to place such prisoners in those facilities, sometimes for years at a time.
84. DOC defendants are also aware that DOC's disciplinary process fails to take account either of the role a prisoner's mental disorder plays in a given infraction or whether the prisoner is competent to understand the infraction charged. In August 1993, a prisoner at New Jersey State Prison filed a Petition for Rulemaking pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:1-1.2. The Petition sought an amendment to the rules
37
20372S0C.01

governing prisoner discipline. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15. The proposed amendment provided that where an prisoner is charged with a disciplinary infraction while under the care of a psychologist or psychiatrist or the prisoner has been placed in an observation cell as a result of alleged misconduct, the treating physician must report to the hearing officer as to: (1) the prisoner's competency, i.e., whether the prisoner's current mental status precludes participation in the disciplinary process; (2) whether the prisoner's mental status contributed to the alleged disciplinary offense; and (3) whether the prisoner's mental disorder contraindicates any particular form of punishment.
85. Defendant Fauver, following consultation with defendants Hilton, Beyer, O'Neill, rejected the Petition in its entirety on October 18, 1993.
86. The Public Advocate, on numerous occasions during 1993 and 1994, brought to the attention of defendants Fauver and Beyer DOC's failures with regard to the provision of adequate mental health care for prisoners in New Jersey's state prisons.
87. In 1994, the Public Advocate, through the Office of Inmate Advocacy and the Division of Mental Health Advocacy, informed defendants Fauver, Hilton and Beyer of the special problems of mentally ill prisoners in administrative segregation. In a report dated April 5, 1994, which is annexed hereto as Exhibit C, the Public Advocate asserted that approximately one-third of the prisoners housed in administrative segregation units were mentally ill, in need of psychiatric treatment, and
38
20272S04.03

had been punished and placed in isolation for displaying symptoms of their illness. The report also noted that DOC had failed to train corrections officers to recognize the signs of mental illness and to respond to those needs.
88. Defendants Fauver, Hilton and Beyer received the report described in paragraph 87, supra.. Defendants failed to correct any of the reported inadequacies concerning the punishment and treatment of mentally ill prisoners confined in administrative segregation.
89. On April 5, 1994, Susan Remis Silver, the director of the Office of Inmate Advocacy, informed defendant Beyer by letter:
"Unfortunately, neglect of the mentally-ill inmates in the ACSU [Administrative Close Segregation Unit] has continued to be a serious problem without any improvement in the conditions. Our investigation has revealed that, in many cases, inmates are not being screened to determine a need for hospitalization. Nor are inmates provided with even minimal mental health care. Since only a few hospital beds exist in the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital for the entire population of mentally ill inmates in ACSU (as well as other prisons) the prison psychiatrists are not hospitalizing even severely ill patients. The result of this has been inmate injury and death." A copy of the letter, which is annexed hereto as Exhibit D, was forwarded to defendant Fauver. 90. In a subsequent meeting on May 24, 1994, between Ms. Silver and defendant Beyer, defendant Beyer acknowledged the existence of many of the problems outlined in Ms. Silver's letter of April 5, 1994. Nevertheless defendants
39
20273S0C.03

have never implemented any of the proposals relating to the punishment and treatment of mentally ill prisoners set forth in Exhibits C and D to this Complaint.
91. On July 1, 1994, the New Jersey state legislature abolished the Public Advocate's office, including the Office of Inmate Advocacy and the Division of Mental Health Advocacy. There is currently an Inmate Advocacy Unit in the Office of the Public Defender. However, its attorney is not permitted to bring litigation concerning the punishment and treatment of mentally ill prisoners. £& N.J.S.A. 2A:158A-7(n); N.J.S.A. 52:27E-50 ej_seg.
92. Defendants, with the exception of defendant O'Neill, are aware that Class members are not receiving appropriate mental health services. Defendants, with the exception of defendant O'Neill, are aware that Class members suffer unnecessarily from the untreated or poorly treated symptoms of their mental illnesses.
CAUSES OF ACTION I.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
93. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 92 above as if the same had been set forth herein.
94. By their policies, practices and acts, Defendants have with deliberate indifference violated the rights of Class members to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
40
203T2S0C.03

United States Constitution. These policies and practices established and permittedby Defendants violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asfollows:
(a) Class members are subjected to disciplinary hearings even if they are incompetent toparticipate insuch hearings;
(b) Class members have been punished for actions for which they were not responsible due tomental illness;
(c) DOC hearing officers have punished Class members without obtaining an assessment from their mental health care providers to determine the role that their mental disorders played inthe charged behavior;
(d) Class members are placed in administrative segregation units despite DOC's knowledge that the conditions ofadministration are countertherapeutic and lead to the deterioration ofClass members' mental conditions;
(e) the Defendants fail to provide adequate mental health treatment to Class membera while they are housed in either disciplinary detention, administrative segregation orwithin the general prison population.
n.
Violation of the Americans yjfh. Dfcabilittes Act of 1990 95. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 94 above asif the same had been set forth herein.
41
20272S04.03

96. Defendants have discriminated against Class members in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 by: (a) failing to reasonably accommodate Class members' handicaps by not providing adequate mental health care; (b) adjudicating disciplinary charges without reference to relevant mental health records; (c) adjudicating disciplinary charges without regard for the competency of Class members; (d) denying Class members access to mental health treatment, prison jobs and rehabilitative programs; and (d) deducting commutation time from Class members.
m.
Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 97. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 96 above as if the same had been set forth herein. 98. Defendants have discriminated against Class members in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 by (a) failing to reasonably accommodate Class members' handicaps; (b) not providing adequate mental health care; (c) adjudicating disciplinary charges without reference to relevant mental health records; (d) adjudicating disciplinary charges without regard for the competency of Class members; (e) denying Class members access to mental health treatment, prison jobs and rehabilitative programs; and (f) deducting commutation time from Class members.
42
2O273S04.03

rv.
Sex Discrimination in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
99. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 98 above as if the same had been set forth herein.
100. Defendants have discriminated against plaintiff D.M. and other female Class members because of their sex in violation of the rights guaranteed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of die Fourteenth Amendment.
V. Violation of the Due PrftCTiffi Clause of the Fourteenth AmpnHn^nt
101. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 100 above as if the same had been set forth herein.
102. Defendants have violated Class members' due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by: (a) failing to ensure diat Class members are mentally competent to participate in disciplinary hearings; (b) sentencing Class members to administrative segregation and disciplinary detention without examining the role that their mental disorders played in the charged conduct; and (c) confining Class members to administrative segregation, often for years at a time.
43
aoaiasoc.os

Breach of Contract. Pursuant to WJ.S.A. 2A;15-2 103. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 102 above as if the same had been set forth herein. 104. Defendant CMS has breached its contract with DOC by failing to provide the mental health services required by the contract, thereby causing injury to plaintiffs and Class members, who are intended third-party beneficiaries of the contract.
vn.
Breach of Contract. Pursuant to NJ.S.A. 2AilS-2 105. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 106 above as if the same had been set forth herein. 106. Defendant CBS has breached its subcontract with CMS by failing to provide the mental health services required by the subcontract, thereby causing injury to plaintiffs and Class members, who are intended third-party beneficiaries of the subcontract.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 107. Class members have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs set forth in this Complaint. Class members have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and
44
20273S0C.O3

practices of the Defendants as alleged herein, unless they are granted the relief they request.
108. Wherefore, plaintiffs request that this Court grant them the following relief:
(a) adjudge and declare that the acts, omissions, policies, and practices of the Defendants with regard to Class members violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132;
(b) enjoin Defendants, their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in conceit with them, under color of State law or otherwise, from continuing the unconstitutional and illegal acts, conditions, and practices described in this Complaint;
(c) order Defendants, their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, under color of State law or otherwise, to take all necessary actions to: (1) conduct a mental disorder prevalence study to determine the numbers and mental health needs of prisoners with serious mental disorders; (2) conduct comprehensive mental health screening examinations upon an prisoner's entry into DOC's custody to identify effectively those prisoners in need of mental health care; (3) establish and implement, both at the institutional and system-wide level, a
45
20273S0C.03

continuous quality improvement program with respect to the provision ofmental health care; (4) provide Class members inadministrative segregation with adequate mental health care, including, but not limited to, effective and appropriate psychotropic medications free ofcharge; (5) provide the most seriously mentally illClass members, who require more intensive mental health care than could realistically be provided within administrative segregation, with adequate mental health treatment ina special housing unit dedicated solely tomental health use; (6) mandate mental health evaluation of Class members charged with disciplinary infractions to determine whether such prisoners are capable ofundergoing DOC's disciplinary process, responsible for the charged conduct, and whether the Class member's disciplinary sentence should be mitigated as a result ofhis or her mental disorder; (7) cease punishing Class members for exhibiting symptoms oftheir mental disorders; (8) teach DOC corrections officers during pre-service and in-service training programs to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness and to prevent suicides, and to provide advanced training to corrections officers assigned to medical, mental health and high risk settings, including disciplinary detention and administrative segregation facilities, in suicide prevention and inthe management ofmentally illprisoners; (9) adequately supervise DOC corrections officers to prevent recurrences ofactive abuse of prisoners by such officers; (10) take necessary and appropriate measures to prevent suicide attempts among Class members in disciplinary detention and administrative segregation, including providing
46
20373*04.03

corrections officers with suicide prevention training, providing a physically safe environment for potentially suicidal Class members and providing adequate and appropriate mental health care to those Class members; (11) conduct a retrospective review of the records of Class members currently housed in administrative segregation to ensure that those prisoners are not being disciplined for offenses attributable to their mental illnesses; and (11) provide the services set forth in the advertised bid proposal, the CMS contract and the CBS subcontract with respect to mental health care.
(d) retain jurisdiction in this case until the unlawful and unconstitutional conditions and practices as alleged herein no longer exist and the Court is satisfied that they will no longer occur;
(e) grant plaintiffs the costs and expenses of maintaining this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 12205; and
(f) grant any other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Dated: June 23, 1997

Hogan (MH 7917)

Of Counsel: Gary W. Kubek Sandra L. Cobden Steve Vaccaro

Debevoise & Plimpton 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 909-6000

47
20372S04.03

atricia P. Perlmutter (PP 1666) Seton Hall University School of Law Center For Social Justice Inmate Advocacy Law Clinic 833 McCarter Highway Newark, NJ 07102 (201) 642-8703
Stephen M. Latimer (SL 7317) Loughlin & Latimer 58-60 Main Street Third Floor Hackensack, NJ 07604 (201) 487-9797 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
48
20372S0«.03

 
 D.M. v. Terhune

PC-NJ-001-002
PETER VERNIERO Attorney General of New Jersey Attorney for Defendants Jack Terhune, Mary Ellen Bolton, Howard Beyer, Eugene O'Neill, Thomas Farrell and Dr. Richard Cevasco R.J. Hughes Justice Complex Post Office Box 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625
By: Dianne M. Moratti Deputy Attorney General (609) 633-3985

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF TRENTON

C.F., et al.

) HONORABLE ANNE E. THOMPSON, Chief, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 96-1840 (AET)

v.

)

JACK TERHUNE, et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court upon the joint application of Sandra L. Cobden, Esq., and Patricia P. Perlmutter, Esq. on behalf of the plaintiffs, and by Peter Verniero, Attorney General of New Jersey, Deputy Attorney General Dianne M. Moratti appearing, on behalf of defendants Jack Terhune, Mary Ellen Bolton, Howard Beyer, Eugene O'Neill, Thomas Farrell, and Dr. Richard Cevasco, and by Stephen Holtzman, Esq. appearing on behalf of defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc., and by Paul Murphy,

— * « - -, , ; r; Esq. appearing on behalf nf * * ^ Jersey n

correctionai B

m o and for good cause shown;

"»««*!. ^

day of / L

t h a t proviEion #4 on
and P r o t e e t i v e order e n t e r e d b y t
hereby amendsd t o permit plaint;ffs

, l A f f a i r s r e c o r d s v o t l n g

« - r ^ , 1 0 A lnformatlon

^

litigation in My aotlon to enfor

Pursuant to Sections IV(K)(a) „ X I I I o f

— e e n p l a i n t i f f s a n dt h e ooc defendants

"

John ji Hughe4, U.S.M2T

- 2-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF TRENTON

C.F., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs,
v. JACK TERHUNE, etal.,
Defendants.

) HONORABLE ANNE E. THOMPSON ) Civil Action No. 96-1840(AET)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

D.M. v. Terhune PC-NJ-001-003

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. ENHANCED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
A. Funding B. Timing II. AMENDMENTS TO THE DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS
III. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
IV. MONITORING A. Identity of Monitor B. Cost of Monitoring C. Length and Frequency of Inspections D. Access to Inmates and Their Medical and Classification Records E. Representatives at Inspections, and Access to Custody and Medical Staff F. Contact with the Monitor G. Substance of the Monitor's Report H. Definition of Compliance I. Emergent Circumstances J. Curing Non-Compliance. K. Enforcement of the Settlement Agreement L. Confidentiality of Monitor's Report M. Confidentiality of Medical Records Reviewed by and Produced to the Monitor N. Confidentiality of Classified Records Reviewed by and Produced to the Monitor

PAGE 10 10 13 14 14 16 16 18 19
20
21 23 23 25 27 27 32 33
36 3 9

- 2-

O. Limitation on Use of Monitor's Report and

Documents Reviewed by and Information Produced

to the Monitor

41

P. Disclosure of Identities of Presumptive

Class Members

42

Q. Reporting Requirements

43

V. INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS

49

VI. NEW CONTRACTORS

50

VII. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT

50

VIII .RETURN OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

51

IX. ALTERATIONS

52

X. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY

52

XI. DISSOLUTION AND SEVERABILITY

53

XII. DISSEMINATION

53

XIII. ENFORCEMENT

54

XIV. SURVIVAL OF CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS

56

XV. PLAINTIFFS • ATTORNEYS FEES

56

- 3-

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

Amended Complaint filed on July 16, 1997

Exhibit A

Plan for Enhanced Mental Health Services

Exhibit B

Proposed Amendments to the Disciplinary Regulations...Exhibit C

Amended Confidentiality and Protective Order entered by the Court on April 8, 1998
Authorization For Disclosure/Release of Health Information Including Alcohol And/Or Drug Use, HIV/AIDS and Psychiatric Records

Exhibit D Exhibit E

Acknowledgment of Terms of Settlement Agreement

Exhibit F

Proposed Form of Order of Dismissal

Exhibit G

- 4-

THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT dated May

1999 entered into by

and among C.F., D.M., L.K., A.O. and J.W. individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Plaintiffs" or the

"Class Members") and Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of

Corrections Jack Terhune, Chief of Staff Mary Ellen Bolton,

Assistant Commissioner Howard L. Beyer, Chief Disciplinary Hearing

Officer Eugene F. O'Neill, Health Services Unit Supervisor Thomas

Farrell and Director of Psychological Services Dr. Richard Cevasco,

having been sued in their official capacity ("the Defendants"),

WITNESSETH THAT;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed this class action suit on April 11,

1996 against the Defendants seeking wide-ranging injunctive relief

on behalf of a class of mentally ill inmates; and

WHEREAS, an Amended Complaint was filed on July 16, 1997 (the

"Amended Class Action Suit"), a copy of which is attached hereto as

Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, the Amended Class Action Suit was brought pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §1983 seeking redress for alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, 29 U.S.C. §504 (the Rehabilitation Act), 42 U.S.C. §12132 (the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), and breach of contract; and
WHEREAS, the Amended Class Action Suit seeks declaratory and

injunctive relief as well as the recovery of attorneys fees and costs; and

WHEREAS, Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS") commenced provision of medical services to inmates within DOC facilities on April 27, 1996; and
WHEREAS, Correctional Behavioral Solutions of New Jersey, Inc. ("CBS") commenced provision of mental health services to inmates within DOC facilities on August 17, 1996 pursuant to a subcontract with CMS;and
WHEREAS, the matter was certified as a class action on November 20, 1996 and the class was defined as:
all persons who suffer DSM IV, Axis I and/or Axis II disorders such that they are unable to meet the functional requirements of prison life without mental health treatment, who now or in the future will be confined within the facilities of the New Jersey Department of Corrections; and WHEREAS, CMS and CBS were added as party defendants to the Amended Class Action Suit on July 16, 1997; WHEREAS, Defendants, CMS and CBS have filed Answers in which they deny Plaintiffs' allegations; and WHEREAS, the litigants have exchanged discovery including expert reports, and taken deposition testimony; and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have agreed to execute a Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice as to CMS and CBS;and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge that, to the extent possible, it is in their best interests to resolve the issues raised in this action by means other than litigation and, to this end, have on this day agreed to enter into this Settlement Agreement; and
- 6-

WHEREAS, the "Settlement Agreement" incorporates this document, Exhibit A (the Amended Complaint) , Exhibit B (the plan for enhanced mental health services, hereinafter referred to as the "Plan") and Exhibit C (the proposed amendments to the disciplinaryregulations, hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"); and
WHEREAS, the "Presumptive Class Membership" incorporates all inmates who are or in the future will be housed on the Stabilization Units ("SUs"), the Residential Treatment Units ("RTUs") and the Transitional Care Units ("TCUs") and all inmates who now or in the future will be listed on the special needs rosters and the mental health contact rosters; and
WHEREAS, the "special needs rosters" shall refer to a list of inmates who are receiving psychotropic medication or have refused psychotropic medication and shall include, but is not limited to, their diagnoses and medications. For all special needs rosters
produced prior to the implementation of the DOC's Management Information System ("MIS"), housing locations will be provided when available and in accordance with the current practice. Special needs rosters produced after the implementation of the DOC's MIS will include housing locations; and
WHEREAS, the "mental health contact rosters" shall refer to a list of inmates who are not on the special needs rosters, are receiving mental health treatment and meet the class membership
definition. Mental health contact rosters shall include diagnoses. Mental health contact rosters produced between July 1, 1999 and the implementation of the DOC's MIS will contain housing locations when
- 7-

available. Mental health contact rosters produced after the implementation of the DOC's MIS will contain housing locations.
WHEREAS, "DOC" shall refer to the New Jersey Department of Corrections; and
WHEREAS, "medical and mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC" shall mean any medical and mental health services provider providing medical or mental health services under contract with the DOC, including CMS and CBS as long as they continue to provide medical and mental health services under contract with the DOC; and
WHEREAS, "medical record" shall include both medical and mental health records. Medical records shall also include any list of inmates receiving medical and/or mental health services; and
WHEREAS, "10A Information" shall mean any and all information, material or documentation, other than medical records, Internal Affairs records or voting records of classification committee members, that are produced to Plaintiffs and/or the monitor during the monitoring period and which contains information described in N.J.A.C. 10A:22-2.2. Prior to production of 10A Information, Defendants shall redact the names of any confidential informants, the targets of ongoing investigations, the manner in which the fruits of Internal Affairs investigations are compiled and filed and Internal Affairs investigatory techniques; and
WHEREAS, "confidential medical and mental health services provider(s) information" shall mean Continuous Quality Improvement "CQI" report form and verification provided in accordance with
- 8-

Section IV(Q)(6)(p), monthly reports provided in accordance with Section IV(Q) (6) (n), the names of mental health staff personnel on
the mental health staff charts provided in accordance with Section IV(Q) (6) (a) and invoices from the mental health services provider(s) reflecting the professional position, the contract FTEs and the hours per pay period (information related to payment for services shall be redacted) in accordance with Section IV(Q) (6) (b) ; and
WHEREAS, "monitoring period" shall mean the period commencing the date the Settlement Agreement is signed and ending on the date that this Settlement Agreement terminates in accordance with Section VII(2).
WHEREAS, "monitor's report" shall include the monitor's report and/or any appendices attached thereto; and
WHEREAS, "Classified Records" shall collectively refer to Internal Affairs records, voting records of classification committee members, 10A Information and confidential medical and mental health services provider(s) information; and
WHEREAS, "identifying information" shall include, but is not limited to, housing location, date of birth, social security number and physical description of the inmate; and
WHEREAS, the terms of the Amended Confidentiality and Protective Order entered by the Court on April 8, 1998, as amended by Order of the Federal Court in May 1999 (the "Confidentiality Order"), attached hereto as Exhibit D, remain in full force and effect as to any documents or information disclosed during the
- 9-

course of the litigation through December 31, 1998, including, but not limited to documents Bates stamped DOC 1 - 815, DOC 6000 80707, FPH 1 - 1575, PR 1 - 136, CMS 1 - 39193, CMS PR 1 - 136, CBS PR 1-105 and TR 2102 - 4107; and
WHEREAS, the use, release and dissemination of documents and information produced to Plaintiffs and/or the monitor during the monitoring period shall be governed by the terms of this Settlement Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants do hereby set forth the understanding reached between them:
I. ENHANCED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES A. Funding: In order to fully fund the Plan, Defendants hereby agree to
the following: 1. Funds currently appropriated in the Fiscal Year 1999
budget for the implementation of the Plan, which are approximately $2.1 million, will be utilized to fund the Plan;
2. Any in-kind services or cash equivalents, if any, obtained from the medical services provider(s) for the implementation of the Plan will be utilized to fund the Plan; and
3. The Governor of the State of New Jersey has recommended to the legislature, that $16,000,000 be appropriated to fund additional mental health treatment services.
4. Within thirty (30) days of the date the Settlement Agreement is signed, Defendants will provide a certification from
- 10 -

