Bumgarner et al v. North Carolina Department of Correction et al, Docket No. 5:10-ct-03166 (E.D.N.C. Sept 17, 2010), Court Docket
Multiple Documents
Part Description 1 28 pages 2 Index Index to Exhibits 3 Exhibit Exhibit A 4 Exhibit Exhibit B 5 Exhibit Exhibit C 6 Exhibit Exhibit D 7 Exhibit Exhibit E 8 Exhibit Exhibit F 9 Exhibit Exhibit G 10 Exhibit Exhibit H 11 Exhibit Exhibit I 12 Exhibit Exhibit J 13 Exhibit Exhibit K 14 Exhibit Exhibit L 15 Summons - Department of Correction 16 Summons - Alvin W. Keller 17 Summons - Robert Lewis 18 Summons - Laura Yates 19 Summons - Paula Y. Smith
© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LE8MMLO2?documentName=1.xml

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud,

)

Raymond Hall, Roger Howell,

)

Randy Johnson, and Wayne Payne,

)

)

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves )

and all others similarly situated, )

)

vs.

)

)

North Carolina Department of Correction, )

Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis,

)

Laura Yates, and Paula Y. Smith,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, inmates with disabilities within the custody and control of the North Carolina

Department of Correction, bring this complaint against Defendants and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought under Title II of

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

(“Rehabilitation Act”) of 1973. Plaintiffs are disabled individuals presently under the custody

and control of the North Carolina Department of Correction (“DOC”). They seek to represent a

class of all present and future disabled inmates within the DOC who may be subjected to the

unlawful policies and practices described herein. Defendants discriminate against Plaintiffs,

exclude Plaintiffs from participation in, and deny Plaintiffs the benefits of the DOC’s sentence

reduction credit programs by reason of Plaintiffs’ disabilities. Consequently, by reason of their

disabilities, all Plaintiffs are serving longer prison sentences than they would serve if they were

not disabled, in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

1 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 28

BACKGROUND 2. The ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 3. The ADA defines individuals with disabilities as individuals who have “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities”, who have “a record of such an impairment”, or who are “regarded as having such an impairment”. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Plaintiffs all qualify as “individuals with disabilities” as defined in that provision. See id. 4. Pursuant to the ADA,“[t]he term ‘qualified individual with a disability’ means an individual with a disability who . . . meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). In this case, the only “essential eligibility requirement[]” for participation in DOC sentence reduction credit programs is that individuals are “sentenced to the custody of the Department of Correction for confinement in its facilities [or] sentenced jail prisoners”. DOC Sentence Reduction Credit Policy, Policy and Procedures Manual (“DOC Manual”) Chapter B .0109. Plaintiffs, as sentenced inmates within the custody and control of the DOC, meet the “essential eligibility requirements” for participating in the DOC’s sentence reduction credit programs. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). 5. The Rehabilitation Act similarly prohibits such discrimination by an entity receiving federal financial assistance. The Rehabilitation Act provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be
2 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 28

excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The Rehabilitation Act defines program or activity to include “all of the operations of . . . a department, agency, . . . or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government . . . .” The Rehabilitation Act refers to the ADA for its definitions for “disability” and “individual with a disability”. 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(9), 705(20)(B). Hereinafter, the term “disabled inmates” is used to refer to qualified individuals with disabilities, as defined in the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
6. Defendants exclude Plaintiffs from participation in sentence reduction credit programs, deny Plaintiffs the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs, and subject Plaintiffs to discrimination in the administration of sentence reduction credit programs by reason of Plaintiffs’ disabilities.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this subject matter and the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The matters in controversy arise under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. 8. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because the Defendants are located within the Eastern District of North Carolina, and because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred, and continue to occur, within the Eastern District of North Carolina.
PARTIES PLAINTIFFS
9. Chad Bumgarner (a/k/a Bumgardner)
3 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 3 of 28

a. Mr. Bumgarner is in the custody and control of the DOC at Randolph Correctional Center (“Randolph”).
b. Mr. Bumgarner suffers from a neurodegenerative nerve disorder known as Charcot Marie Tooth Syndrome. This physical impairment affects his feet, lower legs, and hands, and substantially limits his major life activities, including but not limited to, caring for himself, performing manual tasks, such as writing, walking, standing, lifting, bending, and working. Mr. Bumgarner requires leg braces to stand and a cane to walk. In addition, Mr. Bumgarner has bipolar disorder. This mental impairment substantially limits his major life activities, including but not limited to, learning, concentrating, thinking, and working.
c. Despite his eligibility for participation in sentence reduction credit programs, Defendants have denied Mr. Bumgarner the opportunity to participate in and the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs by reason of his disabilities. 10. Edmund Gaud
a. Mr. Gaud is in the custody and control of the DOC at Foothills Correctional Institution (“Foothills”).
b. Mr. Gaud is physically impaired as a result of a back condition and arthritis which substantially limit his major life activities, including but not limited to, walking, standing, lifting, bending, and working. Mr. Gaud walks with a cane.
c. Despite his eligibility for participation in sentence reduction credit programs, Defendants have denied Mr. Gaud the opportunity to participate in and the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs by reason of his disabilities. 11. Raymond Hall
4 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 4 of 28

a. Mr. Hall is in the custody and control of the DOC at Mountain View Correctional Institution (“Mountain View”).
b. As a result of an accident in 1995, Mr. Hall’s left leg was amputated below the knee and his right leg was reconstructed. This physical impairment substantially limits his major life activities, including but not limited to, walking, working, caring for himself, performing manual tasks, standing, and sitting.
c. Despite his eligibility for participation in sentence reduction credit programs, Defendants have denied Mr. Hall the opportunity to participate in and the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs by reason of his disabilities. 12. Roger Howell
a. Mr. Howell is in the custody and control of the DOC at Albemarle Correctional Center (“Albemarle”).
b. Mr. Howell is physically impaired as a result of colorectal cancer and related complications, which have left him with a colostomy, an intestinal-rectal fistula, and a bad back. These conditions substantially limit his major life activities, including but not limited to, walking and working.
c. Despite his eligibility for participation in sentence reduction credit programs, Defendants have denied Mr. Howell the opportunity to participate in and the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs by reason of his disabilities. 13. Randy Johnson
a. Mr. Johnson is in the custody and control of the DOC at Warren Correctional Center (“Warren”).
5 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 5 of 28

b. Mr. Johnson suffers from HIV; lung cancer, for which he is currently receiving treatment; and depression. These physical and mental impairments substantially limit his major life activities, including but not limited to working, and the operation of major bodily functions, including functions of the immune system and normal cell growth.
c. Despite his eligibility for participation in sentence reduction credit programs, Defendants have denied Mr. Johnson the opportunity to participate in and the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs by reason of his disabilities. 14. Wayne Payne
a. Mr. Payne is in the custody and control of the DOC at Lumberton Correctional Institution (“Lumberton”).
b. Mr. Payne is physically impaired as a result of cerebral palsy and a knee injury which substantially limit his major life activities, including but not limited to, walking, standing, lifting, bending, and working.
c. Despite his eligibility for participation in sentence reduction credit programs, Defendants have denied Mr. Payne the opportunity to participate in and the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs by reason of his disabilities. 15. Defendants have excluded all of the above-named Plaintiffs from accessing sentence reduction credit programs by reason of their disabilities. DEFENDANTS 16. Defendant DOC is the North Carolina agency charged with operating prison facilities within North Carolina. The DOC is both a “public entity” as defined in Section 12131
6 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 6 of 28