Commissioner Terhune stating that (a) to the best of his knowledge, after reasonable investigation, the $16,000,000 recommended appropriation set forth in Section I (A) (3) is sufficient to implement the Plan, and (b) Commissioner Terhune will use his best efforts to obtain full funding for the Plan.
5. Defendants will notify Plaintiffs of the dates of anypublic hearings related to the funding of the Plan and will provide Plaintiffs with all public documents related to the funding of the Plan as soon as possible when they become available.
6. Defendants will provide Plaintiffs with any public documents related to the extension of any contract for the provision of medical and mental health services, if any, as soon possible when they become available.
7. Defendants shall inform Plaintiffs by affidavit as to the outcome of DOC's appropriation request within seven (7) calender days from the date upon which Defendants learn the level of funding it has obtained, and whether or not such funding is adequate to fully implement the Plan. Defendants shall supply Plaintiffs with all public documents related to-the DOC's funding request and the results thereof. Defendants will provide Plaintiffs with this information no later than July 9, 1999.
8. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ("Federal Court") shall retain jurisdiction of this case until such time as Defendants certify that the DOC has obtained adequate funding or in-kind services necessary to fully implement the Plan for Fiscal
- 11 -

Year 2000, pursuant to Section I(A)(9) or Plaintiffs are deemed to have accepted a Modified Plan in accordance with Section I(A)(10).
9. In the event Defendants certify that the DOC has obtained $16,000,000 as set forth in Section I (A) (3), the Plaintiffs and Defendants will jointly move before the Federal Court for a dismissal of this action with prejudice and shall propose the attached form of order (Exhibit G ) . DOC will thenceforth be bound to implement the Plan including the terms of the Plan set forth in Section 3 of this Settlement Agreement.
10. In the event that Defendants certify that DOC has not received $16,000,000 as set forth in Section I(A)(3) and the budget has been approved and presented to the DOC by July 1, 1999, Defendants will inform Plaintiffs by July 26, 1999 as to the extent to which they will be able to implement the Plan in light of the funding they have received for fiscal year 2000. Plaintiffs may elect to accept this modified Plan by August 9, 1999, and in any event shall be deemed to have accepted the modified Plan if written notice of Plaintiffs' rejection of the modified Plan is not received by Defendants by August 9, 1999. In the event Plaintiffs agree to accept the modified Plan or are deemed to agree to accept the modified Plan, DOC will be bound to implement the Plan as modified, and to abide by the remaining terms of the Settlement Agreement after notification to the class and the Federal Court, after the class has been afforded an opportunity to comment on the modified plan and after the Federal Court has approved the modified Settlement Agreement. The parties will then move before the
- 12 -

Federal Court for dismissal with prejudice in the manner set forth in Section I(A)(9).
11. In the event that the DOC fails to obtain funding sufficient to implement the Plan for fiscal year 2000, and Plaintiffs elect to continue with this litigation, Defendants and Plaintiffs will jointly request that the Federal Court Clerk's Office place the pending summary judgment motion on the calendar for the next available motion date, and shall request a conference with the Federal Court to set expedited dates for final inspections and submission of the pre-trial order, and shall jointly request an expedited trial date.
12. No attorneys fees shall be paid to Plaintiffs' counsel until after the Order of Dismissal with prejudice has been entered by the Federal Court.
B. Timing: Absent any delays in the implementation of the terms of the Plan caused by an unanticipated public hearing, Defendants agree to implement the Plan according to the following schedule: 1. Defendants agree that the training component of the Plan will be commenced by April 30, 1999. All corrections officers who will be assigned to work in the SUs, RTUs and TCUs will be trained by July 1, 1999.
- 13 -

2. Defendants agree that the construction component of the Plan will be commenced by April 30, 1999 and the SUs, RTUs and TCUs will be safe and operational by July 1, 1999.
3. Upon receipt of appropriate funding as set forth in Section I (A), the remaining components of the Plan will begin operation on July 1, 1999.
II. AMENDMENTS TO THE DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS; Absent any delays caused by an unanticipated public hearing,
Defendants agree that the proposed amendments to the disciplinary regulations attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Regulations") will be adopted by June 1, 1999 and implemented effective July 1, 1999.
III. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Defendants agree that the following policies and procedures
will be created, if currently not existing, or reviewed, if currently existing, by June 1, 1999 and will be provided to the monitor. Plaintiffs' counsel may submit non-binding proposals regarding Defendants' policies and procedures to the Defendants without any cost to the Defendants. Defendants will implement the following policies and procedures to ensure continued compliance.
1. Policies and procedures consistent with the goals of the Plan and the amendments to the disciplinary regulations;
- 14 -

2. Involuntary medication policies and procedures, including those delineating between emergency and non-emergency involuntary medications;
3. Policies and procedures for use of force situations involving Class Members which provide for input and/or involvement from mental health staff;
4. Medication policies and procedures regarding medication administration, medication prescription, management of medication, inmate non-compliance and formulary lists.
5. Discharge planning for Class Members in anticipation of their release from DOC facilities planning will be required and, at a minimum, will include the following:
(a) Defendants will use their best efforts to schedule an appointment with a community mental health provider for a date within two (2) weeks after the Class Member has been released from a. DOC facility;
(b) Defendants will provide the Presumptive Class Members with a two week supply of medication upon release; *
(c) Defendants will modify-the treatment plans of Presumptive Class Members to reflect mental health issues related to their discharge;
(d) Defendants will provide treatment in accordance with the Presumptive Class Members' revised treatment plans, with the understanding that the Defendants' obligation to provide treatment ends when each inmate leaves the care and custody of the New Jersey
- 15 -

Department of Corrections except as currently provided by the New Jersey Parole Board;
(e) Defendants will facilitate Class Members in obtaining benefits upon release from a DOC facility by providing each inmate with the name of the social services individual in the county in which he will be living after release who could assist in obtaining social service benefits and by providing copies of necessary applicat ions; and
(f) Defendants will use their best efforts to develop contacts with community mental health providers and social service agencies within the county in which the facility is located to assist in discharge planning. Upon request of the community mental health service provider(s) on behalf of and with the consent of the Class Member, a discharge summary for the Class Member will be prepared and sent to the receiving community mental health provider(s).
6. Record Keeping policies and procedures to provide for a single multi-disciplinary medical record, including mental health records, for each inmate which* shall be maintained in a secure location. Policies shall also include provisions for the creation of a management information system to track Class Members' mental health. Barring any unforseen difficulties, implementation of the management information system will be completed by November 1, 1999.
- 16 -

IV. MONITORING A. Identity of Monitor 1. Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate to the appointment of
a monitor, who shall be independent of the Plaintiffs and Defendants, to facilitate the implementation of the Settlement
Agreement and to monitor compliance. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that Dr. Raymond Patterson shall serve as the monitor during the life of the Settlement Agreement.
2. If Dr. Raymond Patterson is unable to serve as the monitor during the life of the Settlement Agreement, a person who is mutually agreeable to Dr. Dennis Koson and Dr. Joel Dvoskin, or their successors as experts to Plaintiffs and Defendants respectively, will be appointed to serve as a monitor. If the above experts are unable to agree on the identity of a monitor, each expert shall submit the name of one representative expert and the representative experts shall select the monitor. Except with the consent of counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants, no person who has been associated with or served as an expert in any capacity in the underlying litigation or who has a business relationship with the medical or mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC may be appointed as a monitor.
3. Any monitor may be replaced in the event of death or unforseen permanent, unavailability, by written agreement of Plaintiffs and Defendants or on motion noticed by any of their counsel for good cause shown. For purposes of this subsection, "good cause shown" means a showing by clear and convincing evidence
- 17 -

of corruption or nonfeasance by a monitor which is so severe as to preclude effective implementation of the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The court shall replace the monitor with a person who is mutually agreeable to Dr. Dennis Koson and Dr. Joel Dvoskin, or their successors as experts to Plaintiffs and Defendants respectively. If the aforementioned experts are unable to agree on the identity of a monitor, each expert shall submit the name of one representative expert and the representative experts shall select the monitor.
4. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that Dr. Raymond Patterson, or his successor, qualifies as a forensic psychiatric expert under New Jersey and federal law.
B. Cost of Monitoring 1. Defendants shall pay the monitor's reasonable fees and costs. 2. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that, pursuant to this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs have the right to apply for attorneys' fees and costs for legal representation generated after the date of the Settlement Agreement which are necessary for the enforcement of the Settlement Agreement before the courts if (a) they are successful; or (b) Defendants' failure to present factual information to the monitor under the terms set forth in Section IV(K)(4) caused Plaintiffs to file the action for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement; or
- 18 -

(c) Plaintiffs and Defendants settle the dispute which forms the basis of the action to enforce the Settlement Agreement prior to judgment.
3. Any application for attorneys' fees and costs for legal representation generated after the date of the Settlement Agreement which are necessary for the enforcement of the Settlement Agreement shall be based on Mercer County attorney rates.
C. Length and Frequency of Inspections 1. The monitor may inspect the DOC's facilities four times per year, the first of which will occur after the date the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Federal Court. Each inspection shall presumptively last no longer than five business days. The inspections shall presumptively be conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with the understanding that the inspections shall be conducted at the convenience of the Commissioner of the DOC and the monitor. 2. Entry to any facility or any portion thereof shall not be denied except for reasons of security including, but not limited to items such as riot, lockdown or unforseen events requiring enhanced security measures. If the monitor is denied access to a facility or any portion thereof for reasons of security, the monitor shall be permitted access as soon as the circumstances which have caused the security concern have been abated. If time is lost due to an unforseen interruption, the monitor will be able to make up the
- 19 -

lost time at a time mutually convenient to both the monitor and the Commissioner of the DOC.
3. If a monitor is denied access to a facility or any portion thereof for reasons of security, and the monitor is permitted access as soon as the circumstances which have caused the security concern have been abated, the fact that access has been denied will not, by itself, negatively affect the monitor's compliance finding. A general explanation for the denial of access due to security shall be forwarded to the monitor and Plaintiffs as soon as the Commissioner of the DOC determines that this disclosure would not negatively impact the security of the prison system.
D. Access to Inmates and their Medical and Classification Records
1. The monitor shall have access to and may review the medical and classification records of Presumptive Class Members for on-site review. The monitor may also review medical and classification files of inmates who have committed suicide and former Presumptive Class Members when the monitor has good reason to believe that the medical and classification file contains information relevant to the performance of the monitor's duties. Defendants shall redact the names of any confidential informants, targets of ongoing investigations, the manner in which the fruits of Internal Affairs techniques are compiled and filed and Internal Affairs investigatory techniques prior to the release of documents containing such information.
- 20 -

2. The monitor may review medical and classification records of inmates other than Presumptive Class Members if the monitor obtains an Authorization For Disclosure/Release of Health Information Including Alcohol And/Or Drug Use, HIV/AIDS and Psychiatric Records in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E.
3. If the monitor seeks to review medical and classification records of inmates other than Presumptive Class Members or inmates who have provided the monitor with a release, the DOC Health Services Unit representative accompanying the monitor shall make a determination, after a review of the inmate's records, whether the inmate falls within the class definition. The monitor shall be permitted to review his/her medical and classification records if the inmate falls within the class definition.
4. The monitor may conduct interviews with inmates in a manner mutually convenient to the monitor and the Administrator/Superintendent of the facility where the inmate is housed.
5. The monitor shall keep a record of all documentation reviewed and interviews conducted pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
E. Representatives at Inspections, and Access to Custody. Medical and Mental Health Staff
1. Counsel will not accompany the monitor during on-site inspections.
- 21 -

2. Two attorneys for the Plaintiffs shall be permitted one
opportunity to jointly tour each of the new SUs, RTUs and TCUs upon their opening and occupancy at a time convenient to the Superintendent of the DOC facility and the Commissioner of the DOC. Plaintiffs shall not charge Defendants for costs incurred as a result of the inspection, including legal fees.
3. A pre-inspection conference call shall be conducted with the monitor, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the medical and mental health service provider(s) under contract with the DOC not less than one week prior to the beginning of the inspections. A postinspection conference call with the monitor, Plaintiffs, Defendants and the medical and mental health service provider(s) under contract with the DOC shall be conducted at the discretion of the
monitor. In any event, the monitor has the discretion to initiate a telephone conference call with Plaintiffs, Defendants and the medical and mental health service provider(s) under contract with the DOC at any other time the monitor deems necessary.
4. During the inspection, the monitor will be accompanied by a DOC custody escort and a representative from the DOC Health Services Unit.
5. During the inspection, the monitor may interview the following individuals:
(a) DOC Custody staff: the monitor may first seek to interview any DOC custody supervisor on any unit the monitor is touring. If, after attempting to interview the custody supervisor, the monitor has additional questions, the monitor may then seek to
- 22 -

interview other corrections officers who are assigned to the units the monitor is touring.
(b) DOC Social Workers: any DOC social worker assigned to the DOC facility where the monitor is inspecting.
(c) Administrative staff: any DOC Administrative staff member of the DOC facility where the monitor is inspecting.
(d) DOC Central Office staff: any DOC Central Office staff member provided that the monitor provides notice of the request to interview the staff member one week prior to the interview, unless the parties otherwise agree.
(e) Medical Services Provider(s) -- any employee. (f) Mental Health Services Provider(s) -- any employee.
F. Contact with the Monitor Absent a mutual agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants to the contrary or where otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement, there shall be no oral or written communications between the monitor, Plaintiffs and Defendants aside from pre-inspection and post-inspection telephone conferences during which Plaintiffs, Defendants and the medical and mental health service provider(s) are participating.
G. Substance of the Monitor's Report 1. The purpose of the monitoring is to facilitate and ensure compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. In addition to monitoring the creation and implementation of the policies and
- 23 -

procedures as set forth in Section III, the monitor shall create written objective criteria, based upon the Plan and the
Regulations, on which Defendants' compliance with the Settlement Agreement shall be judged. The written objective criteria shall be organized according to the following categories:
(a) Discipline (b) Reception Evaluations (c) SUs (d) RTUs and TCUs (e) Outpatient Care (f) Inpatient Care (with the understanding that the DOC will
participate in the commitment process, but cannot guarantee that TPH will take the inmate upon the conclusion of the commitment process) (g) Construction (h) Training (i) Creation of Policies (j) Staffing 2. The monitor shall memorialize his or her findings by way of a written report following each set of inspections. Reports shall be organized according to the categories set forth in Section (G)(1) and shall contain the following: (i) Steps taken by Defendants to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement since the monitor's prior report and a systematic review of the progress regarding each of the written
objective criteria formulated by the monitor since the monitor's prior report;
- 24 -

(ii) Changes in circumstances affecting Defendants' ability to provide the medical, mental health or custodial care provided for by the Settlement Agreement since the monitor's prior report;
(iii) Recommendations which may facilitate implementation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including a summary of any conversations between the monitor and representatives of the DOC or medical or mental health service providers under contract with the DOC concerning such recommendations that were conducted outside the presence of Plaintiffs' counsel;
(iv) A finding with respect to whether the Defendants are in Substantial Compliance or Non-Compliance as to each category set forth in Section IV(G)(1).
3. Unless otherwise agreed to by the Plaintiffs and Defendants, the monitor shall provide a copy of his report simultaneously to Plaintiffs and Defendants within 30 days of the conclusion of^the on-site inspections which form the basis of the report.

H. Definition of Compliance 1. Substantial Compliance shall be determined on a category by category basis. The categories to be evaluated are those identified in Section IV(G)(1). Substantial Compliance for a

specific category shall mean that Defendants have and may reasonably be expected to continue to substantially satisfy the written objective criteria set forth by the monitor for that

category.

To achieve Substantial Compliance the Defendants need - 25 -

not be in perfect, 100%, compliance with each of the written objective criteria set forth by the monitor for that category. The monitor shall have the discretion to measure Substantial Compliance in each category by weighting the various written objective criteria.
2. Non-Compliance means efforts which do not meet the
definition of Substantial Compliance for a particular category. Non-Compliance shall include Defendants1 failure to permit the monitor to undertake inspections according to the terms set forth herein. A finding of Non-Compliance shall not be based on isolated, non-continuing instances of failure to substantially
satisfy the objective criteria in the categories identified in Section IV(G)(1), nor shall a finding of Non-Compliance be based on omissions of a technical or unimportant nature.
3. . An independent decision of any individual DOC employee or employee of any medical or mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC not to speak with the monitor shall not result in a finding of non-compliance so long as the monitor is able to obtain the information he/she is seeking from another source in a timely manner. The employees of the medical and mental health services provider(s) under contract with the, DOC are required to communicate with the monitor except in the limited circumstance that a. psychiatrist, psychologist, licenced social worker, licenced clinical social worker or psychiatric nurse (hereafter collectively referred to as "mental health clinicians") has a good faith belief that disclosure of information would be
- 26 -

detrimental to an inmate's mental health. In the event that a mental health clinician has such a belief, the mental health clinician shall provide the monitor with an explanation which forms the basis of their refusal to communicate with the monitor without revealing the nature of the confidential information.
I. Emergent Circumstances If during the course of an inspection the monitor finds a circumstance which poses an imminent and significant health or safety risk to Class Member(s), the monitor shall immediately contact the DOC Health Services representative accompanying the monitor on the inspection and any other appropriate person to alleviate the perceived risk. If the monitor's concerns about any individual and/or any systemic problem are not satisfactorily addressed, the monitor shall initiate a telephone conference with Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the medical and mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC. Defendants shall have 24 hours from the conference call to address and/or remedy the circumstance which the monitor finds to pose an imminent and significant health or safety risk to Class Member(s). If the imminent and significant health or safety risk to Class Member(s) is not adequately addressed and/or remedied within 24 hours, Plaintiffs may file an application to remedy the emergent circumstance with the court.
- 27 -

J. Curing Non-Compliance 1. If the monitor finds Substantial Compliance in any category identified in Section IV(J)(5), Plaintiffs shall have 15 calendar days from receipt of the report to serve objections to the monitors' report on the monitor and the Defendants. Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' objection, the monitor may revise his or her findings. If the monitor, upon consideration of the objections, revises his/her finding to one of Non-Compliance, the procedures set forth in Sections IV(J)(2),(3) and (6) below shall apply. 2. If the monitor finds Non-Compliance in any category identified in Section IV(J)(5), Defendants shall have: (a) 20 calendar days from receipt of the report to serve objections to the monitors' report on the monitor and Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall have 7 calendar days from receipt of the objections to serve a response upon the monitor and Defendants. Upon consideration of any Defendants' objections and Plaintiffs' responses, the monitor may revise his or her findings. If the monitor, upon consideration of the objections and responses, revises his/her finding to one of Substantial Compliance, this finding shall relate back to the date of the last regular inspection and shall not negatively affect the period of continuous
Substantial Compliance and shall not be counted as a "cure" for the purposes of Section IV(J)(5); and
(b) 30 calendar days from receipt of the report to cure any
deficiencies noted in the report. For the purpose of counting the
- 28 -

3 0 calendar days, the time the monitor spends considering objections provided under Section IV(J)(2)(a), shall not be counted.
3. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that Defendants shall be entitled to a prescribed number of opportunities within each compliance category to cure a finding of Non-Compliance without adversely affecting the period of continuous Substantial Compliance (hereinafter referred to as a "cure"). Thus, Defendants shall be deemed to remain in continuous Substantial Compliance notwithstanding the monitor's initial finding of Non-Compliance if Defendants remedy in a timely manner the deficiencies found by the monitor using one or more of their prescribed cures set forth in Section IV(J)(5).
4. If Defendants cure the deficiency which caused a finding of Non-Compliance by using one of the allotted "cures" set forth in Section IV(J)(5), the following shall apply:
(a) if the monitor can determine from written documentation provided by Defendants and copied to Plaintiffs that the deficiency has been cured to his or her satisfaction, then the monitor shall issue a revised finding of Substantial Compliance. The effective date of the revised finding of Substantial Compliance shall be the date of the inspection which gave rise to the initial finding of Non-Compliance; or
(b) if the monitor cannot determine from written documentation that the deficiency has been cured, such that an onsite inspection of the DOC facility is necessary, Defendants shall
- 29 -

have the option of paying for additional on-site inspection(s) at the facility/facilities where the deficiency occurred. If, after such additional on-site inspection(s), the monitor finds Substantial Compliance, the monitor shall issue a revised report that includes a revised finding of Substantial Compliance and the effective date shall be the date of the inspection which gave rise to the finding of Non-Compliance.
5. The number of cures which Defendants may use are set forth in the following table. In the event that the monitor determines that the deficiency has been cured, Plaintiffs and Defendants will accordingly adjust the table of cures to reflect the number of remaining cures available to Defendants in each compliance category.

Category

Number of Cures

Discipline

2

Reception Evaluations

2

SUs

2

RTUs and TCUs

2

Outpatient Care

3

In-Patient Care (that the DOC will

2

participate in the commitment process,

with no guarantee that TPH will take the

inmate upon the conclusion of the

commitment process)

Construe tion

2

- 30 -

Training Creation of Policies Staffing

2
1
1 (which may only used at the discretion of the monitor and when the overall staffing does not fall below 85%)

6. In the event that Defendants have exhausted all of the allotted cures for a category pursuant to Section IV(J)(5), Defendants may remedy a deficiency which caused a finding of NonCompliance in such category and the following shall apply:
(a) if the monitor can determine from written documentation provided by Defendants and copied to Plaintiffs that the deficiency has been remedied to his or her satisfaction, then the monitor shall issue a finding of Substantial Compliance. The effective date of the finding of Substantial Compliance shall be the date of the remedy as identified on the documentation provided by Defendants and a new 12 month*period of continuous Substantial Compliance shall begin for that category; or
(b) if the monitor cannot determine from written documentation that the deficiency has been remedied, such that an on-site inspection of the DOC facility is necessary, Defendants shall have the option of paying for additional on-site inspection(s) at the facility/facilities where the deficiency occurred. If, after such additional on-site inspection(s), the
- 31 -

monitor finds Substantial Compliance, the monitor shall issue a report that includes a finding of Substantial Compliance, of which the effective date shall be the date of the additional on-site inspection and a new 12 month period of continuous Substantial Compliance shall begin for that category.
K. Enforcement of the Settlement Agreement 1. Prior to bringing an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs and Defendants must wait until the last date to cure or remedy a deficiency has passed pursuant to Sections IV(I) or (J). Whoever objects to the monitor's finding shall bear the burden of proof in any action to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 2. The monitor's report and any documents reviewed or information obtained during the monitoring period may be used in any action to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Any discovery produced during the course of the Amended Class Action Suit may also be used in any action to enforce the Settlement Agreement subject to the terms of the Confidentiality Order. 3. Any redacted portions of documents or categories of evidence that Defendants have refused to give the monitor may not be offered by Defendants as evidence in opposition to an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 4. Any factual information not presented to the monitor in the course of the proceedings described herein will not be admitted as evidence unless the party offering the factual information can
- 32 -

demonstrate (a) the factual information had been overlooked in good faith or (b) the original document has been lost or destroyed.
L. Confidentiality of Monitor's Report 1. Until Plaintiffs file a report of the monitor with the court in connection with an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement, all reports of the monitor shall be designated confidential and shall be disclosed only to the following persons: (a) Any medical and mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC; (b) Any of the named Defendants, including their directors, officers, employees, agents and personnel or any administrative personnel of the DOC who is determined by Defendants to be necessary to assist in the implementing the Settlement Agreement; (c) Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Defendants and medical and mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC including partners, associates, law clerks, law students, secretaries, paralegal assistants and employees of such counsel to the extent reasonably necessary to render professional services with respect to the Settlement Agreement; and (d) Former employee witnesses, outside non-party consultants or experts retained for the purpose of assisting counsel regarding the Settlement Agreement. 2. Unless otherwise agreed to by Plaintiffs and Defendants or as set forth below, or ordered by the court, any monitor's
- 33 -

report, filed with the court is presumptively a public document with the following limitations:
(a) All references to Classified Records shall be redacted
from the monitor's report before Plaintiffs publicly file the report with the court. Plaintiffs shall simultaneously file an unredacted copy of the Monitor's Report with the court under seal.
(b) Prior to filing the monitor's report with the court, the names, numbers and other identifying information of all inmates referred to in the monitor's report or in any medical records attached thereto shall be redacted. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree to use a key that permits the identification of the inmates by pseudonym. The names, numbers and other identifying information of all inmates referred to in the monitor's report or in any medical records attached thereto shall be filed with the court under seal.
3. All documents identified in this Settlement Agreement and produced to and reviewed by the monitor, with the exception of medical records and Classified Records, are deemed public documents.
4. If Plaintiffs decide to file a report of the monitor with the court in connection with an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs shall notify Defendants and the medical and mental health service provider(s) under contract with the DOC. Upon receipt of such notice: (i) the Defendants shall have three (3) business days to seek redaction of portions of the report which threaten security, contain the name, number and other identifying
- 34 -

information of the inmate who is the subject of the record (with the understanding that the sole purpose for redacting identifying information is to protect an inmate's privacy), or contain information set forth in Classified Records and (ii-) the medical and mental health service provider(s) under contract with the DOC shall have three (3) business days to seek redaction of portions of the report which contain confidential medical and mental health services provider(s) information.
5. If Plaintiffs and/or Defendants and/or the medical services provider(s) and/or the mental health service provider(s) under contract with the DOC are able to mutually agree to the redactions, then those portions of the documents which are the subject of the redactions shall be filed with the court under seal.
6. If Plaintiffs and/or Defendants and/or the medical services provider (s) and/or the mental health service providers are unable to mutually agree to the redaction, then the party seeking the disputed redaction shall apply to the court for a Protective Order regarding the redacted portion(s) of the report within 10 business days of the date of th"e filing of the action to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Pending resolution of a party's motion for a Protective Order, any monitor's report filed with the court by Plaintiffs shall bear all requested redactions.
7. Any monitor's report, or portion thereof, which is not used during an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement shall remain confidential.
- 35 -

8. Until Plaintiffs file a report of the monitor with the court in connection with an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement, any person receiving the monitor's report shall be provided a copy of this Settlement Agreement and shall execute an acknowledgment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit F in which such person shall agree to be bound by the confidentiality provisions contained herein.
M. Confidentiality of Medical Records Reviewed by and Produced to the Monitor
1. Until Plaintiffs file either a report of the monitor containing medical records or medical records with the Court in connection with an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement, all medical records shall be designated confidential and shall be disclosed only to the following persons:
(a) Any medical and mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC;
(b) Any of the named Defendants, including their directors, officers, employees, agents and personnel or any administrative personnel of the DOC who is determined by Defendants to be necessary to assist in implementing the Settlement Agreement;
(c) Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Defendants or any medical or mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC, including partners/ associates, law clerks, law students, secretaries, paralegal assistants and employees of such counsel to the extent reasonably necessary to render professional services with respect to the Settlement Agreement;
- 36 -

(d) Former employee witnesses, outside non-party consultants or experts retained for the purpose of assisting counsel regarding the Settlement Agreement; and
(e) The monitor selected in accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
2. If any medical records are filed with the court, including medical records in the monitor's report, they shall be redacted by the offering party to eliminate the name, number and other identifying information of the inmate who is the subject of the record. During any court proceeding, Plaintiffs and Defendants agree to use a key that permits the identification of the inmates by pseudonym.
3. If Plaintiffs decide to file medical records, including those contained in the monitor's report, with the court in connection with an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs shall notify Defendants and the medical and mental health service provider(s) under contract with the DOC. Upon receipt of such notice, Defendants shall have three (3) business days to seek redaction of portions of the report which threaten security, or contain the name, number and other identifying information of the inmate who is the subject of the record, with the understanding that the sole purpose for redacting identifying information is to protect the inmate's privacy.
4. If Plaintiffs and Defendants are able to mutually agree to the redactions, then those portions of the documents which are
- 37 -

the subject of the redactions shall be filed with the court under seal.
5. If Plaintiffs and Defendants are unable to mutually agree to the redaction, then such party seeking the disputed redaction shall apply to the court for a Protective Order regarding the redacted portion(s) of the report within 10 business days of the date of filing of the action to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Pending resolution of Defendants' motion for a Protective Order, any monitor's report filed with the court by Plaintiffs shall bear all requested redactions.
6. Persons obtaining access to medical records may show the inmate who is the subject of the record the contents of the record with the exception of diagnostic and evaluative information. However, factual information contained in the diagnostic and evaluative portion of any records may be verified by the specific inmate who is the subject of such medical record. In any event, no inmate shall be shown the content of any other inmate's medical records.
7. Except as provided for in Section IV(M)(6), any medical records, or portions thereof, including those contained in any monitor's report, which are not used during an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement shall remain confidential.
8. Any person receiving medical records, including those contained in a monitor's report, shall be provided a copy of this Settlement Agreement and shall execute an acknowledgment in the
- 38 -

form attached hereto as Exhibit F in which such person shall agree to be bound by the confidentiality provisions contained herein.
N. Confidentiality of Classified Records Reviewed by and Produced to the Monitor
1. All Classified Records, including those contained in any monitor's report, which are to be used in connection with an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement, shall be filed with the court under seal.
2. Classified Records shall be disclosed only to the following persons:
(a) Any medical and mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC;
(b) Any of the named Defendants, including their directors, officers, employees, agents and personnel or any administrative personnel of the DOC who is determined by Defendants to be necessary to assist in implementing the Settlement Agreement;
(c) Counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendants or any medical or mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC, including partners, associates, law clerks, law students, secretaries, paralegal assistants and employees of such counsel to the extent reasonably necessary to render professional services with respect to the Settlement Agreement;
(d) Court officials involved in an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement;
- 39 -

(e) Court reporting personnel involved in taking or transcribing testimony in an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement;
(f) Any person that the court designates in the interest of justice, upon terms that the court deems proper;
(g) Former employee witnesses, outside non-party consultants or experts retained for the purpose of assisting counsel regarding the Settlement Agreement; and
(h) The monitor selected in accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
3. Persons obtaining access to Classified Records, including those contained in any monitor's report, shall not disclose information in the Classified Records to any named Plaintiff, any Presumptive Class Member or any other inmate; however, factual information contained in such records may be verified by the specific inmate who is the subject of such Classified Record.
4. Any Classified Records, or portions thereof, including those contained in any monitor's report, which are not used during an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement shall remain confidential.
5. Any person receiving Classified Records, including those contained in any monitor's report, shall be provided a copy of this Settlement Agreement and shall execute an acknowledgment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit F in which such person shall agree to be bound by the confidentiality provisions contained herein.
- 40 -

0. Limitation on Use of Monitor's Report, and Documents Reviewed by and Information Produced to the Monitor
1. The monitor's report may not be introduced as evidence in any other proceedings or form the basis of any other proceeding other than an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section XIII(6) and (7).
2. Documents reviewed by and information produced to the monitor may not be used in any proceeding other than an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section XIII (6) and (7) .
3. If Plaintiffs, Defendants or the medical and mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC, receive a subpoena or other discovery request, except as provided in Section XIII(7), commanding production of the monitor's report or any documents reviewed by or information obtained during the course of the monitoring period, the entity or person receiving the subpoena or request shall immediately notify the Plaintiffs, Defendants and the medical and mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC of the service of the subpoena or request, so that they have the opportunity to object to the production of the information or documents and seek to quash the subpoena or have an appropriate protective order entered.
4. Neither Plaintiffs, Defendants nor the medical or mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC "shall be permitted to oppose a motion to quash a subpoena for the above
- 41 -

referenced documents and information or a motion for a protective order relative to such documents in another proceeding.

P. Disclosure of Identities of Presumptive Class

Members

,

1. Neither the DOC, the medical or mental health services

provider(s) under contract with the DOC, nor their counsel shall

reveal the name of any Presumptive Class Member or discuss the

Presumptive Class Member's role in this case with any custody

personnel or health care provider other than in connection with the

delivery of health care services to such inmate or for the

preparation of its defense in an action to enforce the Settlement

Agreement. The DOC, the medical and mental health services

provider(s) under contract with the DOC and their counsel shall

inform any custody personnel or health care provider, to whom such

disclosure is necessary for the preparation of their defense in an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement, that the identities and roles of all Presumptive Class Members must remain confidential.
2. Should any Presumptive Class Member voluntarily disclose his or her identity, Defendants may initiate a conference call with the court to determine whether and to what extent the confidentiality provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall continue to be applicable to this particular Presumptive Class

Member.

- 42 -

Q. Reporting pec^u iremerits (1) By May 19, 1999, Defendants shall provide the monitor and Plaintiffs with a report demonstrating that the training and construction contemplated by the Plan have been commenced in accordance with Section I(B). (2) On a date convenient to Plaintiffs, Defendants and the monitor in or about May 1999, a conference call shall be held with the monitor, Plaintiffs and Defendants wherein Defendants shall provide a oral report on the status of the remaining aspects of the Plan. (3) By June 1, 1999, Defendants shall provide the monitor and Plaintiffs with copies of the policies and procedures in accordance with Section I(B) and Section III. (4) By July 1, 1999, Defendants shall provide the monitor and Plaintiffs with a report demonstrating that the remaining components of the Plan have begun operation in accordance with Section I(B). (5) On May 19, 1999 and July 10, 1999, Defendants shall provide the monitor and Plaintif-fs with the following reports with the understanding that these reports are being provided for informational purposes only: (a) critical incident reports and Internal Affairs reports of suicides from January 1, 1999 through May 1, 1999 and May 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999;
- 43 -

(b) critical incident reports and Internal Affairs reports related to deaths of Class Members from January 1, 1999 through May 1, 1999 and from May 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999;
(c) critical incident reports of self-mutilation of Class Members which results in outside hospital care from January 1, 1999 through May 1, 1999 and from May 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999. When a self-mutilation of an inmate occurs, the DOC shall first cross reference the name of the inmate against the special needs rosters. If the name of the inmate appears on the special needs rosters, the critical incident report shall be provided. If the name of the inmate does not appear on the special needs rosters, the DOC shall review the inmate's medical and mental health file to determine whether the inmate falls within the class definition and, if so, the critical incident report shall be provided;
(d) the names of all inmates committed to Trenton Forensic Hospital from January 1, 1999 through May 1, 1999 and from May 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999; and
(e) all discharge summaries for inmates returning from Trenton Forensic Hospital from January 1, 1999 through May 1, 1999 and from May 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999.
(6) From July 1, 1999 until the end of the monitoring period or the time in which the monitor states that no further reporting is necessary pursuant to Section IV(Q)(9), whichever comes first, Defendants shall provide the following quarterly reports to the monitor and Plaintiffs in advance of the on-site inspections at a
- 44 -

time mutually agreeable to the monitor and the Plaintiffs and Defendants:
(a) monthly mental health staff charts which shall reflect staff assigned to each of the DOC's facilities, including the SUs, RTUs and TCUs;
(b) invoices from the mental health services provider(s) reflecting the professional position, the contract FTEs and the hours per pay period (information related to payment for services shall be redacted);
(c) monthly special needs rosters and monthly mental health contact rosters;
(d) monthly rosters of the inmates housed on the SUs, RTUs and the TCUs;
(e) monthly census rates for the SUs, RTUs and TCUs; (f) statistical or narrative summary of training efforts undertaken since the last reporting period; (g) critical incident reports related to Class Members who are housed on the SUs, RTUs and TCUs since the last reporting period; (h) critical incident reports and Internal Affairs reports of suicides since the last reporting period; (i) critical incident reports and Internal Affairs reports related to deaths of Class Members since the last reporting period; (j) critical incident reports of self-mutilation of Class Members which results in outside hospital care since the last reporting period. When a self-mutilation of an inmate occurs, the
- 45 -

DOC shall first cross reference the name of the inmate against the names of the Presumptive Class Members. If the name of the inmate appears on one of the Presumptive Class Member lists, the critical incident report shall be provided. If the name of the inmate does not appear on one of the Presumptive Class Member list, the DOC shall review the inmate's medical and mental health file to determine whether the inmate falls within the class definition and, if so, the critical incident report shall be provided;
(k) documents related to the implementation of the involuntary medication policies and procedures since the last reporting period, including critical incident reports;
(1) the names of all inmates committed to Trenton Forensic Hospital since the last reporting period;
(m) all discharge summaries for inmates returning from Trenton Forensic Hospital since the last reporting period;
(n) any monthly statistical reports (including any narrative summaries) in accordance with current practice that describe programs and services available to Class Members and the utilization of such services;
(o) critical incident reports reflecting incidents arising from the use of restraints;
(p) the schedule of the CQI reports from the mental health services provider(s), the issues to be audited, the format of the CQI, and an affidavit that the CQI was completed;
(q) Quality Assurance reports of the defendants related to
the implementation of the Plan, including, but not limited to the
- 46 -

administration of medication, with the understanding that (i) all conclusions and opinions shall be redacted, (ii) the facts set forth in the Quality Assurance reports cannot be referenced within the monitor's report and (iii) the facts set forth in the QualityAssurance reports cannot form the basis of the monitor's opinion; and
(r) Internal Affairs reports involving inmates housed on the SUs, the RTUs and the TCUs. Prior to the release of these reports, Defendants shall redact the name of any confidential informant, the targets of ongoing investigations, the manner in which the fruits of Internal Affairs investigations are compiled and filed and Internal Affairs investigatory techniques.
(7) From July 1, 1999 until the end of the monitoring period or the time in which the monitor states that no further reporting is necessary pursuant to Section IV(Q)(9), whichever comes first, Defendants shall, on a quarterly basis, provide the monitor and Plaintiffs, in advance of the on-site inspections at a time mutually agreeable to the monitor and the Plaintiffs and Defendants, disciplinary records of Class Members housed in administrative segregation as follows:
(a) On a date to be agreed upon by the Plaintiffs and Defendants prior to the next inspection, the DOC shall crossreference the names of all inmates housed in administrative segregation units against the names of the Presumptive Class Members. A list of all Presumptive Class Members housed in administrative segregation units will be forwarded to the monitor
- 47 -

and an asterisk placed next to the name of any inmate placed in administrative segregation prior to the implementation of the Regulations.
(b) The monitor shall then select the names of inmates whose disciplinary records are requested. The monitor shall select no more than 40 names in the first reporting period. For subsequent reporting periods, the monitor shall select either 25 names or 15% of the class membership housed in administrative segregation, whichever is higher, but in no event more than 40 names.
(c) For each name selected by the monitor, Defendants shall provide (i) the disciplinary records which form the basis of the inmate's placement in administrative segregation, after having redacted the name of any confidential informant, the targets of ongoing investigations, the manner in which the fruits of Internal Affairs investigations are compiled and filed and Internal Affairs investigatory techniques; and (ii) any records related to the Special Administrative Segregation Review Committee ("SASRC") review of the inmate's continued confinement in administrative segregation.
8. From July 1, 1999 until the end of the monitoring period or the time in which the monitor states that no further reporting is necessary pursuant to Section IV(Q)(9), whichever comes first, Defendants shall, on a quarterly basis, provide the monitor with a list of the inmates on the SUs, RTUs and TCUs who have committed disciplinary infractions since the last reporting period. The monitor may then select names from this list for whom Defendants
- 48 -

shall provide the monitor with: (a) the records of that inmate's disciplinary action, after having redacted the name of anyconfidential informant, the targets of ongoing investigations, the manner in which the fruits of Internal Affairs investigations are compiled and filed and Internal Affairs investigatory techniques, and (b) any records related to the Special Administrative Segregation Review Committee ("SASRC") review of the inmate's confinement in administrative segregation.
(9) After each category has sunset, a conference call shall be held with the monitor, Plaintiffs and Defendants to discuss the reporting provisions set forth in Section IV(Q). During this conference call, the monitor shall advise Plaintiffs and Defendants which of the above referenced reporting documents are still relevant to the monitoring and should continue to be produced.
(10) The monitor can request, and Plaintiffs and Defendants shall negotiate, any other documents or reports which would assist the monitor in performing his/her duties under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
(11) In the event that "Defendants decide-' to_ produce a previously redacted document or previously withheld document, then this category of document will be produced thenceforth in the same manner.
- 49 -

V. INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS The DOC Health Services Unit Supervisor shall have primary
responsibility for responding to inmate complaints concerning mental health care and to whom Plaintiffs may forward inmates' concerns for action and for a response to counsel. All documents relating to complaints referred to and/or handled by the designees shall be forwarded by the DOC to the monitor, Plaintiffs, and the medical and mental health services provider(s) under contract with the DOC.
VI. NEW CONTRACTORS The DOC shall incorporate the relevant terms of the Settlement
Agreement related to programmatic requirements, policies and procedures and staffing in any subsequent Request for Proposal for medical or mental health care.
VII. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT 1. In his or her report, the monitor shall make a finding of
Substantial Compliance or Non-Compliance for each category identified in Section IV(G) (1) . As each category reaches 12 consecutive months of Substantial Compliance, it shall sunset and no longer be the subject of further monitoring.
2. Once each of" the categories identified in Section IV(G)(1) have sunset, the Settlement Agreement will automatically terminate, without a need for a motion by any party.
- 50 -

3. In the event that Defendants remedy a finding of NonCompliance in a category pursuant to Section (IV) (J) (6) , the 12 month period of continuous Substantial Compliance will begin again for that category pursuant to the terms of Section (IV).(J) (6) .
VIII. RETURN OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 1. Documents which have been marked "Confidential" during
the course of this litigation, have been designated Confidential under the terms of the Confidentiality Order (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "pre-settlement documents") or have been reviewed by or produced to the monitor (the "monitor documents") shall be returned to the DOC within thirty (30) days of the termination of the Settlement Agreement.
2. Upon request of CMS or CBS, pre-settlement documents and monitor documents which have been produced by CMS or CBS shall be returned to CMS or CBS the earliest of (i) the date they are no longer the medical or mental health service provider under contract with the DOC (but in no event earlier than the date of the order of dismissal) or (2) the end of the monitoring period.
3. Until the pre-settlement and monitor documents have been returned to Defendants, CMS or CBS as provided in Sections VIII(1) and VIII (2), Sandra Cobden, Esquire, shall be responsible for maintaining the pre-settlement documents in a secure location. Plaintiffs' counsel shall maintain the monitor documents in a secure location.
- 51 -