of the ADA, and a “program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” as defined in the Rehabilitation Act.
17. Defendant Alvin W. Keller, Jr. is Secretary of the DOC. As Secretary, Mr. Keller is responsible for the operation and administration of all facilities within the DOC, including the administration of sentence reduction credit programs; vocational, work and educational programs; and disability compliance. Mr. Keller is responsible for the policies and practices set forth below that have resulted in the deprivations of Plaintiffs’ rights under federal law. Mr. Keller is sued in his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief for his violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as set forth in the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
18. Defendant Robert Lewis is Director of the Division of Prisons (“DOP”) within the DOC. As Director, Mr. Lewis is responsible for the operation and administration of all facilities within the DOP, including the administration of sentence reduction credit programs; vocational, work and educational programs; and disability compliance. Mr. Lewis’s predecessor, former Director of Prisons James Boyd Bennett, authorized the DOC’s current sentence reduction credit program on October 5, 2007. Mr. Lewis is sued in his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief for his violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as set forth in the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
19. Defendant Laura Yates is the ADA Coordinator for the DOC. As ADA Coordinator, Ms. Yates is responsible for ensuring that all programs, activities, and services operated by and under the control of the DOC comply with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Ms. Yates is sued in her official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief for her violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as set forth in the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
7 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 7 of 28

20. Defendant Paula Y. Smith, M.D. is the Medical Director for the DOP. As Medical Director, Dr. Smith is responsible for overseeing the medical care and accurate medical classification of disabled inmates within the DOC. Dr. Smith authorized the DOC’s policies governing patient assessment, patient placement at facilities, and treatment of patients with disabilities in the DOC’s Health Care Policy and Procedure Manual (“Health Manual”). Dr. Smith is sued in her official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief for her violation of Plaintiffs’ right as set forth in the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO THE CLASS 21. The ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits the same type of exclusion, but applies only to public entities, including the DOC, that receive federal funding. 29 U.S.C. § 794. 22. Plaintiffs are disabled inmates in the custody and control of the DOC. By reason of their disabilities, Defendants exclude Plaintiffs from participation in and deny Plaintiffs the benefits of the DOC’s sentence reduction credit programs in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs are disabled within the meaning of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act because they suffer from physical impairments that substantially limit one or more of their major life activities. They are otherwise qualified to participate in the sentence reduction credit programs because, as sentenced inmates within the custody and control of the DOC, they meet the essential eligibility requirements imposed by the DOC for participation in the DOC’s sentence reduction credit programs.
8 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 8 of 28

23. Pursuant to North Carolina law and DOC Policy and Procedures, inmates within the DOC may participate in sentence reduction credit programs through which they may earn credits that shorten their terms of incarceration. When the DOC awards sentence reduction credits to an inmate, the DOC reduces the inmate’s sentence from his or her maximum term towards, but no lower than, his or her minimum term of imprisonment.
24. The DOC sets forth sentence reduction credit programs in DOC Manual Chapter B .0112(a) and .0113(a) that provide inmates an opportunity to earn up to six days per month of sentence reduction credits if they “work full-time, or participate in full-time programs which would assist their productive re-entry into the community.” The DOC refers to these sentence reduction credit programs as “gain time” for inmates who are serving sentences for offenses committed prior to October 1, 1994, and “earned time” for inmates who are serving sentences for offenses committed on or after October 1, 1994. See DOC Manual Chapter B .0112 and .0113.
25. The DOC also allows inmates to earn sentence reduction credits for meritorious service. See DOC Manual Chapter B .0114. The DOC awards these credits for exemplary performance by an inmate, typically in a job or program assignment. Throughout this Complaint, gain time, earned time, and meritorious service programs will be referred to collectively as “traditional sentence reduction credit programs”.1
26. Defendants exclude Plaintiffs from gain and earned time programs and the associated benefits of sentence reduction credits by denying Plaintiffs access to work and program assignments by reason of their disabilities. Upon information and belief, Defendants also discriminate against disabled inmates in the award of sentence reduction credits for
1 Note that the DOC also administers a “good time” program for inmates serving sentences for offenses committed before October 1, 1994 and for inmates serving sentences for Driving While Impaired, regardless of the offense date. However, this policy is not involved in the allegations of this Complaint, and therefore is not included within references to “traditional sentence reduction credit programs”.
9 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 9 of 28

meritorious service, since they are excluded from most of the activities for which inmates may
earn meritorious service credits – such as working overtime, working in inclement weather and
completion of apprenticeship programs – by reason of their disabilities. See DOC Manual
Chapter B .0114.
27. Following the passage of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1355(d)2, the DOC established a
Gain and Earned Time Credit for Medically and Physically Unfit Inmates program (“medical
gain time program”), which grants some disabled prisoners access to sentence reduction credits. 3
2 “Inmates in the custody of the Department of Correction who suffer from medical conditions or physical disabilities that prevent their assignment to work release or other rehabilitative activities may, consistent with rules of the Department of Correction, earn credit based upon good behavior or other criteria determined by the Department that may be used to reduce their maximum term of imprisonment[.]” 3 The “medical gain time program” is set forth in Chapter B .0177 of the DOC Manual and as follows: “GAIN and EARNED TIME CREDIT FOR MEDICALLY AND PHYSICALLY UNFIT INMATES (a) When a determination has been made by a Department of Correction medical authority that an
inmate is unable to engage in any available work or programs or other assignments due to a medical/mental health condition or a physical disability, the inmate is designated as medically unfit and is granted sentence reduction credits at the rate of four (4) days per month that is awarded as Gain or Earned Time. (b) For the purposes of this policy, medically unfit shall be defined as inmates designated in Acuity Level 4, PULHEAT Activity Grade 4 or 5, and Mental Health Grade 4. Sentence Reduction credits will continue for identified inmates if transferred to a community hospital for treatment purposes. (c) Medically unfit status continues until a medical authority determines that the medical/mental health condition or physical disability no longer prevents assignment to work or other activities. (d) An inmate who is limited for some but not all work or program activities is given an available assignment appropriate to his or her medical/mental health condition and physical disability. The inmate is awarded sentence reduction credits based on his/her assignment, and is not designated as medically unfit. (e) The following inmates are not designated as medically unfit: (1) An inmate who refuses to participate in work or other assignments that is are appropriate
for his or her medical/mental health condition and physical disability. (2) An inmate whose medical/mental health condition or physical disability is the result of
self-injurious behavior while in prison. (3) An inmate on a control or segregation status (other than protective control). (f) This policy applies to eligible inmates as described above who are serving sentences under any sentencing act.”
10 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 10 of 28