4. Plaintiffs shall not charge Defendants, CMS or CBS any administrative costs related to the return of the pre-settlement or monitor documents. Defendants, CMS and CBS shall be responsible for any shipping costs associated with the return of their presettlement and monitor documents.
IX. ALTERATIONS 1. The terms and conditions reflected in this Settlement
Agreement shall not be amended, changed or altered orally. Such terms and conditions may be amended, changed or altered only by written agreement between the parties through their respective counsel.
2. Should any party desire a modification of the confidentiality provisions at any time during the monitoring period, said party may apply to the court for a modification of these terms.
X. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY Plaintiffs and Defendants expressly acknowledge and agree that
this Settlement Agreement applies to the Amended Class Action Suit and does not constitute an admission of liability by Defendants or the DOC. This Settlement Agreement only affects Plaintiffs' claims raised in the Amended Class Action Suit in Exhibit A. Defendants have denied liability and expressly continue to deny liability despite their willingness to enter into this Settlement Agreement.
- 52 -

Except as otherwise provided herein, Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge and agree that this Settlement Agreement can be used for no purpose other than to set forth the understanding of the Plaintiffs and Defendants and may not be introduced as evidence in any other proceedings, nor form the basis of any other proceeding.
XI. DISSOLUTION AND SEVERABILITY Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that if any provision or
provisions of this Settlement Agreement are found to be contrary to law, the remaining provisions will not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect.
XII. DISSEMINATION Defendants shall provide a copy of the Settlement Agreement,
the Order Directing Notice of Proposed Settlement, the plain language summary in English and Spanish and the comment sheet with return envelope provided by Plaintiffs in a sealed envelope to each Presumptive Class Member listed on the special needs rosters on April 30, 1999. Dissemination to each of these Presumptive Class Members shall be made within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the Order Directing Notice of Proposed Settlement, the plain language summary in both English and Spanish, the comment sheet and return envelope provided by Plaintiffs shall also be given to each of the inmate paralegals in all DOC facilities and posted in the
- 53 -

administrative segregation units and law libraries within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Settlement Agreement. Dissemination of the Settlement Agreement, the Order Directing Notice of Proposed Settlement, the plain language summary in both English and Spanish and the comment sheet with return envelope will be made by DOC Social Workers who may be supplemented by DOC custody supervisors when necessary.
XIII. ENFORCEMENT 1. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that this is a mutually
binding Settlement Agreement. 2. The Settlement Agreement is a contract permitted under 18
U.S.C. Sec. 362(c) (2) (B) , enforceable under the law of contracts of the State of New Jersey.
3. Defendants have agreed to enter into this Settlement Agreement in consideration for Plaintiffs' agreement to accede to the dismissal of this litigation with prejudice.
4. Neither Defendants nor Plaintiffs shall challenge the validity of this Settlement Agreement on the ground that the signatories hereto lack the authority or capacity to contract or the ground that the Settlement Agreement is not supported by adequate consideration.
5. Plaintiffs' filing of a monitor's report that contains allegations of Defendants' breach of the Settlement Agreement with the court in connection with an action to enforce the Settlement
- 54 -

Agreement shall be deemed notice under the provisions of the New Jersey Contractual Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 59:13-5, and Defendants shall not, under these circumstances, oppose an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement for failure to satisfy statutory notice requirements, including the 90 day waiting period.
6. Actions to enforce the Settlement Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division unless otherwise prohibited by law. Venue shall be in Mercer County unless prohibited by £_,_ 4:3-2(a)(2) of the Rules Governing Civil Practice.
7. These provisions do not preclude the Plaintiff class from bringing a new action in federal court in the event that the monitor finds Defendants in Non-Compliance. In such an action, the
Plaintiff class will be permitted to use the portion of the monitor's report which specifically refers to the finding of NonCompliance, along with any documents supporting this specific finding. In addition, Plaintiffs may rely upon their knowledge of the monitor's report(s), the monitoring document(s), and the discovery produced pursuant to the Amended Class Action suit to formulate discovery requests. Use of any portion of the monitor's report or supporting documentation shall be governed by the remaining confidentiality provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, the provisions governing when and how documents shall be filed with the court under seal.
8. The parties agree that the Settlement Agreement is not a contract for personal services and that, in the event of a breach,
- 55 -

the Settlement Agreement is capable of judicial enforcement by way of specific performance unless otherwise prohibited by law.

XIV. SURVIVAL OF CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS The confidentiality provisions and obligations of this
Settlement Agreement shall survive the conclusion of this action.

XV. PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS FEES

Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in

the amount of $1,220,000. Except as otherwise provided herein,

Plaintiffs shall not make any further application for attorneys'

fees and costs.

Debevoise & Plimpton

Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Social Justice

By: Sandra Cobden, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs
DATED:

PETER VERNI ATTO

OF NEW JERSEY

By: V * ^ * ' Patricia Perlmutter, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs
DATED:

Dianrfe M. Moratti. Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants
DATED:
- 56 -

 
 D.M. v. Terhune

PC-NJ-001-005

CR • i. .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO JRT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ill•••: 0

C.F., D M , L.K.A.O. andJ.W, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
PLAINTIFFS,

.

— -

••-:

\

Civil Action No.:96-1840 (AET)

v.
GARY J.HILTON, HOWARD L. BEYER, EUGENE F. O'NEILL, JOHN FORKER, DR. THOMAS FARRELL, and DR. RICHARD CEVASCO, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. AND CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

Magistrate Judge John J. Hughes
AMENDED CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS.

THIS MATTER having been openejl to the Court by Kaliaon & McBride, P.A., atto/heys for

Defendant, Correctional Behavioral Solutions of New Jersey, Inc. ("CBS") (Paul R. Muijjhy, Esq.

appearing), and Laj(y, Holtzman, Gilligaii DufBn & Quasti, aAtomeys for Defendant Correctional

Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS") (Stephen D. Holtzman, Esq./appearing), and consent Having been

/

/

1

' /

obtained from Plaintiffs through their counsel Debevoise & Plimpton (MarV Beth Hogan, Esq. and

Sandra Cobden,[Esq. appearing), Setch Hall University School of U w Center for Social Justice

(Patricia Perlmuiter, Esq. appearing) aid Loughlin & Latini (Stephen Laiimer, Esq. appearing), and

from the remaining Defendants throuJh Peter Verniero, Attorney Genera/of the State! of New Jersey

(Dianne M. Moratti, D.A.G. and Andrew Sapolnick, D.A.G. appea/ing); and thfe Court luving

balanced the/interests of the Plainttffs in obtaining medical records/of certain inJiates at various

correctional/institutions in the Stite, confidential proprietary infor/nation and cdiain information^

described MN.J.A.C. 10A:22-2.2 jrom Defendants as jtell as the public's interest ir/open proceedings as set forth in Patsy v. Borough dTStroudsburg, 23 H3d 772 (3rt Jr. 1994) and Oleninede Trust Co.

v. Thon/pson, 56 F.3d 476 (37 Cir. 1995), again* the interest/of such inmatfe in preserving the

Exhibit D

confidentiality of their medical reiords and the itfaatteerests of Defendants in preserving the confidentiality

of their confidential proprietary (information and complying with their obligations under N J A C

lOA:22-2.2, jand in complying with their obligations under federal and state law to preserve the

confidentiality! of medical records, j including but notllimited to the confidentiality obligations imposed

on health care providers in the following New Jersey licensing regulations: N.J.AC 13 35-6 5

i

\

V

(physicians an^ psychiatrists); N . l A X . 13:42-8.5 psychologists); N.J.A.<^ 13:44G-12.3 (social

wanodrkreegrsu)l,aatinodnst,fte^ecloundfiindegnbtiuatlintyotolbimligitaetdiotnos Nim.Jp.oSs.eAd 2in6:v5a^ri-o7u(sAsItaDteS aAndssifsetdaenrcael cAocnjf)i;dNen.tJi.aSli.tAy s2tAat:u8te4s-

22.1 et seg. (physician-patient privilege in New Jersey Sjvidence Rule 506); NAf.S.A. 45:14B-28

(psychologist privilege in New Jersey Evidence Rule 505,''including social workers as extended in

Jaffee v. RedmundL 64 U.S.L.W. 44.90 (1996)); 42 U.S.C.A\§290dd-2 and 42 C . F A §2.11 et seg.

Vsubstance abuse records); N.J.S.A 30:4-82.4 (mental health records of inmates ir\ correctional

institutions in need\)f involuntary commitment); and N.J.AC. 1<\A:16-2.18 and N.J.A.c\oA:22-2.2

(medical records df inmates in correctional institutions); (the\ foregoing laws and regulations.

colUleeccttivel_y the "Cotlfidentiality Laws"); "and the Court having determined that the Stipulation of \

Cosnnfnidentiality and Protective Order entered on May 28, 1996 should be superseded in the intetests of

\

1*1

\

\

justice;\and good causi having been showni and the Court having found that the medical records of

various inmates shouldtiledisclosed because: 1. T\& claims are being\ asserted pursuant to federal law, and certain st^te

statutory pri^jleges may nit necessarily apply. 2. Thi medical records sought are necessary for a full development of the facts in

this litigation.

Plaintiffs' counsel are actSpg for the benefit of inrjjates who are, or may

become, Class M

in t lis litigation.

rZ>
mf

The msfdical information sought is not available through/iny source* other man

I

I

/

/ 7F

the medical recows of the inmates.

5. Obtaining the individual informed consent of each inmate ma/be impractical

and unreliable/in this case/given the vast number/of inmates M o would rave to cotftent to /isclosure

and the alleged mental conditions of those inmates who are or may become subject (o this litigation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this _ _ day of April, 1998, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26 that Defendants shall produce inmate medical records, confidential proprietary

information and 10A Information (all as are defined below) subject to the following provisions which

shall govern medical records, confidential proprietary information and 10A Information produced in

discovery in this litigation:

1. Definitions

For the purpose of this Order

A. "Medical records" means any written records or documentation of the '

medical and/or mental health services provided to any inmate, including but not limited to those

medical records deemed to be confidential pursuant to N.J.AC. 10A:22-2.2(a)(l). Medical records

shall also include any list of inmates receiving medical and/or mental health services.

B. "Confidential proprietary information" means any and all information,

material or documentation , other than* medical records, that has been or will be produced by CBS or

CMS at any time during the course of this litigation and which contain confidential business

information or trade secrets.

C. "10A Information" means any and all information, material or

documentation, other than medical records, internal affairs records or voting records ot

classification committee members, that have been or will be produced by the DOC Defendants at.

any time during the course of this litigation and which contains information described in NJLA

10A:22-2.2. Prior to production of 10A Information under this Order, the DOC defendants shall

redact the names of any confidential informants, the targets of ongoing investigations, the manner

in which the fruits of Internal Affairs investigations are compiled and filed and Internal Affairs i

investigatory techniques.

.

j

D. "Health care provider" means any physician (including any psychiatrist),

psychologist, clinical social worker, social worker, nurse, records clerk or other administrator or

employee, who is or was employed by, or under contract with the New Jersey Department of i

Corrections and/or Defendants Correctional Medical Services or Correctional Behavioral Solutions

and who is or was involved in the provision or administration of medical or mentaJ health care to '

i

inmates.

J

E. "Mental health service" means any psychiatric, psychological or social

work service provided by, or under the supervision of, a psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical, social

worker or social worker.

F. "Correctional Medical Services, Inc." or "CMS" is the corporation

which contracted with the New Jersey State Department of Corrections to provide medical services to

inmates commencing April 27, 1996, and which contracted for the provision of mental health services

to inmates on August 17, 1996 and subcontracted the provision of mental health services to inmates to

Correctional Behavioral Solutions on that same date.

G. "Correctional Behavioral Solutions, Inc." or "CBS" is the corporation

which provides mental health services to inmates pursuant to a subcontract with Correctional Medical

Services commencing on August 17, 1996.

H. "Class Member" means all persons who suffer DSM IV, Axis I and/or Axis II disorders such that they are unable to meet the functional requirements of prison life without mental health treatment, who now or in the future will be confined within the facilities of the New Jersey Department of Corrections, as certified by Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dated November 20, 1996.
2. Confidentiality Designations A. Medical Records: Except as permitted under Paragraph 8A, all
medical records shall be deemed "Confidential". If any medical records are filed with the Court, they shall be redacted by the offering party to eliminate the name, number and other identifying information of the inmate who is the subject of the record. During depositions and at trial, the parties agree to use a key that permits the identification of the named plaintiffs and other class members by pseudonym.
B. Those parts of trial or deposition testimony, deposition transcripts, exhibits, memoranda of law, certifications and affidavits which refer to, or consist o£ confidential proprietary information or 10A information shall be deemed "Confidential." If any such items are filed with the Court, they shall befiledunder seal.
C. Confidential Proprietary Information and 10A Information: (i) Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Defendants will
notify Plaintiffs which, if any, of the documents previously produced shall be designated as "Confidential." The producing party's failure to so notify Plaintiffs will result in the automatic removal of the Confidentiality designation.
(ii) Prior to producing any document which Defendants believe contain confidential proprietary information or I0A information, the producing party may designate the document as "Confidential". Documents designated as "Confidential" must be sent to Plaintiffs', counsel under separate cover accompanied by a letter clearly indicating that the documents have been

designated as "Confidential".

(iii) Plaintiffs1 counsel will review any document designated as!

"Confidential" under (i) or (ii) to determine whether they consent to such designation and will notify

the producing party of their decision.

«

i
(iv) If Plaintiffs' counsel does not consent to the designation of a j

document as "Confidential" then Plaintiffs! counsel may seek further relief from the Court within thirty '

0

I

I

(30) days by letter application and conference telephone call with the Court. Prior to such application, •

Plaintiffs' counsel shall confer with the affected Defendant in accordance with L.Civ.R.37.

(v) Until the later of the expiration of the thirty (30) day period

without application to the Court or an Order of the Court entered on an application under (iv), the

documents shall be treated as "Confidential" and entitled to the benefits of this Order.

D. Internal Affairs Records and Voting Records of Classification

Committee Members: Internal Affairs records and voting records of classification committee members

shall be deemed confidential. If any such items are filed with the Court, they shall be filed under seal.

Prior to producing internal affairs records and voting records of classification committee members, the

DOC defendants shall redact the name of any confidential informant, the targets of ongoing

investigations, the manner in which the fruits of Internal Affairs investigations are compiled and filed

and Internal Affairs investigatory techniques.

3.

Production of Medical Records

A. The New Jersey Department of Corrections shall produce medical records of inmates to Plaintiffs' counsel in the following instances:

1I) medical records of the named plaintiffs herein shall be produced without obtaining the consent of such named plaintiffs;

(2) medical records of inmates who have been determined to be

Class Members shall be produced without obtaining the consent of such Class Member; (3) medical records of any inmate who committed suicide while
incarcerated from and after April 11,1996;

(4) medical records of any inmate, who is neither a named plaintift" nor a Class Member, shall be produced upon the execution of the Authorization For Disclosure/Release of Health Information Including Alcohol And/Or Drug Abuse, HTV/AIDS and Psychiatric Records in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, or upon further Order of this Court.
(5) medical records of any inmates who, prior to the date of this Order, have executed a release prepared by Plaintiffs' counsel. The Court finds that these previously executed releases satisfy the requirements of the Confidentiality Laws and good cause exists to give effect to such releases until entry of a final, non-appealable Order in this case, subject to the terms of this Order and the inmate's right to revoke such release.

4.

Use of Medical Records, Confidential Proprietary Information and 10A

Information

;

Except as permitted under Paragraph 8A, all persons obtaining access to i

medical records under this Order shall use the records or information only for preparation and trial of

this action, including any appeal or retrial, and shall not use such records or information for any other
purpose. All persons obtaining access to confidential proprietary information or 10A Information

under this Order shall use the records or information only for the preparation and trial of this action

including any appeal or retrial, and shall not use such records or information for any other purpose.

5.

Disclosure of Medical Records, Confidential Proprietary Information and

JOA Information

A. Except as permitted under Paragraph 8A, medical records may be

disclosed only to the following persons. Confidential proprietary information and 10A Information

shall be disclosed only to the following persons:

(1) Any health care provider,

(2) Any of the named defendants, including their directors, officers.

employees, agents and personnel or any administrative personnel of the New Jersey Department of

Corrections who is determined by defendants to be necessary to assist in the defense of this action.

(3) Counsel for the parties to this action or counsel for any health

care provider, including partners, associates, law clerks, law students, secretaries, paralegal assistants,

and employees of such counsel to the extent reasonably necessary to render professional services in this

action;

(4) Court officials involved in this action;

(5) Court reporting personnel involved in taking or transcribinu

testimony in this action;

(6) Any person that the Court in this action designates in the

interest ofjustice, upon terms that the Court deems proper, and

(7) Former employee witnesses, outside non-party consultants or

experts retained for purpose of assisting counsel in this action.

B. Neither the New Jersey Department of Corrections, CMS, CBS nor j

their counsel shall reveal the name of any class member or discuss the class member's role in this case

with any custody personnel or health care provider other than in connection with the delivery of health care services to such inmate or for the preparation of its defense in this case. The New Jersey Department of Corrections, CMS, CBS and their counsel shall inform any custody personnel or health care provider, to whom such disclosure is necessary for the preparation of their defense in this case, that the identities and roles of all class members must remain confidential.
C. Persons obtaining access to 10A Information or diagnostic or evaluative information set forth in medical records shall not disclose 10A Information or the substance of the diagnostic or evaluative information to any named Plaintiffs, any Class Members or any other inmate; however, factual information contained in such records may be verified by the specific Class Member who is the subject of such 10A Information or medical record.
D. Should any Class Member voluntarily disclose his or her identity, the defendants may initiate a conference call with the Court to determine whether and to what extent the provisions of this Amended Confidentiality and Protective Order shall continue to be applicable.
E. Any person receiving information under this Paragraph 5.A. or 8.A. shall be provided a copy of this Order and shall execute an acknowledgment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B in which such person shall agree to be bound by the terms hereof.
6. Deposition and Trial Testimony Deposition and trial testimony by health care providers shall be permitted
regarding any inmate who is subject to Paragraph 3. For the purpose of providing deposition testimony only, the parties agree that any inmate who has a prescription for any of the medications set forth on Exhibit C or is the subject of a forced medication order is presumably a class member. CMS agrees that it will use its best efforts to update such lists every thirty (30) days during the conduct of depositions.

7. Subpoenas or Other Discovery Requests Seeking Medical Records Or Confidential Proprietary Information If any party or person that has obtained medical records, confidential
proprietary information or 10A Information under the terms of this Order receives a subpoena or other discovery request commanding the production of any such records or information, such party or person shall immediately notify the party or person that produced the medical records or confidential proprietary information of the service of the subpoena or request, so that such party may object to the production of the medical records or confidential proprietary information, and seek to quash the subpoena or have an appropriate protective order entered.
8. Miscellaneous A. Nothing in this Order shall preclude or prevent an inmate who is the
subject of a medical record from expressly consenting to a specific, broader or wider dissemination of his or her own medical records through Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel shall give Defendants ten (10) days written notice of any such proposed dissemination. If Defendants do not consent to such dissemination. Defendants may seek further relief from the Court within ten (10) days by letter application and conference telephone call with the Court. Prior to such application. Defendants' counsel shall confer with Plaintiffs' counsel in accordance with L.Civ.R.37. In no event shall any diagnostic or evaluative parts of the medical records be disclosed directly to the inmate who is the subject of the record or to anyone who could reasonably be acting as the inmate's agent. The name of any person who makes ar mental health diagnostic evaluation shall not be disclosed, other than as permitted under Paragraph S(A).
10

B. Nothing herein shall affect any party's or person's right to object to any discovery request, including the right to assert that no discovery should be had of certain documents or information.
C. The confidentiality provisions and obligations of this Order shall survive the conclusion of this action.
D. Should any party desire a modification of this Amended Confidentiality and Protective Order at any time during this litigation, said pa/ty may apply to the Court for a modification of its terms.
Hon. Jdhn J. Huetfes, U.SMJ.
11

EXHrBIT A
AUTHORIZATION FOR DISCLOSURE/RELEASE OF HEALTH INFORMATION INCLUDING ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUG ABUSE, HIV/AIDS AND PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS
To: The N.J, Department of Corrections, Correctional Medical Services, Inc. and Correctional Behavioral Solutions, Inc.

I,

, authorize you to disclose and provide to the

Name

attorneys, law students and other staff of the Seton Hail Univeristy School of Law Civil Litigation Clinic and the

law firms of Debevoise & Plimpton and Laughlin & Latimer, any and all information relating to my incarceration,

including, but not limited to, medical and psychiatric records, disciplinary reports, classification documents,

criminal records and parole reports. This authorization extends to all documents in your possession,

regardless of their original source. It also permits you and your employees or consultants and my mental

health care provider to give deposition or trial testimony about this information and all medical and mental

health information about me received during the course of my mental health treatment

I understand that this authorization can include but is not limited to the release of information concerning drug and/or alcohol use, venereal disease, AIDS, HIV infection, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis, psychosocial history and treatment recommendations.

I understand that at any time I may revoke this authorization, except to the extent action has already been taken, by a written notice to Oebevoise & Plimpton, Laughlin & Latimer, Seton Han University School of Law Civil Litigation Clinic, the New Jersey Department of Corrections, Correctional Medical Services, Inc. or Correctional Behavioral Solutions, Inc. This consent is effective immediately. I hereby release the New Jersey Department of Corrections, Correctional Medical Services, Inc., and Correctional Behavioral Solutions, Inc.. their employees, personnel, officers, directors and physicians and mental health professionals from any and alt legal responsibility or liability resulting from the release of the above information to the extent indicated and authorized herein.