Unfortunately, despite the creation of the medical gain time program, the DOC continues to deny disabled inmates access to and benefits of sentence reduction credits granted to non-disabled inmates, in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
28. Pursuant to the medical gain time policy, the DOC grants disabled inmates sentence reduction credits only if it determines that they are “medically unfit”. The DOC classifies an inmate as “medically unfit” if he or she has either an Acuity Level of 4, an Activity Grade of 4 or 5, or a Mental Health Grade of 4. DOC Manual Chapter B .0177. Broadly speaking, Acuity Levels reflect an inmate’s need for nursing care; Activity Grades concern institutional assignments and reflect an inmate’s ability to participate in activities including work, recreation and education; and Mental Health Grades reflect an inmate’s mental health status and the presence of any mental health disorders. See Health Manual Policies A-2 and A-9. The DOC’s definition of “medically unfit” bears no relation to the definition of “disabled” under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Consequently, the DOC misclassifies numerous disabled inmates and excludes them from participation in the medical gain time program at the same time it excludes them from traditional sentence reduction credit programs.
29. For example, Mr. Payne is disabled under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act as a result of a cerebral palsy and a knee injury which substantially limit his major life activities, including but not limited to, walking, standing, lifting, bending, and working. However, the DOC declines to classify Mr. Payne as “medically unfit” and therefore he cannot earn medical gain time, despite the fact that he is too disabled to perform most jobs or participate in most programs that would allow him to earn traditional sentence reduction credits. The net result of his exclusion from sentence reduction credit programs is that Mr. Payne will serve a longer term of imprisonment by reason of his disabilities.
11 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 11 of 28

30. Moreover, disabled inmates’ access to the medical gain time program appears to
be dependent on where they are housed, as many inmates are told that they cannot participate in
the program because they are not at a facility that provides medical gain time. This may be, at
least in part, due to a facility classification system which prohibits certain facilities with limited accommodations from housing inmates with elevated health rankings.4 Upon information and
belief, disabled inmates housed at facilities which do not have a high level of available medical
resources are denied the opportunity to participate in the medical gain time program; classifying
them as “medically unfit” and granting them access to the medical gain time program would require transfer to another facility authorized to house “medically unfit” inmates.5
31. For example, the DOC changed Mr. Howell’s status from Acuity Level and/or
Activity Grade 4 (“medically unfit”) to Acuity Level and/or Activity Grade 2 upon his transfer to
Albemarle. The DOC reclassified Mr. Howell not based upon any change in his disability, but
instead simply upon the fact that Albemarle, unlike Foothills, where he was located shortly
before, apparently is not authorized to house inmates classified as Acuity Level 4. Mr. Howell
was informed that “this facility does not provide medical gaintime.” As a result of Mr. Howell’s
misclassification at Albemarle, he is currently excluded from participation in sentence reduction
credit programs and will serve a longer term of incarceration by reason of his disability.
4 See Health Manual Policy A-2 II. (“Each facility will be evaluated and given a P-U-L-H-E-A-T-D-M-R profile based on the available accommodations, programs, and services at the facility. Inmate housing assignments should match the inmate’s profile with the facility profile”); A-2 Attachment B (“These are [Activity Grade] guidelines for criteria utilized to affect housing and activity assignment”); and A-9 (“Every inmate will be placed in a prison facility, which is capable of meeting his or her medical and mental health needs. Every facility will be assigned an acuity level to assist in the proper placement of the inmate.”) 5 See, e.g., Health Manual A-9 I. D. (“If [an inmate’s] new [Acuity] rating is in conflict with the factility the inmate is backlogged to or the admitting facility, the Transfer Coordinator is to be notified immediately. The inmate should not be transferred to a facility with a conflicting acuity rating except under special circumstances as identified in this policy.”)
12 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 12 of 28

32. In addition, disabled inmates who are not classified as “medically unfit” and are thus denied access to the medical gain time program nevertheless have restrictions placed on their activities by medical staff, and such restrictions prevent them from working or participating in other activities through which they would otherwise have the opportunity to earn gain time or earned time.
33. For example, the DOC withholds from Mr. Payne the designation of “medical unfitness” despite medical staff’s written acknowledgement that “due [to] Payne’s medical condition he can not work or go to school.” The DOC thus excludes him from participation in and denies him the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs by reason of his disabilities.
34. Moreover, the DOC also withholds the designation of “medical unfitness” from certain other classes of disabled inmates, including those who suffer from a temporary or remitting impairment, despite their inability to participate in traditional sentence reduction credit programs by reason of their disabilities. For example, when inmates are designated “medically unavailable” during the treatment of an acute medical problem, the DOC does not consider them to be “medically unfit” and therefore denies them access to medical gain time, even when their episodic or remitting impairment qualifies them as disabled under the ADA.
35. For example, Mr. Johnson had to stop working a gain time job when one of his lungs was surgically removed in April 2010. He is currently receiving treatment for his cancer and 24-hour care, and expects to remain under these conditions at least through October of 2010. Despite his current inability to participate in any traditional sentence reduction credit program, the DOC has told him that he cannot earn medical gain time because he is not classified as “medically unfit”. Mr. Johnson qualifies as disabled under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act as he suffers from a remitting impairment that substantially limits a major life activity when
13 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 13 of 28

active. The DOC is denying Mr. Howell access to all sentence reduction credit programs by reason of his disability and is forcing him to serve a longer term of imprisonment as a result.
36. In addition, the medical gain time program purports to accommodate a partially disabled inmate by classifying him or her as “limited for some but not all work or program activities” and stating that he or she “is given an available assignment appropriate to his or her medical/mental health condition and physical disability.” DOC Manual Chapter B .0117. Such an inmate “is awarded sentence reduction credits based on his/her assignment, and is not designated as medically unfit.” Id. However, upon information and belief, many disabled inmates who are not classified as “medically unfit” are placed under medical restrictions which also prevent their assignment to all gain/earned time work or program activities, and thus are not given any assignment. Other disabled inmates are housed in facilities where jobs are available for non-disabled inmates, but the very few gain or earned time assignments they are permitted to perform are not available. In these circumstances, disabled inmates are denied participation in all DOC sentence reduction credit programs by reason of their disabilities.
37. For example, at Warren the DOC classified Mr. Johnson as Acuity Level 2B and ineligible for medical gain time. Pursuant to the medical gain time program, this designation indicates that he is “limited for some but not all work or program activities” and “is given an available assignment appropriate to his or her medical/mental health condition and physical disability.” DOC Manual Chapter B .0177(d). However, in practice, Warren has no available assignments appropriate to his medical condition and physical disability. Thus, the DOC denies Mr. Johnson both medical gain time and access to traditional sentence reduction credit programs while at Warren by reason of his disabilities. The DOC’s exclusion of Mr. Johnson from
14 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 14 of 28