Signature:.

Prison or Jail:

Date:

Inmate Identification No.; 12

EXHIBIT B Acknowledgment

The undersigned acknowledges receipt of a copy of, has read and agrees to be bound by

the terms of, the Amended Confidentiality and Protective Order dated

, 1998

entered in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Honorable John J.

Hughes, U.S.M.J. in the matter of C.F. v. Hilton, Civil Action No. 96-1840 (AET).

13

EXHIBIT C
Brand Name
Clausiril Clorazil Haldol Lithane.Lithobid.Eskalith Mellaril Navane Norpramin Paxil Prollxin Prozac Risperdol Stelazine Thorazine Tofranll Triavll, Etrafon Trilafon Zyprexa

Generic Name
N/A . Clozapine Haloperidol Lithium Thlorodazine Thlothlxine Desipramine Paroxctine Fluphenazine Fluoxetine Hcl Risperidone Trifluoperazine Chlorpromazine Imlpramine Perphenazine/Amltriptyline Perphenazine
N/A

c:\docs\jai\fauver\conrd 16

14

 
 D

JOHN J. FARMER, JR.

Attorney General of NewJersey

Attorney for Defendants

Jack Terhune, Mary Ellen Bolton,

Howard L. Beyer, Eugene F. O'Neill,

Thomas Farrell andDr. Richard Cevasco

R.J. Hughes Justice Complex

25 Market Street By: Dianne M. M o r a t t i

iiiiiiiiiiiiHHiiii „.. x,inn D.M. v. Terhune IIII II III 111111 HflllllM

Deputy Attorney General
(609) 633-3985 DM 7667

PC-NJ-001-006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.
VICINAGE OF TRENTON

C.F., D.M., L.K., A.O. and J.W., ) HONORABLE ANNE E. THOMPSON 1

individually and on behalf of

:

all others similarly situated )

Plaintiffs, v.
JACK TERHUNE, et al. Defendants.

Civil Action No. 96-1840(AET) )
ADDENDUM TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT )
)

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Class Members C.F., D.M., L.K.,A.O. and J.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on April 11, 1996 against Defendants Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections Jack Terhune, Chief of Staff Mary Ellen Bolton, Assistant Commissioner Howard L. Beyer, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer Eugene F. O'Neill, Health Services Unit Supervisor Thomas Farrell and Director of Psychological Services Dr. Richard Cevasco, in their official capacity, seeking wide-ranging injunctive relief

o

o

on behalf of a class of mentally ill inmates; and an Amended Complaint was filed on July 16, 1997; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 1999, the plaintiff class and the DOC defendants entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving all aspects of the litigation; and a fairness hearing was held before the Honorable John J. Hughes, U.S.M.J., on July 6, 1999; and the Court approved the settlement agreement by Order dated July 30, 1999; and
WHEREAS, Section IX(1) of the Settlement Agreement provides that
The terms and conditions reflected in this Settlement Agreement shall not be amended, changed or altered orally. Such terms and conditions may be amended, changed or altered only by written agreement between the parties through their respective counsel.; and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated this Addendum to the Settlement Agreement as a result of the Plaintiffs1 concerns about the length of time it is taking Defendants to achieve substantial compliance in all categories; Through this Addendum, the parties now desire to amend certain terms of the Settlement Agreement", in writing, in the following manner: 1. The parties' monitor, Dr. Raymond Patterson, shall expand his monitoring role under Section IV of the Settlement Agreement, to include a consulting role. In his consulting role, Dr. Patterson shall, provide input to the parties to assist the DOC defendants in achieving substantial compliance with all terms of
the Settlement Agreement. This shall be accomplished by inter - 2-

o

n

aliaf having meetings with Plaintiffs' counsel, defendants and the medical/mental health services provider to discuss the Settlement Agreement criteria and mechanisms for meeting those criteria, and discussion with internal quality improvement evaluators from the DOC and the medical/mental health services provider to demonstrate substantial compliance with criteria over time.
2. The DOC Defendants shall develop an Action Plan which Dr. Patterson shall review and critique as part of his consulting role. The action plan shall:(a) have measurable goals; (b) analyze the obstacles to achieving those goals; (c) set forth dates certain for overcoming those obstacles; and (d) set forth a methodology for producing data for measuring Defendants• progress in achieving the Action Plan. The parties agree that the Action Plan will be implemented in stages in accordance with the priorities suggested by Dr. Patterson and that the dates set forth in the Plan shall reflect these stages.
3. The process of monitoring of the DOC facilities shall be amended as follows:
(A) An additional 3 monitors ("Assistant Monitors") shall be hired, at the expense of the DOC, to assist Dr. Patterson in monitoring the DOC facilities. The Assistant Monitors shall be recommended by Dr. Patterson and approved by Plaintiffs' counsel and the DOC defendants. In the event that any Assistant Monitor is unable to continue the monitoring function, a new Assistant Monitor will recommended by Dr. Patterson and approved by counsel for the plaintiffs and the DOC.
- 3-

i)
(B)- Unless-otherwise jointly agreed to by the parties, the monitors will go to the same facilities on each visit. The decision as to which monitors will be assigned to which facilities will be made by Dr. Patterson, with input from Plaintiffs' counsel and the DOC defendants.
(C) In accordance with the terms and priorities of the Action Plan, each facility shall be inspected for every applicable criteria in every applicable category during each inspection, beginning with the next inspection in August 2001. As a facility reaches 12 months of continuous substantial compliance in a particular category, the monitor will cease to inspect that facility regarding that category as long as the facility submits documentation to show it remains in substantial compliance. Drz Patterson shall determine the types of documentation necessary to demonstrate substantial compliance. In the event of a compelling hardship on the Defendants, upon consultation with Dr. Patterson, the parties may, prior to the compliance period, negotiate those criteria for which substantial compliance is demonstrated through visits rather than the*" production of documentation.
(D) A facility shall be deemed to be non-compliant if it fails to produce the required documentation, or the documentation that a facility produces indicates that it has become non-compliant in a category in which it was previously substantially compliant unless Defendants cure this non-compliance pursuant to the provisions of Section IV (J) of the Settlement Agreement. If the non-compliance is not cured, the facility must start over its
- 4-

O

;)

efforts to achieve 12 months of continuous substantial compliance in that particular category. Once all facilities to which a category applies have reached 12 months of continuous substantial compliance in a particular category, the category will automatically sunset and no additional reporting or inspecting will be required regarding that category.
(E) Henceforth, each DOC facility shall be inspected during each inspection, unless that facility has achieved substantial compliance or provides services solely in categories that have sunset. It is anticipated that the need to inspect all facilities for all categories will decrease over time. As the need for such inspections in every category at each facility decreases, Dr~j Patterson will likewise limit the number of Assistant Monitors he requires accordingly. Once an Assistant Monitor's assigned facilities reach 12 months of continuous substantial compliance, it will no longer be necessary for this Assistant Monitor to return to New Jersey.
4. The monitor's written report shall be prepared by Dr. Patterson with input from the Assistant Monitors. The report shall be organized according to the categories set forth in Section IV(G)(1) of the Settlement Agreement and shall contain a report as to the compliance level of each facility within each criteria in each category. The report shall contain the information set forth in Section IV(G)(2) of the Settlement Agreement as to each facility within each criteria in each category.

- 5-

O

5. Section IV(F) of the Settlement is amended to permit any party to write to Dr. Patterson as long as all other parties and the medical and mental health provider(s) are copied. This same section is further amended to permit regular conference calls among Dr. Patterson, the parties, and others as agreed upon by the parties.
6. Section IV (Q) (6) (q) (iii) which states "the facts set forth in the Quality Assurance reports cannot form the basis of the monitor's, opinion" shall be deleted.

Debevoise & Plimpton

Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Social Justice

ldra Cobden, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs

(o DATED:

JOHN J. Pi ATTOF

JR. OF NEW JERSEY

Patricia Perlmutter, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs
DATED: £/ 7 CO{

Diawfe m Moratti DejgfQty Attorney General Attorney for Defendants
DATED:

 
 AUTHORIZATION POR DISCLOSURE/RELEASE OP HEALTH INFORMATION INCLUDING ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUG ABUSE. HIS/AIDS AND PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS

To: The N.J. Department of Corrections, Correctional Medical Services, Inc and Correctional .Behavioral Solutions, Inc.

If

/ authorize you to disclose and provide to the

(Name)

attorneys, law students and other staff of the Seton Hall University

School of Law Civil Litigation Clinic, the law firm of Debevoise and

Plimpton, and Dr. Raymond Patterson, any and all information relating to

my incarceration including, but not limited to, medical and psychiatric

records, disciplinary reports classification documents, criminal records

and parole reports. This authorization extends to all documents in your

possession, regardless of their original source. It also permits you and

your employees or consultants and my mental health care provider to give

court testimony and information to the monitor about this information and

all medical and mental health information about me received during the

course of my mental health treatment.

I understand that this authorization can include, but is not limited to the release of information concerning drug and/or alcohol use, venereal disease, AIDS, HIV infection, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis, psychosocial history and treatment recommendations.

I understand that at any time I may revoke this authorization, except to the extent action has already been taken, by a written notice to Debevoise & Plimpton, Seton Hall University School of Law civil Litigation Clinic, the New Jersey Department of Correction, Correction Medical Services, Inc. or Correctional Behavioral Solutions, Inc. This consent is effective immediately. I hereby release the New Jersey Department of Correction, Correction Medical Services, Inc. and Correctional Behavioral Solutions, Inc., their employees, personnel, officers, directors and physicians"and mental health professionals from any and all legal responsibility or liability resulting from the release of the above information to the extent indicated and authorized herein.

Signature:.

Prison or Jail:

Inmate Identification Number:. D.M. v. Terhune

PC-NJ-001-007 Exhibit E

 
 PETER VERNIERO Attorney General of New Jersey Attorney for Defendants
Jack Terhune, Mary Ellen Bolton, Howard L. Beyer, Eugene F. O'Neill, Thomas Farrell and Dr. Richard Cevasco R.J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street P.O. Box 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625

?ui V M

By: D i a n n e M. M o r a t t i
Deputy Attorney General
(609) 633-3985 DM 7667

IIII II | | | | | | II || III I
IIII II III III II 11 III I
PC-NJ-001-008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VICINAGE OF TRENTON

C.F., D.M., L.K., A.O. and J.W., ) HONORABLE ANNE E. THOMPSON individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated )

Plaintiffs, v. JACK TERHUNE, et al.
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 96-1840(AET) )
) ORDER ENTERING JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
)
)

The claims in this action having been settled and resolved by

and between C.F., D.M., L.K., A.O. and J.W. individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated ("the Plaintiffs") and

Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections Jack

Terhune, Chief of Staff Mary Ellen Bolton, Assistant Commissioner

Howard L. Beyer, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer Eugene F.

O'Neill, Health Services Unit Supervisor Thomas Farrell and

Director of Psychological Services Dr. Richard Cevasco, having been

sued in their official capacity ("the Defendants"); and

Exhibit G

__,,,,_„,,.,

....

-

• ••

—"*m

WHEREAS, the Court having reviewed the affidavit of

Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Dennis Koson and any comments received by

Defendants' expert; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c) and 23(e), the Court

having reviewed the Settlement Agreement, the comments of the

individual class members and counsels' submissions to the Court,

with heightened scrutiny in light of the mental disabilities of the

Plaintiff class and having found that the Settlement Agreement is

fair and reasonable; and

WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement provides for the payment of

$1,220,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to the Plaintiffs' counsel.

IT IS on this

day of July, 1999

ORDERED that this action and the claims asserted herein by the

Plaintiffs against the Defendants shall be dismissed with prejudice

in accordance with the Settlement Agreement between the

aforementioned parties.

Honorable John J. Hughes, U.S.M.J.

- 2-

 
 EXHIBIT B
MOOEL FOR ENHANCED MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM A. SCOPE OF ENHANCED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES:
This Plan is a comprehensive program developed to address the mental health needs of incarcerated individuals who fall under the auspices of the New Jersey Department of Corrections ("DOC"). This Plan, including the new units, will be designed to accommodate all types of mentally ill inmates, including the subset of mentally ill inmates who exhibit aggressive tendencies. The Plan has seven major components:
(1) Reception Evaluations (2) Stabilization Units, (SU) (3) Residential Treatment Units, (RTU) (4) Transitional Care Units, (TCU) (5) Outpatient Care, (6) Inpatient psychiatric care, and (7) Construction The DOC has in place at all of its facilities a policy on the Involuntary Administration of Psychotropic Medication. This policy, combined with the establishment of Stabilization Units, Residential Treatment Units and Transition Care Units places the DOC in a position to more effectively manage and treat those inmates who suffer from mental illness.
D.M. v. Terhune
PC-NJ-001-009

1. RECEPTION EVALUATIONS One important factor is how the DOC will track inmates with
mental illness to ensure that they receive the mental health services they need. This also includes discharge planning upon release from the DOC. An important aspect of this tracking system is the early identification and intervention of those inmates who suffer from mental illness. Enhanced evaluation services for the early identification of mental illness and suicidal behavior with quick access to intervention is necessary.
Reception evaluations v/ill be psychological evaluations that will address the DOC's needs in two ways. The first goal of these evaluations will be to provide a comprehensive history of the inmate's mental health along with treatment recommendations. The second goal of these evaluations will be to provide the Classification Committee with useful information regarding the inmate's appropriateness for custody status and any specialized treatment that would benefit the inmate while incarcerated.
These reception evaluations will be completed within 72 hours of the inmate arriving at a reception facility. It is noted that nursing will be required to complete a nursing assessment, which will include a brief mental health assessment, to be conducted immediately upon arrival (in no cases longer than 4 hours after arrival) at a reception facility. When nursing identifies an inmate with a history of mental illness or suicidal intention, an immediate referral will be made to mental health. This referral will include a written assessment along with verbal communication
- 2-

to the lead psychologist. If the nursing assessment is conducted after hours, the on-call psychiatrist will be contacted.
If placement on a SU or RTU is warranted, nursing and mental health will make the necessary arrangements to effectuate a transfer to an appropriate unit. When an inmate who has been identified at Central Reception & Assignment Facility ("CRAF") as being a "Special Needs" inmate is transferred to his parent institution, the lead psychologist at CRAF will contact the lead psychologist at the receiving institution and inform the psychologist of the transfer. This will ensure continuity of care.
Reception Staff Staff to complete evaluations should be sufficient enough so
that the mental health staff (psychologists) are not completing more than 15 evaluations per eight hour day. Additional Social Worker staff will be needed to provide the on-going treatment needs of inmates housed in reception facilities.
2, STABILIZATION UNITS Stabilization Units (SU) for psychiatric/psychological
emergencies will be established at Northern State Prison ("NSP"), New Jersey State Prison ("NJSP"), and Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women ("EMCFW"). These units will be regionalized to provide coverage for all 14 DOC facilities.
The goal of these units will be to provide short terra (3 - 10 days), intensive mental health care to reduce acute symptoms,
- 3-

stabilize the inmate or transfer the inmate to the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital ("FPH"). These units will be established so as to provide 24 hour nursing coverage. Psychiatric coverage will be on call 24 hours a day.
Suicide Watch Procedures will happen on these units when it is deemed that the inmate cannot be managed on his/her regular housing unit.
A. Bed Space Bed space allocated for Stabilization Units will need to be
fluid and flexible enough to expand and collapse as inmate needs vary. The institutions outlined below offer the most flexibility with regard to housing space availability.
I. New Jersey State Prison NJSP will have access to 16 beds for females and 48 beds for males. Female inmates will be housed on 1GG, which has 16 beds available. It is likely that not all of these beds will be utilized at the same time. Bed space that is not being utilized for SU beds will be used as transitional housing for discharge from the SU. Male inmates will be housed in the South Compound at NSJP. These housing units are set up in 48 bed units that can be separated into two 24 bed units. This flexibility will allow the DOC to designate one of these 24 bed units as a SU and the other to
- 4-

serve as an overflow unit if needed. It will also make expansion of SU easier in the future.
II. Northern State Prison NSP has a 30 bed unit adjacent to the hospital area that will be designated as an SU. It is a two-tiered unit that will also afford flexible housing. It is reasonable to assume that at least 15 of these beds will be utilized at any one time. The cells on the first tier would be designated as SU cells. The cells on the second tier would be used for either SU cells or transitional housing cells for mentally ill offenders.
III. Edna Mahan Correctional Facility EMCFW will need to establish a small SU or two or three cells. These cells would be holding cells used prior to the inmate being transferred to NJSP's SU for females.
B. Treatment Review Committee Each SU will establish a Treatment Review Committee which will
be comprised of the treating psychiatrist, treating psychologist, nurse for the unit and correction officer representative. This committee will be responsible for directing an inmate's treatment while on the unit and discharge from the unit.
- 5-

Criteria for Admission tn a an (1) Suicidal thought or other indicators of imminent self injurious behavior; (2) Exhibition of signs of emotional instability; (3) Abrupt behavioral changes in behavior that require close monitoring; (4) Exhibition of behavior that is not appropriate for the inmate's regular housing unit which may be an indication of underlying emotional disturbance; (5) Psychological/Psychiatric decompensation due to medication non-compliance; (6) Inmate is in need of Suicide Watch and it would best be accomplished on a SU rather than the inmate's regular housing unit.
Professional staff will clinically drive admission to a SU. All inter-institutional transfers into a SU will have the inmate's Medical/Dental record accompany the inmate to the SU. A nursing evaluation will be completed within 1 hour of placement of a SU. Nursing assessment will include relevant medical, mental health and medication issues. After placement on the SU, the RN assigned to the SU will contact the psychiatrist and obtain all necessary orders for medications, clothing articles, etc. The order will be documented in the inmate's Medical/Dental record.
A psychiatric evaluation will be completed within 24 hours of placement on a SU. A comprehensive treatment plan will be formulated and documented within 48 hours of placement on the SU.
- 6 -

This treatment plan will clearly outline relevant clinical issues and proposed treatment modalities to ameliorate the current crisis.
After hours placements will be done with the approval of the on-call Administrator.
p. Treatment Services While on the SU Nursing coverage will be 24 hours a day. At a minimum, while
on the SU, the inmate will be seen daily by the psychiatrist and the psychologist (Monday - Saturday). Treatment will center on those issues generated by the treatment plan. The primary mode of treatment will be individual psychotherapy. Mental health coverage will be Monday - Friday, 9 a.m. - 8 p.m. Saturday coverage will include 8 hours by mental health staff.
E. Discharge from a SU The Treatment Review Committee will determine when the inmate
is sufficiently stabilized to be either returned to his/her regular housing unit or a Residential Treatment Unit. Upon discharge, the Treatment Review Committee will outline additional mental health or medical services that are to be provided to the inmate upon discharge from the SU. These finding will be documented in the inmate's Medical/Dental record. The Treatment Review Committee chairperson will be responsible for notifying the lead mental health staff person of the facility where the inmate is to be transferred of the relevant clinical issues.
- 7-

Inmates returned from FPH will be placed on a SU and then discharged to a Residential Treatment Unit when clinically appropriate.
Staff Psychiatrists 1 (FTE): 35 inmates Psychologists 1 (FTE): 50 inmates Licensed Clinical Social Worker 1 (FTE): 25 inmates Psychiatric nurse per unit: One nurse first shift (7 days per
week)
Two Psychiatric nurses on second shift Monday - Friday One Psychiatric nurse on second shift for both Saturday and Sunday
RN nursing staff coverage per unit (1 FTE) for third shift when psychiatric nurses are relieved.
Total possible beds: 97
3 . RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNITS AND TRANSITIONAL CARE UNITS The Residential Treatment Units and Transitional Care Units
(step-down) share similar goals. Their objective is to stabilize, support and ensure positive reintegration of the inmate into a regular housing unit. On these units, there will be intensive, multi disciplinary programming available to the inmates. Admission
- 8-

to and discharge from these units will be based on clinical decisions, supported by documentation in the medical record.
A. Goftls of Residential Treatment Units (RTU) The Residential Treatment Units will have two main objectives:
(1) further stabilization of the inmate after the "crisis" has passed, and (2) provide meaningful programming aimed at aiding the inmate's adjustment to general population housing. It is reasonable to expect that some of these inmates may never develop the coping skills necessary to adjust to- general population and, therefore, may never transfer out of an RTU.
B. Goals of Transitional Care Unit (TCU) TCU will be a designation utilized for those inmates who are
higher functioning and who have the potential to adjust to the general population housing. This unit will allow these inmates to make a gradual adjustment to general population.
Criteria for Admission to an RTU or TCU Admissions determinations will be directed by mental health staff using the following criteria. (1) Discharge from a SU (2) Chronic mental illness with a poor adjustment to general population (3) Abrupt behavioral change, but not severe enough to warrant Suicide Watch Procedures
- 9-