sentence reduction credit programs at Warren extends his term of incarceration by reason of his disabilities.
38. In addition, upon information and belief, the DOC imposes a six-month waiting period at any facility before an inmate can be transferred to another facility. Thus, even disabled inmates who have the eventual good fortune of being transferred to a facility at which they can receive gain or earned time are arbitrarily prevented from receiving such gain or earned time for six months while waiting for a transfer.
39. For example, Mr. Gaud requested a transfer from Pender Correctional Institution (“Pender”) to a facility at which he could earn sentence reduction credits, but DOC officials informed him that he would need to be at Pender for at least six months before he could be transferred to a facility that could accommodate his participation in sentence reduction credit programs. Upon information and belief, by restricting transfers, the DOC prolongs the exclusion of disabled prisoners such as Mr. Gaud from sentence reduction credit programs.
40. In addition, even when disabled inmates are finally classified as “medically unfit” and allowed to participate in the medical gain time program, this often happens long after they became disabled, and they are only granted sentence reduction credits from that date forward.
41. For example, despite the fact that the nature and extent of Mr. Hall’s disability has remained consistent throughout his term of imprisonment, he spent two years within the DOC before the DOC classified him as Activity Level 4 and granted him access to medical gain time.
42. Finally, even when a disabled inmate is given the opportunity to earn sentence reduction credits through the medical gain time policy, the policy discriminates against disabled inmates by providing them with the opportunity to earn only four days of sentence reduction
15 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 15 of 28

credits per month, while non-disabled inmates participating in gain or earned time programs may earn up to six days of sentence reduction credits per month.
43. For example, Mr. Bumgarner began earning medical gain time on December 22, 2009. Pursuant to the medical gain time program, the DOC limits his sentence reduction credits to a rate of 4 days per month. If he were not disabled, the DOC would provide him the opportunity to earn a maximum of 6 days of sentence reduction credits per month pursuant to the gain and earned time programs, and provide additional opportunities to earn credits for meritorious service. By reason of his disability, the DOC restricts Mr. Bumgarner’s gain time to a rate that is two-thirds the rate available to non-disabled inmates, and therefore discriminates against him in the administration of its sentence reduction credit programs.
44. In short, despite the establishment of a medical gain time program, the DOC has excluded disabled inmates from participation in and denied them the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs.
45. The net effect of these violations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act is that disabled inmates within the DOC are, by reason of their disabilities, serving longer prison sentences then their non-disabled counterparts.
NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ EXCLUSION FROM SENTENCE REDUCTION CREDIT PROGRAMS 46. Plaintiff Chad Bumgarner a. Mr. Bumgarner began serving his term of imprisonment in November of 2008. Mr. Bumgarner reported his evident disabilities to the DOC upon his arrival to prison in leg braces, and there has been no significant change in the nature of his disabilities since he entered prison in 2008.
16 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 16 of 28

b. Almost immediately, the DOC transferred Mr. Bumgarner to Mountain View but declined to designate his as “medically unfit”. At Mountain View, Mr. Bumgarner attempted to get a job, but the DOC told him that there were no jobs he could hold given his medical restrictions. He did take classes in order to obtain sentence reduction credits, but he did so with extreme difficulty. On December 22, 2009, after more than a year in prison, the DOC finally recognized Mr. Bumgarner’s disability, elevated his Activity Grade to 4, and began granting him medical gain time.
c. The DOC now awards Mr. Bumgarner medical gain time at a rate of 4 days per month, two-thirds the rate at which it makes sentence reduction credits available to non-disabled inmates, and therefore discriminates against him in the administration of its sentence reduction credit programs. 47. Plaintiff Edmund Gaud
a. Mr. Gaud began serving his term of imprisonment in February 2006. Mr. Gaud reported his disabilities upon arrival to prison, and there has been no significant change in the nature of his disabilities since he entered prison. The DOC did not classify Mr. Gaud as “medically unfit” upon arrival.
b. Mr. Gaud has sought to earn sentence reduction credits any way he can. He has requested jobs, classes, and medical gain time at every institution at which he has resided.
c. At Hoke Correctional Institution (“Hoke”), the DOC denied Mr. Gaud the opportunity to work, participate in programs, or access sentence reduction credits through the medical gain time program.
17 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 17 of 28

d. The DOC transferred Mr. Gaud to Mountain View, where he was able to earn sentence reduction credits by participating in the Geriatrics program.
e. The DOC transferred Mr. Gaud to Columbus Correctional Center (“Columbus”), and, as at Hoke, denied him the opportunity to work, participate in programs, or access sentence reduction credits through the medical gain time program.
f. At Lumberton, Mr. Gaud was able to convince staff to give him a job with responsibilities modified to his restrictions.
g. At Albemarle, Mr. Gaud tried to work as a janitor, but the job required him to perform additional tasks that the janitor job at Lumberton had not, and he was physically incapable of performing the more demanding janitorial job.
h. At Pender, the DOC classified Mr. Gaud as “medically unavailable” and denied him access to jobs, programs, and sentence reduction credits. Mr. Gaud requested transfer to a facility with a Geriatrics program through which he could earn sentence reduction credits, or the opportunity to earn sentence reduction credits through the medical gain time program. The DOC informed Mr. Gaud that he was not eligible for medical gain time and that, to be eligible for transfer, he would need to be at the facility for six months.
i. After more than six months at Pender, the DOC finally transferred Mr. Gaud to Foothills, a facility ranked to hold Acuity Level 4 inmates. Within days of his arrival, the DOC finally reclassified him and Mr. Gaud began receiving medical gain time. In sum, the DOC denied Mr. Gaud access to sentence reduction credits based on his disability for much of his time in prison before it recognized him as disabled and started awarding him sentence reduction credits.
18 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 18 of 28

j. The DOC now awards Mr. Gaud medical gain time at a rate of 4 days per month, two-thirds the rate at which it makes sentence reduction credits available to nondisabled inmates, and therefore discriminates against him in the administration of its sentence reduction credit programs. 48. Plaintiff Raymond Hall
a. Mr. Hall began serving his term of imprisonment in November of 2005. At that time, a DOC doctor at Piedmont Correctional Institution (“Piedmont”) informed Mr. Hall that, once the DOC transferred him to his assigned facility, he would begin receiving medical gain time. Mr. Hall’s severe disabilities were evident to the DOC upon his arrival to prison in 2005 in a wheelchair, and there has been no significant change in the nature of his disabilities since he entered prison in 2005.
b. The DOC transferred Mr. Hall to Lumberton around December 2005, but did not grant him the opportunity to earn medical gain time.
c. A DOC programmer at Lumberton told Mr. Hall that the DOC classified him as Activity Level 2 rather than Activity Level 4 not based on the severity of his disabilities, but simply because Lumberton does not house Activity Level 4 inmates.
d. At Lumberton, the DOC informed Mr. Hall that, by reason of his disabilities, there were no jobs or programs at Lumberton that he was capable of performing. During his first four months at Lumberton, the DOC denied Mr. Hall all access to sentence reduction credit programs. In March 2006, Mr. Hall asked for his medical restrictions to be eased so that he could take a GED class and accumulate earned time. The DOC changed documentation regarding medical restrictions on how long he could sit at one time, and he began taking the class. However, after less than a month,
19 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 19 of 28

Mr. Hall developed a serious sore and infection on his buttocks as a result of sitting in the classroom for too long and had to withdraw from the class.
e. After approximately seven months at Lumberton, the DOC transferred Mr. Hall to Mountain View. Because of Mr. Hall’s disabilities and medical restrictions, the DOC told him that there were no jobs or programs at Mountain View available to him, and denied him access to sentence reduction credit programs for approximately the first nine months he resided there. After diligent and continued requests to participate in a sentence reduction credit program, Mr. Hall’s programmer invented a job for Mr. Hall, and he earned gain time for wiping down facility tables and telephones. He maintained this assignment for seven months before transferring to Foothills. Nevertheless, for the majority of the seventeen months he was housed at Mountain View between 2006 and 2007, the DOC denied Mr. Hall all access to sentence reduction credit programs by reason of his disabilities.
f. In October 2007, the DOC transferred Mr. Hall from Mountain View to Foothills. Almost immediately after his transfer to Foothills, the DOC finally classified Mr. Hall as Activity Level 4 and began awarding him medical gain time in November 2007. Mr. Hall’s change in Activity Grade was not the result of any change in disability.
g. The DOC now awards Mr. Hall medical gain time at a rate of 4 days per month, two-thirds the rate at which it makes sentence reduction credits available to nondisabled inmates, and therefore discriminates against him in the administration of its sentence reduction credit programs. 49. Roger Howell
20 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 20 of 28

a. Mr. Howell began serving his present term of incarceration in 2007. At that point, he suffered from undiagnosed colorectal cancer. Though he managed to work some, Mr. Howell suffered bowel problems and pain that made working nearly unbearable. Mr. Howell's cancer was diagnosed in February 2008. From May to June 2008, Mr. Howell underwent radiation for his cancer. At the end of June, 2008, Mr. Howell underwent surgery and now wears a permanent colostomy bag. Mr. Howell also suffers from an intestinal-rectal fistula which causes digestive juices to leak from his rectum and requires him to wear adult diapers despite his colostomy. Mr. Howell has been told that, given his health status, it would be hard for him to endure another surgery to correct the fistula. As a result of his colostomy and fistula, Mr. Howell is required to be close to a toilet at all times. He experiences severe irritation and pain as a result of the leakage which limits his ability to walk, sit, and work.
b. In addition, Mr. Howell suffered from a lengthy infection which destroyed two vertebrae in his back. As a result, he experiences sharp pain and limitations on his ability to walk, work, lift, sit, or bend. The DOC granted Mr. Howell medical gain time beginning in June 2008 at Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander”) and continued to do so at Foothills, with short periods of interruption.
c. After a short stay at Piedmont, the DOC transferred Mr. Howell to Albemarle in February 2010, lowered his Acuity Level and/or Activity Grade to 2, and terminated his medical gain time. The DOC’s alteration of Mr. Howell's Acuity Level and/or Activity Grade was not the result of any change in his disability. In response to his grievance about this matter, the DOC informed Mr. Howell: “The Physician deemed you an Activity Level 2. This facility does not grant medical gain time. If you wish to
21 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 21 of 28

transfer to another facility, you will need to submit a transfer request through the proper channels.” The DOC thus currently denies Mr. Howell access to sentence reduction credit programs. 50. Plaintiff Randy L. Johnson
a. Mr. Johnson began serving his term of imprisonment in November of 2008. At that time, he suffered from HIV and depression, along with other complicating illnesses including Hepatitis B and C. In January 2010, Mr. Johnson was further diagnosed with lung cancer.
b. On April 14, 2010, the DOC removed Mr. Johnson from his gain time job when one of his lungs was surgically removed. Mr. Johnson is currently receiving 24hour care, and expects to be receiving medical treatment for his cancer until the fall of 2010, at the earliest. The DOC keeps Mr. Johnson in medical isolation because of his compromised immune system.
c. Mr. Johnson does not know exactly what condition he will be in when his treatment concludes, but even if the treatment is successful, the cancer might recur, and he will continue to suffer from HIV and Hepatitis B and C.
d. Mr. Johnson requested medical gain time at Warren after undergoing surgery and losing his gain time job, but the DOC told him “your PULHEAT does not reflect total inability to hold any job” and “medical gain time is not appropriate at this camp.” Mr. Johnson has tried to have the DOC change his medical restrictions so he can somehow earn sentence reduction credits. However, despite these efforts, the DOC has not assigned him a job compatible with his disability. In any event, Mr. Johnson does not feel that he is capable of working under the circumstances.
22 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 22 of 28

e. Since April 2010, the DOC has denied Mr. Johnson access to sentence reduction credits by reason of his disability, despite the fact that he is substantially limited in a number of major life activities by HIV and lung cancer, a disease which, even with successful treatment, is a remitting impairment. Mr. Johnson thus believes that the DOC will deny him access to all sentence reduction credit programs until the fall of 2010 at the earliest. 51. Plaintiff Wayne Payne
a. Mr. Payne began serving his term of imprisonment in April 2000. Mr. Payne's disabilities, the result of cerebral palsy and a knee injury, were reported as well as apparent upon his arrival to prison, and there has been no significant change in the nature of his disabilities since he entered prison.
b. The DOC has housed Mr. Payne at Marion Correctional Institution (“Marion”), Pender, Mountain View, Albemarle, Avery Mitchell Correctional Institution (“Avery Mitchell”), Lumberton, and Warren.
c. The DOC designated Mr. Payne as medically unfit and granted him medical gain time for some period of time at Marion, but he has not received medical gain time at any other facility.
d. Mr. Payne has attempted to receive a job or program assignment at all facilities, and has received gain time for light job assignments and classes. Out of a desire to shorten his term of imprisonment, Mr. Payne has taken assignments which were not suitable to his disability, aggravated his condition, and caused him pain and suffering. When Mr. Payne complained about the physical harm caused by unsuitable assignments and sought medical gain time, the DOC told him that he was Activity Grade 3 and thus
23 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 23 of 28

not eligible for medical gain time, so he should inform his instructor of his need for breaks.
e. Because he did not attend some classes when the pain was too much, the DOC charged Mr. Payne with a disciplinary infraction for “[l]eav[ing], quit[ting] without authorization, or fail[ing] to report to any facility job, work or program assignment, or scheduled appointment.” The DOC subsequently dismissed his charge “due to Nurse Supervisor Kathy Locklear stating [that] due [to] inmate Payne’s medical condition he can not work or go to school”. Nevertheless, the DOC persisted in its refusal to grant Mr. Payne medical gain time.
f. Mr. Payne requested transfer to a prison with jobs or programs suitable to his disability over a year ago, but the DOC has kept him at Lumberton without access to such jobs or programs, and without access to sentence reduction credit programs.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION 52. All Plaintiffs have attempted to resolve this matter without litigation, have exhausted their administrative remedies relating to this complaint, and have attached copies of grievances demonstrating their completion of the grievance process.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 53. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this complaint. 54. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all present and future disabled inmates of the DOC who have been, and may in the future be, discriminated against, excluded from participation in, and denied the benefits of the DOC’s sentence reduction credit programs by reason of their disabilities.
24 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 24 of 28