(4) Vague suicidal ideation (not actively self-injurious)
D. Programming Services. Within 24 hours of placement on an RTU, nursing staff will
complete a nursing assessment, documenting relevant findings on the inmate's Mental/Dental record. Within 48 hours of placement on an RTU, the inmate will be interviewed by the psychiatrist and psychologist and have a treatment plan developed outlining shortterm and long-term treatment goals. The treatment plan will also recommend appropriate programming. A day treatment program model will be utilized. The program staff will be multi disciplinary in nature (psychiatric nurses, teachers, recreation staff and occupational therapists) . Program will be provided 8 a.m. - 8 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 hours on Saturday and Sunday. Staff should be scheduled in such a way as to provide on site coverage by at least one mental health worker per unit, seven days a week. The inmate assigned to one of these units will be programmed with as much out of cell time as is clinically directed by the treatment plan.
E. Location of Units 1. New Jersey State Prison: NJSP will have two 48 bed units
dedicated as an RTU. These units will ideally be in the South Compound and as close to the SU as is possible.
2. Northern State Prison: NSP will have two 40 bed units.
- 10 -

3. Southwonds State Pri son• SWSP will house 127 inmates. These beds will be utilized by "higher functioning" inmates with mental illness who are programming at a higher level and who are more capable of making a suitable adjustment to general population. It is likely that due to the size of this unit there will be a mixture of inmates with regard to their stability. SWSP's program will be somewhat more flexible than NSP's or NSJP's because SWSP is classified as a Medium Security facility.
4. Edna Mahan Correctional Facility: EMCFW will have 15 beds designated as a RTU. These beds will be utilized for inmates who can be managed at EMCFW. Those inmates who cannot be managed within the confines of EMCFW will be transferred to NJSP for assignment in their RTU.
F_». Staff Psychiatrists 1 (FTE): 75 inmates Psychologists 1 (FTE): 30 inmates Licensed Clinical Social Worker 1 (FTE): 25 inmates Occupational Therapists 1 (FTE): 30 inmates
Psychiatric nurse per unit: One nurse first shift (7 days per week)
Two Psychiatric nurses on second shift Monday - Friday
One Psychiatric nurse on second shift for both Saturday and
Sunday
- 11 -

RN nursing staff coverage per unit (1 FTE) for third shift when psychiatric nurses are relieved.
In addition, SWSP will add an extra RN on each shift (7 days per week) due to the population of this unit.
Total possible beds: 318
G. Discharge Procedures Every inmate on an RTU or TCU will be reviewed by the
Treatment Review Committee at least monthly to document the inmate's progress towards treatment plan goals. These reviews will be documented in the inmate's Medical/Dental record. When the committee feels that the inmate has maximized treatment benefit a recommendation will be made to have the inmate returned to a regular housing population unit.
Once discharged from this unit, the chairperson of the Treatment Review Committee will be responsible for contacting the lead psychologist of the institution the inmate will be transferred to so as to ensure continuity of care.
OUTPATIENT SERVICES Out patient services need to be sufficient enough so that inmates discharged from RTU's will have ample programming available
to them in general population, as well as having enough staff
available to provide mental health services to the rest of the
- 12 -

general population of inmates who may not suffer from a diagnosable mental illness. The ratios below reflect this intention. This will include mental health rounds in the Administrative Segregation Units. These rounds will be scheduled to ensure that every inmate in Administrative Segregation is seen at least once every 10 days by a mental health professional.
The staff below does not include psychological staff to complete Psychological Evaluations for the N.J. State Parole Board or for the Institutional Classification Committees.
Staff 1 FTE Psychiatry: 125 inmates on case load 1 FTE Psychologist or Licensed Social Worker: 50 inmates on case load
5. INPATIENT SERVICES Inpatient Psychiatric Care will continued to be provided
through the civil commitment process at FPH.
§, TRAINING A. Correction Officer Training
Correction Officer staff will need enhanced training. This will involve 2 different focuses. The first will be to train every officer on the early warning signs of mental illness and how it can be manifested in a correctional environment. This will be very similar to what the recruits receive at the Correction Officer
- 13 -

Training Academy. Every Officer should have yearly training as a refresher on mental health issues. It is conceivable that a 3 or 4 year cycle of training can be established so that it is not repetitive.
The second focus involves those officer and supervisory staff who will be responsible for working on the SU and RTU housing units. This training will need to be more involved and extensive than that given to the corrections officer who is not working on one of these units. Training components will be: understanding mental illness, the different types of- mental illness, how to manage a mentally ill inmate, disciplinary procedures for mentally ill inmates when they are housed on SU and RTU, crisis intervention strategies, early warning signs of suicide, stress management and training on new policies and procedures that will be generated due to the creation of these units.
At a minimum, all corrections officers should receive 4 - 7 hours of mental health training per year. An additional 7 hours is appropriate for those officers who are working on the SU and RTU.
B. Other Staff Training Internal Affairs investigators will need training similar to
correction officer training with a special focus on investigating a charge or other serious incident given an inmate•s mental illness.
Disciplinary Hearing Officers will need additional and ongoing training.
- 14 -

Administrators and their staff will also need on-going training on managing the mentally ill inmate.
The extensiveness of this training is justifiable because the literature in this area indicates that these types of units ultimately reduce disciplinary problems and staff assaults. There are also less emergencies because staff have a better awareness of inmates1 problems and are able to step in quicker to resolve potential problems. Better-trained staff should translate into quicker identification of potential problems and therefore quicker intervention by mental health staff.
2*. CONSTRUCTION Renovations to EMCFWs C Cottage may be necessary.
Anticipated renovations include security to allow programming in the basement of C Cottage along with new windows in this cottage to allow for better airflow. Modifications to existing beds will also be necessary to prevent suicide attempts. New security doors, cameras and additional correction officer staff may be needed to ensure an adequate treatment program.
NSP could benefit from some modification to the SU. It would make sense to convert 2 cells in this unit to be able to handle Close Watch cases. These modifications can include cameras, and cell modification in minimize suicidal acting out. Minor modifications to existing space to make it more user friendly to
treatment staff is also needed. On the RTU, some additional caging
- 15 -

may be needed to allow more programming opportunities for inmates on these units.
SWSP may need to convert 2 to 3 cells on the first tier to be able to provide for inmates on Close Watch Procedures on the RTU.
NJSP and SWSP could benefit from caged areas to allow for more program space. It is not believed that there will be major construction issues at these 2 facilities.
The DOC will provide facilities for confidential mental health treatment of inmates who require such services. Confidential settings for mental health treatment will be created in administrative segregation units, stabilization units, residential treatment units and transitional care units.
- 16 -

 
 D.M. v. Terhune

PROPOSALS

"pc-NJ-odT-oio

CORRECTIONS

CORRECTIONS
(a)
THE COMMISSIONER Definitions; Forms; Schedule of Sanctions for
Prohibited Acts Committed at the Prison Complex; Schedule of Sanctions for Prohibited Acts Committed at the Youth Complex; Investigation; Disciplinary Sanctions; Placement In Disciplinary Detention; Medical and Psychiatric Services; Investigation of Appeal; Special Administrative Segregation Review Committee (SJLS.RC.)
Proposed Amendments: N.J.A.C. iOA:1-2-2; 10A*1.4, 5-1.54 94.9.17,10.2,10.8 and 11-4; and 10A&-&2
AutDQTEBM By* J9CK XfiHMUftC, GOnlftlMB0QWf DcpftlBCOt OT
Coffocxioos. Authority. N J 3 A 30:164,SfclB-lO and OF. v*. Tcrhme «* at,
CM1 Action Ho. 96-1840 (AEI> Proposal Number PRN 1999-97.
Submit oommeoo by May 5.1999*: KatMeea C Wteeta&Spedal Attittnt Oflnt of tte Conunaiaioiicr Department 9* Cotmcttoaa PO Box 863 Trcrtda, New fcner 06625-0863
The agency prapoaal fellow*
la compHanee wi* CT. * Ttrlm* « <C2vfl Action No. 94-IS40 (AEH. cno aRtenfuoeooi proposeo neteai reprteeoc me cnors 01 *nc new jetaey Oeoarttncnt oc CorractioM to caaofe tftec dM Depatttocncu niarnHiaaiy pcocedoi*a pcovide tot ooneMexatloo of tbe tutuuu health oeeds of nnaaeaa
The CommiatkdCf of tfte Department of GonectiOM has directed tbat tfootxajonal fadllry Svptrtateadenta ibafl be known aa AdmMantoct; aoooftnrtaTy* all raxtoHicas to SopenatefldjeBt ksve bees aiBeoded duw^hoot thatan.
A<kfltiWootbr"tpecialnet*lmoa^haalmn»4WttNJjK^10A:l12 » eatabUth a atatemeat of OManing tarfattceatad'atiMdaak.
NJA.C IQAX-IA haa beta aaeodod » bcWe a aew tonn retatad to dttdptfatt that wffl be wed by aaff » reqoeat a
New pangnpba h m bota added to NJJLC :<)A>»-ll(a) aad ( T d (b) i» addraaa the asatai beaM B M * ofapedal seeda bnaataa. la
^ y 4 ^ y , t p e d t o f c f diaaoaal ofoaotttbaad paaonal property

in t tlmel manner. AddfcfaMlty, a aew provision axpirt* Hot (be of evaluation fiodinp be placedfaithe inmate'* mafical/tfe
record.
To ensure that tlM appeal review process tododa the cooridetadoo of &e history or presence of mental fllnos of an inmate, n«w peragrtph («)4 bas been added to NJXC. I O A S M I A la NJ.A.C 10A3-3.X new ptnpapfc (i)5 has been added to tstaMWi that as innate whose mental beaW» i» decorapenaatfaf shoaM be releasedfromAdiiu'Bfcttatfve Segregation.

Sodaliapwt

_

TTie prapoeet! AGMJiduiente fepfesest the faneot of the Department o€

ComctiOM to eoaaUcr the mental beett aeede ot apteial aeada innaaca who

ua uaabto io meat tbc ftnctfoMl requirement* of prieoa Gft without neotai

heaUk maaaem. Tte proposed unea-tenao aiv neoaatiy to idenifx fanutts

wtti mental DIne*» who a t subject to aladplisary action doe to aflodfegof

goitt w • prahiMM act. Tbte Ideatffleatton h oectmtry to eaauie that iptctal

Mads tooua* an rtftned to tha Mental Heahft Usk te appnxriue can/

MatOMat, poteodal aemal .Iwcininnwrtao i* appmprfaicly Wrfkd hi

Oiadpltoaty OetaotJoa and Admtnfatrattvt Sogreptioa VBM> and (aetea

eonMand la an appeal mvicw,toetodea Uatty orpwacnee of otntal i n t .

The pupaitmtat aodrfpatra a pomdy* aodal inpact a» a learit of te

Depaitnaat to efteivcly
Qiao*.

y and Mat Aoaa

y
no who mfler

becavae addMoaal taoing la aot aaotaaaqr to

impaet tb*

A Federal ataodafda analyvla la aot nqtonihr * e pwpoaadii bocwM fts lulcnvutaB^ m^wiiflMQCiOTisc DtpvtBwit o» Comctfiodi M*J C»««nnt by HJ.SA, j f t l B 4 aid 30;lB-ta tte pwponed aaKwdmeatt an

-naadopdoaofdK noc o o (QM of my jobt.
Ttw tiloptfoM oC flic

B WiH
yp pfopoicd w3l tevt tfo Jnpvtd on

flexibility anaiytU it aot reyaxd beaaae the proposed

oot ttaaoaa ttpovtln^ iscoedkacptog or ooser odmpuanca

m l baaiocatea, at itaflnert (tadtr the Kigaluwji FieidoiHty

Aot,NJAA.53:148.Wet»oq.Thept

~

New Jeaey Oeparaaeat of Cane

tor tha tUMManont of tha tvaEj

i n flBjI^B flHMw IOAIB a* veWB^BBWeflDe# e^B aD vv^BeHBVej W IVM* avi D*LHBB^BB> Jav el i n BIIIaJ Ai^Mfa ItMlifl^H l l HJBVfc^Ml att tfH Q^^^^^^HW R|Mr4f«M Gt^^&tf

^ bava beeaj addod to N J A C tOAaMJ^. New wboacaoi (d)

tlM boon •doOd 19 9 9 iRVBtfipDtt| PI009M 19flVUDUBIA pIQCOQUft OX BM

DjjdpHaary Hoaring 0flh^Ad)wwaat rnnimlim » dctonatoa tba aoad to

A

hf T t V i t l

•

OffioiCrAd|vfBDaat

Tha ttofdmut** that dM diacapOaaiy

oooiidoriaa} tfca hjawcy or preatnoe of

addad to N J A . C 1QA**.17(«> Ntw

N J X C 10AM-1O2 ID

«

vo

be

of aa I

(T) bai beta added to

mi

i

lQA-l-ii afceffl b**« tha eodowtng iMaoiitcK
axfti 1 aaoVor « d t H
10*4-1.4 Fora. (.
w

wNk OM taste*.

TIN ICWBRDOBBI to I M Q K I I
N J A C t0A^-10J(a) and <b) hava beta

patioa fetpeettywy BB 1 w health cart aaff far

taAtjotgai haa bees added to K J A C lOA^-Wj ( c j » eataUWi proviitom for

leommioedttthc PrtaoaCompfcx (t) AgBdjBgoft^toraayoffeaaapftcadJflbyaaaatrtK r*Adt» dK offender sobfoa to o«o e» mo*) of OM bUowiflg sanction*:

Exhibit C

Mr JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 5,15J»

(CTTE31NJJL8J1)

6096332112

05/04 '99 09:19 NO.053 04/05

CORRECTIONS

PROPOSALS

1.-3. (No change.)

*

4. Loss of coramuutkw time up to 363 day*, subject to confirmation

by the (Superintendent] Administrator,

5.-8. (No change.)

9. Up to 14 hours extra duty, to be performed within a maximum of

two weeks; (and/or)

10. Up to two weeks confinement toroomor bousing area; and/or

l L Referral tt t t e Mental Health Unit for appropriate

cut/treatment

(b) A finding of guilt In the case of all other offenses (ball render the

ctfender subject to OIK or inore of the following sanctions:

1.-1 (No change.)

3. Up to 60 days loas of oooimutatioii thae, subject to confirmation by

the fSiipointcndent] Administrator,

4.-8. (No change.)

9. Up to 14 boun extra duty, to be pcrfonnwl withia a msdroam of

two weeks; [and/or]

10. Up to two weeks awfiiienteotto room or housing «e»;a«d/or

U . Referral to the Mental HeaJtn Ualttorappropriate care/

(c) (No change.) (d) la addition to the sanctioos in (t), (b) and (e) above, administrative action may be takea by the Institutional Classification Commioec upon tbe recommefidarjofl of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer/Adjustment Committee or the (SttpertotendentJ AdataJstrator. Such administrative action may induce, but «ot be united to, the following:
1.-8. (No change.)

[Superintendent] Adorinferttor may also appoint one or more investigating officers who shad ordinarily be employee* of supervisory level wbo have act been involved in tbe particular incident to be investigated,
(c) The coordinator shall be responsible for [all]:
1. All investigations of disciplinary charges. Tbe coordinator may assign individual investigations to an investigating officer wbo shall be responsible to the coordinatorforcompleting tbe assignments; It
2. Forwarding a Hst of all Inmates who have a

astowhfcs iaasaics sboqid be eoasMered special needs inmates; aad 3. Ensuring that the Mental Health Unit provide* said
detcrmiaadoa and providing that bUttrataooatotbe brrestfeetor aad

(d) TherJtsch^BuryHcsxiBgOQIceryAdJartmeirtOMBnftteesbal determine tbe needtoobtain a tt*Tehfllof>*l/r«r-*ifiTrfrt evafaactoa

Mental Hearth Unit i ding whether tt

Is a special

and/or any o t t o relevant fabnaaOoa,

?yy.!

J W f | W A h * f c eraJoatlaej k

, «bc DbdpGoary Beaaidg OtSeer/AdJastaeat Coeamtttee

rsrd For* HSU-el*, Reqoect tar FsydMtoglcaVPlvchattrk EratoatfaatotneLead

1 Upe« completion tod receipt of the Lead Piyrhnlpglot, the Dbdpwtarr

p OOcer/AdJostaBeot

dbb aay other faformodoa gathered daring (be

1 Q A : « J Schedule of saaatooa for preh*itedjcscon»iniKed at the Youth Complex
(a) A finding of guik Cor prohibited acts preceded by an asterisk (*) Shan render the offender subject to one or more of the following
1.-8. (No change.) 9. Loos of commutation time opto365 days, subject » confirmation by the [Superintendent] Administrator ((Inmates] mmates serving indeterminate sentences are not subject » this sanction, but inmates housed to the youth complex who are serving prison terms are subject» this sanction); tod/or 10. Suspension of aay one or more of the above sanctions at the discretion of the Disciplinary Hearing OScer or Adjustment Committee for60days;aBdVor IX. Referral to the Mestal Bsalth U s * far

Roen^c*lidai(dKg)Bi(eHW (No cheage h text)
EHseaplmary sanctions W T t o ^ BdM^i y t* cat a ma b indfvidtulizedfm keeping widi] by OMsidermg sodi CKtM at the 1.-3. (Noebange.) 4. Udclrtoy g t o D o o o s 5. Ccnectfonalgoels setter me & ihetosMte's

10A.-4-1O2 nacsaiestnDiscipUnary Detention

(a><e) (Noebengv.)

(j) IT at

A

(b) A finding of gnU a the case of all other odfcnsee shall reoder me otfeodersubjeatoooeormorerfthefaOowtagianaioac
1.-1 (No change.) 3. Up to dO d«y» lose of rnmmutiiluwtooaablott to cooftmatloa by tse[$arjcrintendett]AdB«Mstrs«arfMttiuisa
4.-S. (Nochaag*.)
9. Any MflcrJoa praamed far OB-TOB-SB* Cerreetina (eee N J A . C
047^fd/] 10.
of the Disciplinary tfcariag Officer or Adjeetmeat CoaoJaeefor60 daystaad/or
U . R d e m l to «M Heat* BoeJ* Ua« tar apunnwiota

fWRT VC • f l t t f f 10 ttril
10A:4-tOJ Medical and peycMetrfc services (a) bMBatsa la DtsctpUaary Ditandoa shall receive a daily vtsfc by a of a e (aadkaq Bsaldi c a n «aff wMck caa be a aunt>

Hi4
[mcdk'W umsoa] witUa 2*»0ers.
(c) Wbeoever it

tor medical

toby me physician, or a

desfgaaad bythe pBysJcJa*

(e) (No change.) (d)toaddition to trwsajictto«ta (a), (b)aad(e)»bove, administrative action may be takea by the InadtationaJ CluHncirtnn Cotmniaeo epoa tbe nxoniinendaflon of die Dtsdplwary Hearing _ CboirniMaa or tbt [Sipulmeudta!] \\tmU4i**. Sudi adjriakritivc •cdon may iadtide, bet not be limitedto,me foOowing: 1.-6. (No change) 7. Dtspoed of aa kem(f) ia actorimx wia the pravnJoai of N J A C 10A^44 «ad &4((b)2,3 aad 4].
1 0 M 4 . 5 lovetdptioit (a) (No change.) (b) tbe (Soiwrmtcodcnt) ^aailBhtratiir iheQ appoiat a
of inveadgarioBB woo atafl be ea

e# the ahatt «f tbe h e a t t k eoaJarteri A copy of tat be placed at * e •Mate's
(or bii er Barf ilavatigBtioaofiteCiBpf
(amfBrnV L a a M f k M H SM <J*BmV^ tlta* laMlBmtt*ft UJQL^i B o l d
afksr d « nMri diadpiinary bearing appear to

(OTE31N4JLSJ2)

R l " JBK9SY REGISTER, MONDAY, APRIL 5, W »

6096332112

05/04 '99 09:19 NO.053 05/05

PROPOSALS

CORRECTIONS

(b) The [Superintendent) Administrator shall have the option to

request a total or partial reinvesrigstjon of the charge or proceedings of

the hearing. The retnvestiption may be conducted by any person or unit

designated by die [SupcriAteadait}.Adaiinistrator, provided, however,

that the individual shall have bad no contact with die issuance of the fint

investigation of the charge.

(c) (No change.)

(d) If on the basis of new evidence, the [Superintendent]

Administrator may also request a poiygrapii examination as part of the

reinvestigadon. Such requests shall be is accordance with NJ-A.C.

1QA5-7, Polygraph Examinations.

(e) In reviewing an appeal the following factors shall be considered:

1.-2. (No change.)

3. Whether the sanction Imposed w*s proportionate to the offense in

view of tbt inmate's recent disciplinary history and present custody status

except in the case of a termination of contact visits sanction as

established in NJ . A . C 10A;4-5.1(c) or 53 ^ [and/or)

4. Whether the marat* baa • history or p n s m c e of mental Sbcsst

aaeVor

[4.JSL Whether extenuating dtcutnscjnces were considered.

1QAJ-32 Special AdArnainis

egrtgation Review Committee

(SJLSJLC)

(a><h) (No change.)
((tt)) UUppoonn reeview of the inmate's behavior, the S.A-S.R.C m»y determiine thhat the inmate should be ideated from the Administrative Segregation Unit. The S X S J L C shall determine that an inmate should

be released from the Administrative Segregation Unit when it concludes

The provisions regarding packages established is subdupter 5 apply to

iamain boused in (acPitks, otlw than county jaiU in tceordance with

contracnuf agreements with the scope of the chapter baa been 12.

Of QxTtctiQn*; therefore, the reformatted at NJ.A.C 10A.-I8-

N J A . C 1OA:18-15 ha* been reformatted into subtecdon (b) haa been _ inmates may be limited it
NJ.A.C 10*1844

, I Keto or from other hunates and nbsecttot . For security purposes, oew
ipalate eamspoodena to or bom other _by<fcaij aatad adnuaiMnufv* staff, me Ihnitj ion* on sources of pubOcatioas.

— i smendai to SUM an inmate shall be

permitted to receive bardcqv books, papa «ck books, magazines and omcr

oAcover pvblkatioos trom i * publisher < soures of tate eoly. «-rtttnrni

(b) has been

.

proposed nncndmtao a c neoettary far

oonaiaMncy win N J X C : 18-5J. The words "by the mnute" bmr« been

Meted rrom existing sub* l (t). rcModMsd as (d), beetuse the imam of

the mis kt *> require prepare ratherttWjtipulating by whom,

• N J X C I0A:l«-M

been delMsl to comply with the proposed

: l * - U thjt sdpulM pybUodcBB shaD be

•ouieeofsweaiv.

intarm asjcmeM poc all package* mast sow bs i Kaawwnt "reouy^d ttoa a NJ-A.C 10A:lt-5J(a) has I paoasjai oiai man ue renirL been anMnded mr purpose of %

.hmgast* has besa added to i the - i g a t J c n of eotiectieaal beflh*
HheruntcsnVxBonprHi/i.Sacs nuroe of sale only, ths mneumtif I been deleted Eras subsection (a> I to Induce m exception for those
' r vnopened. ^Asecdoa (c) has

1.-2. (No change.) 3. Tbe inmate's presence In the general population will not pose a threat to the safe, secure and orderly operations of a coirectiooal facility; [tad] 4. Tho imrutt's pttsence m tbe general population prior to coraptedoR of the sanction as Specified by the DtodpHnary Hearing QfBcW Adjustment Committee would not adversely affect the goals of t correction*! fjdlltyj aod/gr
5. Th* ianute bus a history or presence of meat*] amess and taAd^iS^ta
to fsc hunate'f mental decoegpeassilon.
<JHp) (No change.)

(a)

THE COMMISSIONER

Mail, Visits and Ttftpnont

ScLoipmsi;taCtioornrtoanpondsnotofToftiobrflPcraotmlorO*;ttPwulbrlaicnaattiotsn;s

To or From

Limitation on

Package*;

of Incoming Packag#s

5.2 and &3 Proposed A
Authorised By: Jack

MJJLC 1OA:1$-1 A 2 - 6 . 4 *
Camaisstocr. Department of

Authority: N JJ&JL
rxopont rnnoptjn
KstMscaC 00c* of ths

andttilfiMO.
1999 W Special Assaam

fO Box 865 T
Tbe ^eney proposal

The

p

the leuroi of

rsesiptiaipadEigesam

TheMtatkMStettorttm

OX C O H f t M D v vClU^ OOHCatMW

alkiwittg inmates a> recefvt

Corrocooas Is aware that

opposfoon* ttowevsc, me

savffUMuul BOC iacarceftssd

srjsurtng the s a s , secan and

piivflege of perButnigfamtaiasID

problematic md cosny » the ~

been SWOT Instance* of

the Department believes

proposed Omtattooi oa ths

bsrscsivsd.

and psrmswMe nsmsfee1 purposes.
should help reduce ntstnees correctional faculties while dcflos* Tnc Oflptaft****1^ of
privileges are Imwed mere will be the OepeitiuLUt is lo provide u which encourages Rhabfltation while
of oorreetioiial bolides. The ptckagps tsotn my aoutct b«v been
tod tb« Stm because then havt
_ OOROCWOO fat p*xClQ£0» T7)CV6nBra«.
inlsttcst Okfttie $*Mt to ifliplcincni tba

pcnontittd oMtracuon or vdlissd.

sot ttmk In any will oot bt n e a a w y to
Department of havt a positive ms tnBvUUGOOD or Goaoaoane
can rank in injury to State Chads must then bs

o« tbt DtputmtM of X>4B-t0. The proposed

aensmieaaortheloisofssnriobs.
flmdMHty aaalysis H aot

have no hnpaci or other

NEW JERSEY REGISTER, MONDAY. APRILS, lff»

(CTTE31NJ.R.S33)

 
 EXHIBIT F
C.F. v. Terhuns Civil Action No. 96-1840(AET) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
hereby acknowledge receipt of the Settlement Agreement in the matter of C.F. v. Terhune. Civil Action No. 96-1840 (AET) and agree to be bound by the terms set forth therein including, but not limited to, the confidentiality provisions set forth in Sections IV(L), (M), (N) , (0), and (P) .
Signature
Printed Name
D.M. v. Terhune PC-NJ-001-011
Exhibit F

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 1 of 21

12BH, CLOSED, LEAD, SCHEDO
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:96-cv-01840-AET

D.M., et al v. JACK TERHUNE, et al Assigned to: Judge Anne E. Thompson Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Movant ESQ. SUSAN REMIS SILVER TERMINATED: 11/09/1998
Plaintiff C.F.
Plaintiff D.M.
Plaintiff L.K.
Plaintiff A.O.

Date Filed: 04/11/1996 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by DARRIN HOWARD ARCHER & GREINER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ONE CENTENNIAL SQUARE HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033 856-795-2121 TERMINATED: 11/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 833 McCARTER HIGHWAY NEWARK, NJ 07102 (973) 642-8700 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 2 of 21

Plaintiff J.W.
V. Consol Plaintiff DAVID M. RUSSO
V. Defendant WILLIAM F. FAUVER TERMINATED: 02/06/1998
Defendant GARY J. HILTON TERMINATED: 04/16/1998
Defendant HOWARD L. BEYER

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID M. RUSSO NJ STATE PRISON SP#208920 CN 861 Trenton, NJ 08625 PRO SE
represented by DIANNE M. MORATTI OFFICE OF NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX CN 112 TRENTON, NJ 08625 (609) 633-3895 Email: dianne.moratti@dol.lps.state.nj.us TERMINATED: 02/06/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DIANNE M. MORATTI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DIANNE M. MORATTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 3 of 21

Defendant EUGENE F. O'NEILL
Defendant JOHN FORKER TERMINATED: 05/13/1998
Defendant DR. THOMAS FARRELL
Defendant DR. RICHARD CEVASCO
V. Consol Defendant WILLIS E. MORTON
Consol Defendant GEORGE JAMES REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, CMS, INC.
Defendant CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.

represented by DIANNE M. MORATTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DIANNE M. MORATTI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DIANNE M. MORATTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DIANNE M. MORATTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DIANNE M. MORATTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHEN D. HOLTZMAN HOLTZMAN & MCCLAIN, PC 819 NEW ROAD PO BOX 869 NORTHFIELD, NJ 08225 (609) 601-0900 Fax: (609) 601-0990 Email: sholtzman2000@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHEN D. HOLTZMAN (See above for address)

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 4 of 21

Defendant CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY, INC.
Cross Claimant CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.
Cross Claimant CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY, INC.
Defendant JACK TERHUNE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Defendant MARY ELLEN BOLTON CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Movant C.F.2 TERMINATED: 11/09/1998
Movant D.K. TERMINATED: 11/09/1998

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PAUL R. MURPHY KALISON, MCBRIDE, JACKSON & MURPHY, PA 25 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD 4TH FLOOR WARREN, NJ 07059 (908) 6474600 Email: pmurphy@kmjmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHEN D. HOLTZMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PAUL R. MURPHY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DIANNE M. MORATTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DIANNE M. MORATTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER (See above for address)

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 5 of 21

Movant T.K. TERMINATED: 11/09/1998
Movant D.K.2 TERMINATED: 11/09/1998
Movant I.M. TERMINATED: 11/09/1998
Movant T.S. TERMINATED: 11/09/1998
Movant HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH TERMINATED: 10/02/2000

TERMINATED: 11/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BRUCE S. ROSEN MCCUSKER, ANSELMI, ROSEN, CARVELLI & WALSH, PC 127 MAIN STREET CHATHAM, NJ 07928 (973) 635-6300 Email: brosen@marcw.com TERMINATED: 10/02/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/11/1996

#

Docket Text

1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed FILING FEE $ 120.00 RECEIPT # 215286 (mr) (Entered: 04/12/1996)

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 6 of 21

04/12/1996 04/12/1996 05/07/1996 05/07/1996 05/29/1996 05/31/1996 06/03/1996 06/10/1996 07/01/1996
07/02/1996 07/12/1996
07/18/1996 07/25/1996

SUMMONS(ES) issued for WILLIAM F. FAUVER, GARY J. HILTON, HOWARD L. BEYER, EUGENE F. O'NEILL, JOHN FORKER, THOMAS FARRELL, RICHARD CEVASCO ( 20 Days) (Handed to Messenger) (mr) Modified on 04/12/1996 (Entered: 04/12/1996)
2 NOTICE of Allocation and Assignment filed. Magistrate Hughes (Trenton-Thompson) (mr) (Entered: 04/12/1996)
Tele-conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 04/19/96. (SA) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
3 ORDER, setting certain expedited discovery deadlines , setting answer due for 5/31/96 for all defts. , setting status conference for 4:00 5/16/96 (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
4 STIPULATION and ORDER, for protective order (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
5 ANSWER to Complaint by WILLIAM F. FAUVER, GARY J. HILTON, HOWARD L. BEYER, EUGENE F. O'NEILL, JOHN FORKER, THOMAS FARRELL, RICHARD CEVASCO; jury demand (SA) (Entered: 06/03/1996)
6 ORDER, setting scheduling conference for 11:00 7/18/96 (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 06/03/1996)
7 ORDER, for GARY W. KUBEK and PAOLA M.G. DEKOCH to appear pro hac vice (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
8 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to JOHN FORKER, EUGENE F. O'NEILL, WILLIAM F. FAUVER, HOWARD L. BEYER, THOMAS FARRELL, GARY J. HILTON 4/15/96, as to RICHARD CEVASCO 5/5/96; Answer due on 5/25/96 for RICHARD CEVASCO, 5/5/96 for THOMAS FARRELL, for JOHN FORKER, for EUGENE F. O'NEILL, for HOWARD L. BEYER, GARY J. HILTON, for WILLIAM F. FAUVER (MB) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
9 ORDER, compelling deft's to produce certain discovery (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (MB) (Entered: 07/03/1996)
10 NOTICE of APPEAL by defts of Magistrate decision to District Court RE: [9-1] order compelling certain discovery (Hearing on magistrate appeal set for 10:00 8/5/96) * Clerk's Note: motion converted to a motion for reargument to be heard by the Honorable John J. Hughes, USMJ. (Attached affidavits filed Under Seal) (ms) Modified on 08/07/1996 (Entered: 07/16/1996)
11 ORDER directing that [10-1] Magistrate Appeal be treated as a motion for Reargument. (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 07/19/1996)
12 AFFIDAVIT by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER on behalf of pltfs. Re: in opposition to [10-1] Magistrate appeal (SA) (Entered: 07/29/1996)

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 7 of 21

07/29/1996
08/05/1996 08/05/1996
08/06/1996 08/06/1996 08/06/1996 08/06/1996 09/25/1996 10/03/1996 10/04/1996 10/22/1996 10/22/1996 10/22/1996

13 Notice of MOTION to permit defts to withdraw certain affidavits and to refile said affidavits under seal by WILLIAM F. FAUVER, GARY J. HILTON, HOWARD L. BEYER, EUGENE F. O'NEILL, JOHN FORKER, THOMAS FARRELL, RICHARD CEVASCO [13-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes, Motion hearing set for 10:00 8/5/96 on [13-1] motion . (PO Subm)(PER CHAMBERS) (SA) (Entered: 08/01/1996)
18 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: RIVERA; Minutes of 8/5/96; This action taken: granting [13-1] motion to permit defts to withdraw and refile certain affidavits under seal. (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (ms) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
19 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: RIVERA; Minutes of 8/5/96; This action taken: Ordered [10-1] Magistrate appeal converted to motion for reargument as to certain discovery and directing same be dismissed as moot. (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (ms) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
14 ORDER dismissing as moot [10-1] motion for reargument (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/06/1996)
15 CONSENT ORDER, for KYRA K. BROMLEY, Esq. to appear pro hac vice (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
16 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER # 2 setting Status conference 2:00 10/28/96;setting certain discovery deadlines. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
17 ORDER granting [13-1] motion to permit defts to withdraw certain affidavits and to refile said affidavits under seal (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/07/1996)
20 Notice of MOTION to certify class action by C.F., D.M., L.K., A.O., J.W., Motion hearing set for 10:00 10/21/96 on [20-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (SA) (Entered: 09/25/1996)
reset settlement conference for 11:30 10/11/96 (dg) (Entered: 10/03/1996)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 11:00 10/4/96 (dg) (Entered: 10/04/1996)
21 Notice of MOTION for protective order by pltfs., [21-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes, Motion hearing set for 10:00 10/22/96 on [21-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (SA) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
22 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct-Reporter: NONE; Minutes of: 10/22/96; The following actions were taken, granting in part, denying in part [21-1] motion for protective order (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (SA) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
23 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [21-1] motion for protective

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 8 of 21

10/22/1996 10/22/1996 10/22/1996 10/30/1996 11/15/1996 11/15/1996 11/20/1996 11/20/1996 11/25/1996 12/02/1996
12/02/1996
12/12/1996

order, Order to show cause why certain restraints should not be imposed to prevent any retaliation against or intimidation of named pltfs. or putative class members before the Hon. Anne E. Thomspon , setting show cause hearing for 10:00 11/18/96 (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
24 DECLARATION of L.K. filed. (UNDER SEAL) (SA) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
25 DECLARATION of NICHOLAS DEVOS filed. (UNDER SEAL) (SA) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
26 AFFIDAVIT by PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER filed. (UNDER SEAL) (SA) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Deadline updated; settlement conference for 11:00 1/29/97 (dg) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
27 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing before the Hon. John J. Hughes, USMJ taken on 10/11/96 (SA) (Entered: 11/15/1996)
Status conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 10/28/96. (CC) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
28 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER # 3, setting Status conference 2:00 1/24/97 and setting certain deadlines. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (CC) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
29 ORDER granting [20-1] motion to certify class action (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
30 ORDER, for KARIN S. SCHWARTZ, Esq. to appear pro hac vice (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
31 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct-Reporter: NONE; Minutes of: 12/02/96; The following actions were taken, [20-1] motion to certify class action taken under advisement (By Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson) (SA) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
32 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct-Reporter: NONE; Minutes of: 12/02/96; The following actions were taken, [23-1] order Order to show cause why certain restraints should not be imposed to prevent any retaliation against or intimidation of named pltfs. or putative class members before the Hon. Anne E. Thomspon taken under advisement (By Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson) (SA) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
33 ORDER denying pltfs.' application for appointment of a Special Master with conditions; Denying pltfs. application to videotape all movements of L.K. and N.D.; Granting pltfs.' application to direct deft to devise a plan to prevent retaliation against prisoners; Denying pltfs.' application to vacate the disciplinary sanction against N.D. filed. (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 12/12/1996)

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 9 of 21

01/24/1997 03/07/1997 04/03/1997 04/25/1997 04/29/1997 05/01/1997 05/01/1997 05/09/1997
05/09/1997
07/15/1997 07/18/1997 07/18/1997
07/21/1997
07/30/1997

Deadline updated; settlement conference for 2:00 3/7/97 (dg) (Entered: 01/24/1997)
Deadline updated; status conference for 11:30 4/2/97 (dg) (Entered: 03/07/1997)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 5:00 4/17/97 (dg) (Entered: 04/03/1997)
Tele-conf held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 4/25/97. (ms) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
34 ORDER setting case management conf for 10:00 7/15/97 . (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ms) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
Tele-conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 04/30/97. (SA) (Entered: 05/01/1997)
35 ORDER directing pltfs. to file their motion for leave to file an amended by 05/09/97 and making said motion returnable 06/04/97 at 3:00 P.M. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 05/01/1997)
36 Notice of MOTION to amend [1-1] complaint to join CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. and CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIOR SOLUTIONS, INC. as co-defts. by J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., C.F. [36-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes, Motion hearing set for 10:00 6/4/97 on [36-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm)(PER CHAMBERS) (SA) (Entered: 05/12/1997)
37 DECLARATION of PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER, ESQ. on behalf of pltfs. RE: supporting [36-1] motion to amend [1-1] complaint to join CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. and CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIOR SOLUTIONS, INC. as co-defts. (UNDER SEAL) (PER CHAMBERS) (SA) (Entered: 05/13/1997)
Deadline updated; status conference for 2:00 8/21/97 (dg) (Entered: 07/15/1997)
38 MEMORANDUM OPINION (by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (CC) (Entered: 07/18/1997)
39 ORDER granting [36-1] motion to amend [1-1] complaint within 15 days from this Order, to join CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. and CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIOR SOLUTIONS, INC. as co-defts. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (CC) (Entered: 07/18/1997)
40 Minute entry: Proceedings NOT recorded; Minutes of: 7/21/97; The following action taken, granting [36-1] motion to amend [1-1] complaint to join CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. and CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIOR SOLUTIONS, INC. as co-defts. By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes (MB) (Entered: 07/23/1997)
41 AMENDED COMPLAINT by J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., amending [1-1]

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 10 of 21

07/30/1997 08/14/1997 08/18/1997 08/21/1997 08/21/1997 09/09/1997 09/15/1997
09/15/1997 09/15/1997 10/01/1997 10/06/1997 10/14/1997

complaint adding CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL, BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS (ms) (Entered: 07/30/1997)
SUMMONS(ES) on AMENDED COMPLAINT issued for CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL, BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS (20 Days) (Mailed to Counsel) (ms) (Entered: 07/30/1997)
42 ANSWER by RICHARD CEVASCO, THOMAS FARRELL, JOHN FORKER, EUGENE F. O'NEILL, HOWARD L. BEYER, GARY J. HILTON, WILLIAM F. FAUVER to amended complaint with jury demand filed. (SA) (Entered: 08/14/1997)
43 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL, BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS 8/11/97 Answer due on 9/2/97 for BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS, for CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL (SA) (Entered: 08/18/1997)
Deadline updated; status conference for 3:00 11/21/97 , conference for 3:00 2/20/98 , conference for 3:00 5/22/98 (dg) (Entered: 08/21/1997)
44 ANSWER to complaint & crossclaims; with jury demand and CROSSCLAIMS by CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL. (CC) Modified on 08/27/1997 (Entered: 08/22/1997)
45 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #4 setting Status conference 3:00 11/21/97; 02/20/98 at 3:00 P.M.; 5/22/98 at 3:00 P.M.; setting certain discovery deadlines. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 09/11/1997)
46 Notice of MOTION for judgment on the pleadings as to deft. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. , and for summary judgment as to deft. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. Motion hearing set for 10:00 10/20/97 on [46-1] motion, set for 10:00 10/20/97 on [46-2] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (SA) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
47 ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT; jury demand with CROSSCLAIM and answer to all CROSSCLAIMS by BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS (SA) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
48 Notice of MOTION for judgment on the pleadings in favor of deft. CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS, OF NEW JERSEY, INC. Motion hearing set for 10:00 11/3/97 on [48-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (SA) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
49 ANSWER by CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SVCS to [47-2] cross claim (MB) (Entered: 10/01/1997)
50 Letter Opinion Order denying in part and granting in part pltfs.' application to compel certain materials relating to the suicide of Richard Rivera filed. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 10/08/1997)
51 AFFIDAVIT of SANDRA L. COBDEN on behalf of J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., C.F. Re: in opposition to [46-1] motion for judgment on the

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 11 of 21

10/16/1997 10/21/1997 11/10/1997 11/10/1997
12/29/1997 01/20/1998 02/05/1998 02/05/1998 02/06/1998 02/20/1998 02/20/1998 02/23/1998

pleadings as to deft. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., [46-2] motion for summary judgment as to deft. CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC. (SA) (Entered: 10/14/1997)
52 ORDER reallocating matter from Trenton to Newark and reassigning from Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson to Judge Katharine S. Hayden filed. (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
53 ORDER reallocating matter from Newark to Trenton and reassigning from Judge Katharine S. Hayden to Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson filed. (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 10/21/1997)
54 OPINION (by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson) (ms) (Entered: 11/10/1997)
55 ORDER denying [46-1] motion for judgment on the pleadings and [46-2] motion for summary judgment as to CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.; denying [48-1] motion for judgment on the pleadings as to CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS; dismissing counts IV & V of Amended Complaint w/o prej . (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson) (NM) (ms) (Entered: 11/10/1997)
56 TRANSCRIPT of Motions taken on 11/07/97 (SA) (Entered: 12/29/1997)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 12:00 1/21/98 (dg) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
57 ORDER, setting certain discovery deadlines (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
58 ORDER, denying in part, granting in part Pltf.'s application for production of documents , setting pretrial memorandum due for 2/13/98 , setting status conference for 2/20/98 (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
59 ORDER, dismissing WILLIAM FAUVER as a deft. and substituting GARY HILTON, acting Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections as a deft. (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
60 Notice of MOTION to compel defts to provide discovery by pltfs. [60-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes, Motion hearing set for 10:00 3/16/98 on [60-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (ms) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
61 AFFIDAVIT of PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER, ESQ. for pltfs supporting [60-1] motion to compel discovery. (ms) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
Deadline updated; set argument/ conference for 10:00 3/16/98 , pretrial conference for 2:00 12/16/98 , settlement conference for 12:00 4/15/98 , status conference for 3:00 6/4/98 (dg) (Entered: 02/23/1998)

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 12 of 21

03/02/1998
03/03/1998 03/06/1998 03/06/1998
03/10/1998 03/17/1998 03/24/1998 03/24/1998 04/01/1998 04/06/1998 04/06/1998
04/08/1998 04/08/1998
04/09/1998

62 Notice of MOTION for protective order by BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS [62-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes, Motion ret'ble 10:00 3/16/98 on [62-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (ms) (Entered: 03/03/1998)
63 AFFIDAVIT of THOMAS FARRELL on behalf of defts. Re: in opposition to [60-1] motion to compel defts to provide discovery (SA) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
Settlement/Status conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 02/20/98. (SA) (Entered: 03/09/1998)
64 Case Management ORDER # 5 setting Discovery cutoff 2:00 12/16/98 ; Status conference 3:00 6/4/98 ; Settlement conference 12:00 4/15/98; setting certain deadlines. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 03/09/1998)
65 ORDER, for DAVID A. WEINSTEIN, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 03/10/1998)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 3:00 3/23/98 (dg) (Entered: 03/17/1998)
66 Memorandum Opinion (by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 03/24/1998)
67 ORDER withdrawing [62-1] motion for protective order; granting in part, denying in part [60-1] motion to compel defts to provide discovery (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 03/24/1998)
68 ORDER, extending time to file objections to the Court's ruling of 3/24/98 to 4/12/98 filed (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 04/02/1998)
73 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ; Minutes of: 04/06/98; The following actions were taken, withdrawing [62-1] motion for protective order. (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (SA) (Entered: 04/13/1998)
74 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ; Minutes of: 04/06/98; The following actions were taken, granting in part, denying in part [60-1] motion to compel defts to provide discovery (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (SA) (Entered: 04/13/1998)
75 AMENDED ORDER, for protective order (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 04/14/1998)
76 ORDER, directing defts. to bear the burden of proving the confidentiality of any documents , denying pltfs.' discovery as to disputed class members , setting deadlines as to disclosures of certain medical records (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 04/14/1998)
69 Notice of MOTION for NANDINI MANI to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. by J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., C.F. [69-1] motion referred to Mag.