55. The DOC houses approximately 40,000 inmates at any given time. 56. Upon information and belief, a significant number of these inmates are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined by the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, who are, by reason of such disabilities, excluded from participation in and denied the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs. 57. Because the size of the class is so numerous, and because membership in the class continuously changes, joinder of all members is impracticable. 58. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including but not limited to, whether Defendants have violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by denying disabled inmates the opportunity to participate in and the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs by reason of their disabilities and by subjecting disabled inmates to discrimination. 59. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the entire class, and the laws, policies, conditions, practices and omissions that form the basis of this complaint are common to all members of the class. 60. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants. 61. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications and would substantially impair and impede the ability of other members to protect their interests.
25 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 25 of 28

62. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
63. Questions of law and fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
64. The named Plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately representing the class and protecting its interests. North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., counsel for Plaintiffs, is a legal services organization experienced in prisoners' civil rights litigation with a proven track record of protecting inmates’ civil rights and securing reform of the DOC and its facilities.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act 65. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this complaint. 66. Plaintiffs are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined by the ADA. They have physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities; they have records of having such impairments; or they are regarded as having such impairments. 67. As state prisoners, all Plaintiffs meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by Defendants. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (2). 68. Defendants are public entities, or agents or officials of public entities, as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B). 69. Defendants, by reason of Plaintiffs’ disabilities, exclude Plaintiffs from participation in and deny them the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs. Defendants discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of their disabilities in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
26 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 26 of 28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Rehabilitation Act 70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this complaint. 71. Plaintiffs are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in the Rehabilitation Act. They have physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities; they have records of having such impairments; or they are regarded as having such impairments. 72. As state prisoners, all Plaintiffs meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by Defendants. 73. Defendants are public entities or agents or officials of public entities who administer “programs or activities”, as defined in the Rehabilitation Act. 74. At all times relevant to this complaint, the DOC received and continues to receive federal financial assistance. 75. Defendants, solely by reason of Plaintiffs’ disabilities, exclude Plaintiffs from participation in and deny them the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs. Defendants discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of their disabilities in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court grant them the following relief:
76. Adjudge and declare that the policies, practices, omissions and conditions described above are in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
27 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 27 of 28

77. Permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, employees and all persons acting in

concert with them, from subjecting Plaintiffs and the putative class to the illegal policies,

practices, omissions and conditions described above;

78. Order Defendants, their agents, employees and all persons acting in concert with

them, to perform individualized assessments of all DOC inmates for disability in accordance

with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act;

79. Order Defendants, their agents, employees and all persons acting in concert with

them, to provide disabled inmates with access to and the full benefits of the DOC’s sentence

reduction credit programs;

80. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the

orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply

in the future;

81. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205, award Plaintiffs the costs

of this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

82. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, this the 17th day of September, 2010.

/s/ Ann Ferrari ________ Ann Ferrari N.C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. Post Office Box 25397 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Telephone: 919-856-2200 Fax: 919-856-2223 Email: aferrari@ncpls.org State Bar No. 36184

/s/ Emily Coward ________ Emily Coward N.C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. Post Office Box 25397 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Telephone: 919-856-2200 Fax: 919-856-2223 Email: ecoward@ncpls.org State Bar No. 38663

28 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 28 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud,

)

Raymond Hall, Roger Howell,

)

Randy Johnson, and Wayne Payne,

)

)

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves )

and all others similarly situated, )

)

vs.

)

)

North Carolina Department of Correction, )

Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis,

)

Laura Yates, and Paula Y. Smith,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Chad Bumgarner’s Verification Form............................................A Chad Bumgarner’s Grievances.......................................................B Edmund Gaud’s Verification Form ................................................C Edmund Gaud’s Grievances ...........................................................D Raymond Hall’s Verification Form................................................ E Raymond Hall’s Grievances........................................................... F Roger Howell’s Verification Form.................................................G Roger Howell’s Grievances............................................................H Randy Johnson’s Verification Form................................................ I Randy Johnson’s Grievances........................................................... J Wayne Payne’s Verification Form .................................................K Wayne Payne’s Grievances ............................................................ L

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 1

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-2 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-2 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-3 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 5

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-3 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 5

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-3 Filed 09/17/10 Page 3 of 5

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-3 Filed 09/17/10 Page 4 of 5

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-3 Filed 09/17/10 Page 5 of 5

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-4 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-4 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-5 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 8

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-5 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 8

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-5 Filed 09/17/10 Page 3 of 8

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-5 Filed 09/17/10 Page 4 of 8

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-5 Filed 09/17/10 Page 5 of 8

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-5 Filed 09/17/10 Page 6 of 8

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-5 Filed 09/17/10 Page 7 of 8

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-5 Filed 09/17/10 Page 8 of 8

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-6 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-6 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-7 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 5

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-7 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 5

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-7 Filed 09/17/10 Page 3 of 5

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-7 Filed 09/17/10 Page 4 of 5

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-7 Filed 09/17/10 Page 5 of 5

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-8 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-8 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-9 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 4

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-9 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 4

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-9 Filed 09/17/10 Page 3 of 4

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-9 Filed 09/17/10 Page 4 of 4

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-10 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-10 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-11 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 6

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-11 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 6

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-11 Filed 09/17/10 Page 3 of 6

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-11 Filed 09/17/10 Page 4 of 6

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-11 Filed 09/17/10 Page 5 of 6

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-11 Filed 09/17/10 Page 6 of 6

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-12 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-12 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-13 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 4

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-13 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 4

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-13 Filed 09/17/10 Page 3 of 4

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-13 Filed 09/17/10 Page 4 of 4

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_E__a_st_e_rn__D_i_stDriicsttroifctNoofr_th__C_a_ro_l_i_n_a_

Chad Bumgarner, et al.
Plaintiff
v. North Carolina Department of Correction, et al.
Defendant

) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 5:10-ct-3166 ) ) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) North Carolina Department of Correction c/o Alvin W. Keller, Secretary of Correction 831 West Morgan Street 4201 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4201

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Ann Ferrari, Staff Attorney
Emily Coward, Staff Attorney North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services 1110 Wake Forest Road Raleigh, NC 27604
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-14 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 5:10-ct-3166

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-14 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_E__a_st_e_rn__D_i_stDriicsttroifctNoofr_th__C_a_ro_l_i_n_a_

Chad Bumgarner, et al.
Plaintiff
v. North Carolina Department of Correction, et al.
Defendant

) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 5:10-ct-3166 ) ) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Alvin W. Keller, Secretary of Correction 831 West Morgan Street 4201 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4201

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Ann Ferrari, Staff Attorney
Emily Coward, Staff Attorney North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services 1110 Wake Forest Road Raleigh, NC 27604
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-15 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 5:10-ct-3166

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-15 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_E__a_st_e_rn__D_i_stDriicsttroifctNoofr_th__C_a_ro_l_i_n_a_

Chad Bumgarner, et al.
Plaintiff
v. North Carolina Department of Correction, et al.
Defendant

) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 5:10-ct-3166 ) ) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Robert Lewis Director, Division of Prisons 831 West Morgan Street 4260 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Ann Ferrari, Staff Attorney
Emily Coward, Staff Attorney North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services 1110 Wake Forest Road Raleigh, NC 27604
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-16 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 5:10-ct-3166

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-16 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_E__a_st_e_rn__D_i_stDriicsttroifctNoofr_th__C_a_ro_l_i_n_a_

Chad Bumgarner, et al.
Plaintiff
v. North Carolina Department of Correction, et al.
Defendant

) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 5:10-ct-3166 ) ) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Laura Yates ADA Coordinator, North Carolina Department of Correction 831 West Morgan Street 4201 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4201

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Ann Ferrari, Staff Attorney
Emily Coward, Staff Attorney North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services 1110 Wake Forest Road Raleigh, NC 27604
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-17 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 5:10-ct-3166

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-17 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_E__a_st_e_rn__D_i_stDriicsttroifctNoofr_th__C_a_ro_l_i_n_a_

Chad Bumgarner, et al.
Plaintiff
v. North Carolina Department of Correction, et al.
Defendant

) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 5:10-ct-3166 ) ) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Paula Y. Smith Medical Director, North Carolina Department of Correction 831 West Morgan Street 4278 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4278

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Ann Ferrari, Staff Attorney
Emily Coward, Staff Attorney North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services 1110 Wake Forest Road Raleigh, NC 27604
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-18 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 5:10-ct-3166

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 1-18 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 2

Bumgarner et al v. North Carolina Department of Correction et al, Docket No. 5:10-ct-03166 (E.D.N.C. Sept 17, 2010), Court Docket
General Information

Case Name
Docket Number Court
Primary Date Nature of Suit Related Opinion(s)

Bumgarner et al v. North Carolina Department of Correction et al
5:10-ct-03166
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
2010-09-17 00:00:00
Prisoner Petitions: Habeus Corpus - Civil Rights
276 F.R.D. 452

© Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LE8MMLO2?documentName=1.xml

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION


No.5: 10-CT-3 166-BO


CHAD BUMGARNER, et aI, Plaintiffs,
v.
NCDOC, et aI., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

ORDER


)

)

)


Plaintiffs are presently inmates in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction ("DOC"). Plaintiffs are also disabled. I This action was brought against the DOC other defendants for defendants' alleged unlawful practices of discriminating against plaintiffs, excluding plaintiffs from participation in DOC's sentence reduction credit programs, and denying plaintiffs the benefits of DOC's sentence reduction credit programs, because of plaintiffs' disabilities. As a result, plaintiffs assert the disabled inmates in the DOC are serving longer prison sentences than they would serve if they were not disabled, in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Rehabilitation Act") of 1973. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. (D.E. # 3) Plaintiffs seek to present a class of all present and future disabled inmates of the DOC "who have been, and may in the future be, discriminated against, excluded from participation in, and denied the benefits of the DOC's sentence reduction credit programs by reason of their disabilities." Plaintiffs seek declaratory

1The complaint and motion refer to named plaintiffs as "qualified individuals with disabilities" under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and instruct the court the individuals shall be referred to as "disabled."
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 29 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 9

and injunctive relief under the ADA and each allege that individually they have "all sought access to and been denied participation in and benefits of sentence reduction credit programs administered by the DOC by reason of their disabilities." (Compl. ~~ 45-50). For the following reasons, the class certification is allowed.
FACTS All named plaintiffs are "qualified individuals with disabilities" under ADA and the Rehabilitation Act who are in the custody and control of the DOC. (Compl. ~ 21) The DOC administers and oversees the sentence reduction credit programs. (Compl. ~ 22) Through this program inmates within the DOC may earn credits that shorten their terms of incarceration. (Id.) When sentence reduction credits are awarded to an inmate, the DOC subtracts the credits from the inmate's total term of imprisonment and advances the inmate's projected release date. (Compl. ~ 22) The net result of the discrimination, it is alleged, is that disabled plaintiffs serve longer terms of imprisonment than inmates without disabilities. (Compi. ~ 44) Plaintiffs contend the exclusion from participation and denial of the benefit of the sentence reduction credit programs by reason of their disabilities occurs in a number of different ways. Plaintiff Bumgarner alleges the DOC failed to provide him with access to the medical gain time program for over a year after his DOC admission, despite disabilities preventing him from accessing all work assignments through which he could earn conventional gain time. While he did earn some gain time, it was only through attending classes which "severely taxed his physical capacities." (Compl. ~ 46) When the DOC began awarding sentence reduction credits to plaintiff Bumgarner through the medical gain time program, it did so at two-thirds the rate available to non-disabled inmates. (Compi. ~ 46)
2

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 29 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 9

As for plaintiff Gaud, it is alleged that the DOC denied plaintiff access to sentence reduction credits because of his disability for much of his time in prison before recognizing his disability. Only then did the DOC begin to award sentence reduction credits through the medical gain time program. (CompI. ~ 47) Plaintiff Gaud also receives credits at two-thirds the rate available to non-disabled inmates. (CompI. ~ 47)
As for plaintiff Hall, it is alleged that during the first two years of his incarceration, the DOC refused to acknowledge the severity of his disability and, by reason of his disabilities, granted him only sporadic access to conventional sentence reduction credit programs. (CompI. ~ 48.) In late 2007, following Hall's transfer to a facility that routinely awards medical gain time, Hall's status was altered. At that point, he was granted access to the medical gain time program. Similarly, the DOC denies Hall the opportunity to earn sentence reduction credits at the rate available to nondisabled inmates, and awards Hall sentence reduction credits only at the lower rate set forth for "medically unfit" inmates. (CompI. ~ 48)
As for plaintiff Howell, he alleges, the DOC belatedly granted him access to the medical gain time program (in June 2008) and awarded him credits at a rate lower than the rate available to non-disabled inmates. Then in February 20 I0 he was removed from the program when transferred to a facility that "does not grant medical gain time". (Compi. ~ 49) His disability did not change. The DOC currently "denies Howell all access to and benefits of sentence reduction credit programs by reason of his disability." (CompI. ~ 49)
Plaintiff Johnson alleges that he has been excluded from participation in the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs since his April 2010 diagnosis of lung cancer and the surgical removal of one lung. (CompI. ~ 50) Johnson is in 24-hour care and medically unavailable to
3
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 29 Filed 09/20/11 Page 3 of 9

work. Thus, the DOC excludes Johnson from the medical gain time program and all other sentence reduction credit programs by reason of his disability. (CompI. ~ 50)
Plaintiff Payne alleges that he is also excluded by the DOC from participation in and the benefits of all sentence reduction credit programs. It has been explained that his restrictions are not "severe enough" to qualify him for the medical gain time program, although a Nurse Supervisor has confirmed that "due [to] inmate Payne's medical condition he can not work or go to school". (CompI. ~ 51)
ANALYSIS To be certified as a class action, an action must meet the requirements of both Fed. R.Civ.P.23 (a) and (b). Haywood v. Barnes, 109 F.R.D. 568, 575 (E.D.N.C. 1986). Rule 23(a) requires that a precisely defined class exist and the proposed class representatives be members of the putative class. Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 576; see East Texas Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395,403 (1977) ("a class representative must be a part of the class"). In addition, the four prerequisites expressly set out in Rule 23(a) must be satisfied. Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 576. The four prerequisites are: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (hereinafter "numerosity requirement"); (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class (hereinafter "commonality requirement"); (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class (hereinafter "typicality requirement"); and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (hereinafter "adequacy-of-representation requirement"). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
4
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 29 Filed 09/20/11 Page 4 of 9

Once the prerequisites under Rule 23(a) are met, the action must next satisfy one of the
three alternative sets found within Rule 23(b). The conditions under Rule 23(b) include:
(I) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members that would create a risk of:
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy....