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 13 of 21

04/09/1998 04/09/1998
04/09/1998 04/15/1998 04/16/1998
04/17/1998
04/21/1998 04/23/1998 04/23/1998 04/28/1998 05/01/1998 05/13/1998 05/18/1998
05/22/1998

John J. Hughes, Motion hearing set for 10:00 4/9/98 on [69-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (SA) (Entered: 04/09/1998)
70 AFFIDAVIT of SANDRA COBDEN on behalf of J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., C.F. Re: supporting [69-1] motion for NANDINI MANI to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (SA) (Entered: 04/09/1998)
71 Minute entry: Proceedings NOT recorded; Minutes of: 04/09/98; The following actions were taken, granting [69-1] motion for NANDINI MANI to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (SA) (Entered: 04/09/1998)
72 ORDER granting [69-1] motion for NANDINI MANI to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 04/09/1998)
No Documents #78 & 79 (SA) (Entered: 08/19/1998)
77 ORDER, dismissing Gary Hilton as a deft. and substituting JACK TERHUNE, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Mary Ellen Bolton, Chief of Staff of the Department of Corrections as paries in the above case filed (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 04/16/1998)
80 Notice of MOTION to compel discovery by RICHARD CEVASCO, THOMAS FARRELL, JOHN FORKER, EUGENE F. O'NEILL, HOWARD L. BEYER, GARY J. HILTON [80-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John Hughes, Motion hearing set for 10:00 5/18/98 on [80-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (SA) (Entered: 04/20/1998)
81 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing taken on 03/16/98 (SA) (Entered: 04/21/1998)
82 TRANSCRIPT of Motions taken on 03/16/98 (SA) (Entered: 04/23/1998)
83 NOTICE of APPEAL by pltfs of Magistrate decision to District Court RE: [76-2] Order denying certain discovery. (Hearing on magistrate appeal set for 10:00 5/18/98) (ms) (Entered: 04/24/1998)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 2:00 4/29/98 (dg) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
84 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #6 pertaining to certain discovery issues filed. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 05/01/1998)
85 ORDER, dismissing action as to deft. JOHN FORKER filed (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 05/13/1998)
91 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct-Reporter: RUSSONIELLO; Minutes of: 05/18/98; The following actions were taken, [83-1] Magistrate appeal taken under advisement (By Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson) (SA) (Entered: 05/28/1998)
86 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing taken on 04/09/98 (SA) (Entered: 05/22/1998)

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 14 of 21

05/22/1998 05/22/1998 05/28/1998 05/28/1998 06/04/1998
06/05/1998 06/15/1998
06/18/1998 06/18/1998
06/19/1998 06/19/1998
07/08/1998 07/22/1998 07/30/1998 08/03/1998 08/03/1998 08/12/1998

87 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing taken on 04/15/98 (SA) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
88 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing taken on 05/04/98 (SA) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
89 OPINION (by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 05/28/1998)
90 ORDER granting [83-1] Magistrate appeal (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 05/28/1998)
92 DECLARATION of PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER, ESQ. on behalf of J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., C.F. Re: in opposition to [80-1] motion to compel discovery (SA) (Entered: 06/04/1998)
93 ORDER granting pltf's. [80-1] motion to compel discovery (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (ss) (Entered: 06/05/1998)
94 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct-Reporter: DENIS GLYNN; Minutes of: 6/15/98; The following actions were taken, granting [80-1] motion to compel discovery By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes (ss) (Entered: 06/18/1998)
95 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 6/4/98 (ms) (Entered: 06/18/1998)
96 NOTICE of APPEAL by J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., C.F. of Magistrate decision to District Court RE: [93-1] order, [67-1] order. Hearing on magistrate appeal set for 10:00 7/20/98 (femp) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
97 ORDER extending time to complete depositions (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ms) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
98 ORDER for CHARLES D. ATKINS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ms) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 11:00 7/8/98 (dg) (Entered: 07/08/1998)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 10:00 7/29/98 (dg) (Entered: 07/22/1998)
Deadline updated; pretrial conference for 11:00 12/4/98 (dg) (Entered: 07/30/1998)
99 OPINION (by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(nm) (femp) (Entered: 08/03/1998)
100 ORDER denying [83-1] Magistrate appeal (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(nm) (femp) (Entered: 08/03/1998)
101 Notice of MOTION to quash deft. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.'s Subpoena by SUSAN REMIS SILVER [101-1] motion referred to Mag.

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 15 of 21

08/13/1998
08/17/1998 08/21/1998 08/21/1998 08/24/1998 09/01/1998 09/30/1998
10/02/1998
10/05/1998 10/05/1998 10/05/1998
10/05/1998

Judge John J. Hughes, Motion hearing set for 10:00 8/13/98 on [101-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm)(PER CHAMBERS) (SA) Modified on 08/13/1998 (Entered: 08/13/1998)
103 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: GLYNN; Minutes of: 08/13/98; The following actions were taken, granting in part, denying in part [101-1] motion to quash deft. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.'s Subpoena (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (SA) (Entered: 08/20/1998)
102 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [101-1] motion to quash deft. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.'s Subpoena (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/17/1998)
105 ORDER, consolidating CV-97-539 (AET) with this case (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/24/1998)
Consolidated Lead Case with CV-97-539 (AET) (SA) (Entered: 08/24/1998)
104 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference taken on 07/29/98 (SA) (Entered: 08/24/1998)
106 Letter Order, granting pltfs.' request to extend time to submit certain expert report to 11/23/98 (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 09/01/1998)
107 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #6 setting Dispositive Motion due on or before 10/5/98 and setting certain briefing and discovery deadlines filed (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 09/30/1998)
108 Notice of MOTION for partial summary judgment as to Cts. II, III, IV and V of the amended complaint by RICHARD CEVASCO, THOMAS FARRELL, JOHN FORKER, EUGENE F. O'NEILL, HOWARD L. BEYER, GARY J. HILTON, Motion set for 10:00 12/7/98 on [108-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (SA) (Entered: 10/02/1998)
109 Notice of MOTION for summary judgment in favor of CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. Motion set for 10:00 12/7/98 on [109-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (SA) (Entered: 10/05/1998)
110 NOTICE of firm name change by BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS (SA) (Entered: 10/05/1998)
111 Notice of MOTION for summary judgment in favor of deft. BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY, INC. Motion set for 10:00 12/7/98 on [111-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (SA) (Entered: 10/05/1998)
112 AFFIDAVIT of JAMES A. ROBERTSON on behalf of BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS Re: supporting [111-1] motion for summary judgment in favor of deft. BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY, INC. (UNDER SEAL) (SA) Modified on 10/09/1998 (Entered: 10/05/1998)

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 16 of 21

10/05/1998
10/06/1998 10/09/1998 10/13/1998 10/26/1998 10/26/1998
10/26/1998 11/06/1998 11/06/1998
11/09/1998 11/09/1998 11/09/1998 11/09/1998
11/10/1998 11/12/1998

113 AFFIDAVIT of JAMES BUTTON on behalf of BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS Re: supporting [111-1] motion for summary judgment in favor of deft. BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY, INC. (UNDER SEAL) (SA) Modified on 10/09/1998 (Entered: 10/05/1998)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 3:00 10/7/98 (dg) (Entered: 10/06/1998)
114 ORDER, sealing [113-1] and [112-1] documents (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 10/09/1998)
Deadline updated; status conference for 12:00 12/7/98 , pretrial conference for 11:00 12/4/98 (dg) (Entered: 10/13/1998)
115 Notice of CROSS-MOTION for partial summary judgment in favor of pltfs. by J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., C.F., Motion set for 10:00 12/7/98 on [115-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (SA) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
116 DECLARATION of Dr. KOSON on behalf of J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., C.F. Re: [115-1] cross-motion for partial summary judgment in favor of pltfs. (UNSEALED -Returned to pltf's atty per [162-1] Order) (SA) Modified on 09/25/2000 (Entered: 10/29/1998)
117 DECLARATION of WEINSTEIN on behalf of J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., C.F. Re: supporting [115-1] cross-motion for partial summary judgment in favor of pltfs. (UNDER SEAL) (SA) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 11:00 11/9/98 (dg) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
118 Notice of MOTION to intervene by C.F.2, D.K., T.K., D.K.2, I.M., T.S. [118-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes, Motion set for 10:00 11/16/98 on [118-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm)(PER CHAMBERS) (SA) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
119 Memorandum Opinion. (by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (ms) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
120 ORDER denying [118-1] motion to intervene by C.F.2, et al. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ms) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
121 AFFIDAVIT of JAMES A. ROBERTSON for BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS supporting [111-1] motion for summary judgment. (ms) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
122 AFFIDAVIT of DIANE M. MORATTI for defts, CEVASCO, FARRELL, O'NEILL, BEYER, TERHUNE, & BOLTON supporting [108-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to certain counts. (ms) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
Deadline updated; settlement conference for 10:30 11/18/98 (dg) (Entered: 11/10/1998)
Deadline updated; pretrial conference for 12:00 12/7/98 (dg) (Entered: 11/12/1998)

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 17 of 21

11/12/1998 11/13/1998
11/20/1998 11/23/1998 12/08/1998 12/23/1998 01/15/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/25/1999 03/10/1999 04/29/1999

Deadline updated; settlement conference for 9:30 12/14/98 (dg) (Entered: 11/12/1998)
123 CLERK'S ORDER, resetting pretrial conference for 9:30 12/14/98 , resetting settlement conference for 12:00 12/7/98 (NM) (SA) (Entered: 11/13/1998)
124 DECLARATION of SANDRA COBDEN for pltfs supporting [115-1] motion for partial summary judgment. (ms) (Entered: 11/20/1998)
125 ORDER dismissing counts II thru V of complaint (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson) (NM) (ms) (Entered: 11/23/1998)
Deadline updated; pretrial conference for 9:30 12/21/98 (dg) (Entered: 12/08/1998)
Deadline updated; reset settlement conference for 9:30 1/4/99 (dg) (Entered: 12/23/1998)
Deadline updated; settlement conference for 10:00 1/20/99 (dg) (Entered: 01/15/1999)
Status conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 1.4.99. (dg) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
Status conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 1.5.99. (dg) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
Status conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 1.6.99. (dg) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
Status conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 1.8.99. (dg) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
Status conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 1.12.99. (dg) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
Status conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 1.19.99. (dg) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
Status conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 2.10.99. (dg) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
Status conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 2.22.99. (dg) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
Deadline updated; settlement conference for 10:00 3/3/99 (dg) (Entered: 02/25/1999)
Deadline updated; set settlement conference for 11:00 3/15/99 (dg) (Entered: 03/10/1999)
126 ORDER dismissing as moot [115-1] motion for partial summary judgment in favor of pltfs.; dismissing as moot [111-1] motion for summary judgment in favor of deft. BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY, INC. dismissing as moot [109-1] motion for summary

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 18 of 21

05/07/1999 05/10/1999 05/19/1999 06/18/1999 06/22/1999 07/02/1999 07/06/1999 07/09/1999
07/20/1999 07/20/1999 07/30/1999 07/30/1999
07/30/1999 07/30/1999

judgment in favor of CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.; dismissing as moot [108-1] motion for partial summary judgment as Cts. II, III, IV and V of the amended complaint (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 04/29/1999)
Deadline updated; Fairness Hearing 2:00 7/6/99 (dg) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
127 ORDER, amending [75-1] order for protective order (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 05/10/1999)
128 ORDER, directing notice of proposed settlement , resetting settlement conference for 2:00 7/6/99 (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 05/19/1999)
129 AFFIDAVIT of JACK TERHUNE on behalf of dft., JACK TERHUNE (femp) (Entered: 06/18/1999)
130 CONSENT ORDER to trial by Magistrate Judge (THOMPSON) (NM) (ms) (Entered: 06/22/1999)
131 DECLARATION of SANDRA L. CORBDEN, ESQ. and PATRICIA P. MERLMUTTER, ESQ. on behalf of J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., C.F. Re: settlement agreement (SA) (Entered: 07/06/1999)
132 ORDER, amending the case caption filed (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 07/12/1999)
133 AFFIDAVIT of RICHARD J. WALDIS on behalf of RICHARD CEVASCO, THOMAS FARRELL, EUGENE F. O'NEILL, HOWARD L. BEYER, JACK TERHUNE, MARY ELLEN BOLTON filed. (SA) (Entered: 07/12/1999)
134 DECLARATION of DENNIS KOSON on behalf of J.W., A.O., L.K., D.M., C.F. filed. (SA) (Entered: 07/20/1999)
135 DECLARATION of Dianne Moratti, Stephen Holtzman and Paul Murphy Re: settlement agreement filed. (SA) (Entered: 07/21/1999)
136 Memorandum Opinion filed (by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
137 STIPULATION and ORDER, dismissing action as to deft. CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY, INC. with prejudice filed (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
138 ORDER, dismissing action as to deft. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. with prejudice filed (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
139 STIPULATION and ORDER, dismissing action as to deft. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. with prejudice filed (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/02/1999)

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 19 of 21

07/30/1999 07/30/1999
07/30/1999 07/30/1999 07/30/1999 08/03/1999 09/20/1999 10/12/1999 10/18/1999
10/19/1999 11/04/1999 12/23/1999 01/03/2000
01/04/2000 01/19/2000 01/21/2000

140 STIPULATION and ORDER, dismissing all crossclaims with prejudice filed (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
141 ORDER, dismissing action as to deft. CORRECTIONAL BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY, INC. with prejudice filed (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/03/1999)
142 ORDER, dismissing all crossclaims with prejudice filed (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/03/1999)
143 SETTLEMENT Agreement filed (PER CHAMBERS) (SA) (Entered: 08/03/1999)
144 ORDER, dismissing action with prejudice filed (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 08/03/1999)
Case closed (SA) (Entered: 08/03/1999)
145 NOTICE of APPEAL of Magistrate decision to District Court by nonparty Thomas J. Calus RE: of letter dated 8/11/99 Hearing on magistrate appeal set for 10:00 10/18/99 (SA) (Entered: 09/21/1999)
146 ORDER dismissing [145-1] Magistrate appeal (signed by Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson)(NM) (SA) (Entered: 10/12/1999)
148 Minute entry: Proceedings NOT recorded; Minutes of: 10/18/99; The following actions were taken, [145-1] Magistrate appeal taken under advisement (By Chief Judge Anne E. Thompson) (SA) (Entered: 10/20/1999)
147 LETTER by non-party THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO dated 10/13/99 filed. (SA) (Entered: 10/19/1999)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 11:00 11/3/99 (dg) (Entered: 11/04/1999)
149 NOTICE of firm name change by CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL (SA) (Entered: 12/28/1999)
150 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Thomas J. CLAUSO filed at 8:49 AM Re: case in its entirety. Fee Status: NOT PAID. Copies of notice of appeal sent to USCA and Attorney(s): PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER, STEPHEN D. HOLTZMAN, DIANNE M. MORATTI, DAVID M. RUSSO, DARRIN HOWARD, PAUL R. MURPHY (MS) (Entered: 01/04/2000)
Record on appeal sent to U.S. Court of Appeals: [150-1] appeal (MS) (Entered: 01/04/2000)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 10:00 1/20/00 (dg) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
151 Partial payment fee as to THOMAS CLAUSO #59252 Appeal of $

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 20 of 21

01/26/2000 02/14/2000 05/18/2000
05/18/2000 05/31/2000 06/07/2000 06/30/2000 07/05/2000 08/18/2000 08/18/2000 08/18/2000
08/21/2000 08/28/2000 09/08/2000

105.00 Receipt No. 269380 Total Amount Paid to Date $105.00 (SA) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
152 NOTICE of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [150-1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 00-5035 (MS) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
153 Request & Letter Order denying appointment of counsel for non-party, Guy Chiarulli. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (Per Chambers) (eh) Modified on 02/16/2000 (Entered: 02/14/2000)
154 Notice of MOTION to intervene for limited purpose by HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH [154-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes Motion set for 10:00 7/3/00 on [154-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (femp) (Entered: 05/19/2000)
155 AFFIDAVIT of JAMIE FELLNER on behalf of HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH in support of [154-1] motion to intervene for limited purpose (femp) (Entered: 05/19/2000)
156 DECLARATION of SANDRA L. COBDEN for pltfs. supporting [154-1] motion to intervene. (ss) Modified on 06/01/2000 (Entered: 05/31/2000)
157 TRANSCRIPT of appeal of Magistrate's decision 7/27/98. (eh) (Entered: 06/07/2000)
158 CERTIFICATION of PAUL R. MURPHY on behalf of BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS in opposition Re: [154-1] motion to intervene for limited purpose (eh) (Entered: 06/30/2000)
159 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL Re: Brief in opposition to [154-1] motion to intervene (SA) (Entered: 07/06/2000)
160 DEFICIENT MOTION by non-party Thomas Clauso filed 8/11/00 for in court status conference . (no svc) (lk) (Entered: 08/18/2000)
161 MEMORANDUM OPINION (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (nm) (ss) (Entered: 08/18/2000)
162 ORDER granting [154-1] motion to intervene for limited purpose; granting Human Rights Watch access to the Koson Report; unsealing the copy of the Koson Report and returning to pltf's. counsel and staying this order and disclosure of the the Koson Report for 30 days. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(nm) (ss) (Entered: 08/18/2000)
163 Minute entry: Proceedings Not recorded; Minutes of: 08/21/00; The following actions were taken, granting motion to intervene for limited purpose (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (SA) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
164 LETTER of non-party Thomas Clauso dated 8/22/00. (ss) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
165 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing taken on 07/17/00 (SA) (Entered: 09/08/2000)

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Docket Report

Page 21 of 21

12/08/2000
12/13/2000 12/27/2000 02/16/2001 02/26/2001 05/02/2001 05/02/2001

166 NOTICE OF APPEAL by ALLEN BENOWITZ at 9:22AM Re: case in its entirety. Fee Status: NOT PAID. Copies of notice of appeal sent to USCA and Attorney(s): BRUCE S. ROSEN, PATRICIA P. PERLMUTTER, D. HOLTZMAN, DIANNE M. MORATTI, DAVID M. RUSSO, DARRIN HOWARD, PAUL R. MURPHY (MS) (Entered: 12/12/2000)
Supplemental record sent to USCA on appeal: [166-1] appeal (MS) (Entered: 12/13/2000)
167 NOTICE of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [166-1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 00-4291 (MS) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
168 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing taken on 07/06/99 (SA) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
169 JUDGMENT OF USCA (certified copy) Re: [150-1] appeal dismissing for failure to timely prosecute. (MS) (Entered: 02/26/2001)
170 JUDGMENT OF USCA (certified copy) Re: [166-1] appeal dismissing for failure to timely prosecute. (MS) (Entered: 05/02/2001)
Record on appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeals: [166-1] appeal, [150-1] appeal (MS) (Entered: 05/02/2001)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:

hs0328

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages:

11

09/16/2005 14:57:47

Client Code:

Search

3:96-cv-01840-AET Start date:

Criteria: 1/1/1970 End date: 9/16/2005

Cost:

0.88

https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?802384239617696-L_280_0-1

9/16/2005