1.

Satisfaction of Rule 23(a) Prerequisites

As an initial matter, the court finds plaintiffs have proposed a precisely defined class of

which they are members. The court now must determine whether plaintiffs are able to satisfy the

four prerequisites of Rule 23(a).

Beginning with the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(l), the court finds the putative

class is reasonably estimated by the parties to contain over 12,000 inmates currently housed by

5

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 29 Filed 09/20/11 Page 5 of 9

the DOC who "suffer from a physical impairment or a mental condition, and that approximately 8,000 inmates within the DOC are limited by such a condition in their ability to work." The class is therefore so numerous that joinder of all putative class members is impracticable. Therefore, the court finds that the numerosity requirement is satisfied.
As for the commonality requirement, Rule 23(a)(2) does not require that all questions of law or fact be common to each member of the class. See Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 577. Rather, the commonality requirement is satisfied where the plaintiffs share a single common question. Id. In a lawsuit wherein individuals with varying disabilities challenge policies and practices that affect all of the putative class members, factual differences regarding their disabilities does not defeat commonality. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001). The Fourth Circuit has reiterated this proposition that the typicality requirement does not require that the "plaintiffs claim and the claims of the class member be perfectly identical or perfectly aligned." Dieter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461,467 (4th Cir. 2006). In this case, there are several common issues of both law and fact among the proposed class members. Common questions of law include, but are not limited to, whether the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit defendants from (a) excluding otherwise qualified disabled inmates from participation in, and benefits of, the DOC's sentence reduction credit programs by reason of their disabilities; and (b) awarding medical gain time to disabled inmates at a lower rate than the rate of gain time available to non-disabled inmates.
Common questions of fact include, but are not limited to the following: (a) whether the DOC excludes disabled inmates from participation in, and denies disabled inmates the benefits of, both the medical gain time program and traditional sentence reduction credit programs
6
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 29 Filed 09/20/11 Page 6 of 9

because of their disabilities; (b) whether the DOC excludes disabled inmates from participation in, and benefits of, the medical gain time program based upon their placement in facilities which do not award medical gain time, while preventing such inmates from accessing traditional sentence reduction credit programs because of their disabilities; (c) whether the DOC excludes disabled inmates with temporary impairments from participation in, and benefits of, sentence reduction credit programs because of their disabilities; (d) whether the DOC fails to provide available assignments to disabled inmates who are designated as limited for some but not all work or program assignments by reason of their disabilities; (e) whether the DOC denies disabled inmates the benefits of sentence reduction credit programs by awarding medical gain time to some disabled inmates at a rate lower than the rate available to non-disabled inmates; and (t) whether the DOC, as a result of the alleged violations, forces disabled inmates to serve longer prison sentences by reason of their disabilities. The court finds that these common issue are sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement.
Turning to the Rule 23(a)(3) typicality requirement, this requirement is met where the claim "arises from the same event or course of conduct which gives rise to the claims of other class members and is based on the same legal theory." See Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 578. The focus on the inquiry for this requirement is whether the plaintiffs and each member of the class "have an interest in prevailing on similar legal claims." ld. Here, the claims of the class representatives and the proposed class all arise from the same operative facts in that they all suffer the same injury as a result of DOC's policies and procedures, ie. denial of access to and the benefits of the DOC's sentence reduction credit programs because of their disabilities and discrimination because of their disabilities. Further, the parties have shown that plaintiffs and
7
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 29 Filed 09/20/11 Page 7 of 9

the class members have an interest in prevailing on the same legal claims. Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that the typicality requirement is met.
Finally, the court must determine whether the named plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the class. The inquiry of adequacy in representation as required under Rule 23(a)(4) is the moving party must show that" 1) plaintiff's interests are [not] antagonistic to the interest of other members of the class and 2) plaintiff's attorneys are qualified, experienced and able to conduct the litigation." Baffa v. Donaldson, 222 F.3d 52, 60 (2d Cir. 2000); see also, Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., 348 F.3d 417, 430 (4th Cir. 2003).
The named plaintiffs are, as indicated, all members of the proposed class. In addition, plaintiffs contend they are aware of their duties as class representatives, will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class as a whole, have no conflicts of interest, and have a genuine personal interest in the outcome of this action. Finally, plaintiffs are represented by North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services (hereinafter "NCPLS"), which this court finds has the requisite experience in handling prisoner civil rights litigation. Therefore, the adequacy of representation requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied.
In summary, the court has applied the certification prerequisites of Rule 23(a) to this case, and found that they are met. Therefore, the court now must determine whether plaintiffs satisfy Rule 23(b).
11. Satisfaction of Rule 23(b) Conditions Plaintiffs contend that this case satisfies the conditions set forth in Rule 23 (b)(1 )(A), 23 (b)(1 )(B), and 23(b)(2). To satisfy Rule 23(b), the plaintiff only is required to show that the proposed class meets one of its three conditions. Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 580. The court finds
8

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 29 Filed 09/20/11 Page 8 of 9

that in this case plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) has been liberally applied in the

area of civil rights, including suits challenging conditions and practices at various detention

facilities, as well as claims for violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. See,~,

Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 868; and Santiago v. City of Philadelphia, 72 F.R.D. 619, 624 (1976).

"The essential consideration is whether the complaint alleges that the plaintiffs have been injured

by defendants' conduct which is based on policies and practices applicable to the entire class."

Santiago, 72 F.R.D. at 624. Plaintiffs in this action are challenging the policies and practices of

the DOC in excluding disabled inmates from participation in and denial of disabled inmates from

benefitting from sentence reduction credits and discriminating against the disabled inmates in the

administration of sentence reduction credit programs. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive

relief appropriate to the class as a whole and meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). In sum,

plaintiffs have satisfied both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b). Accordingly, all of the requirements for

class certification are met.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the parties' motion to certify the class as a class action

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 (DE # 3) is GRANTED.

J..!t. SO ORDERED, this the

day of September 2011.

~4J.!J7! ERRENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 29 Filed 09/20/11 Page 9 of 9

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION
 No.5:1O-CT-3166-BO


CHAD BUMGARNER, et aI.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTION, et aI.,

)

)

Defendants.

)


ORDER


This case comes before the court on three motions filed by plaintiff class member Boyce Moneyhan ("Moneyhan") who is proceeding pro se: (1) a motion to amend or alter the class certification order (D.E. 38); (2) a motion for settlement negotiations accommodation (D.E. 49); and (3) a motion for consideration of revised regulations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (D.E. 42). No response has been filed by any party to these motions. A settlement conference is scheduled in this case for 30 October 2012. (D.E.51). For the reasons set forth below, all three motions will be DENIED.
In his motion to amend, Moneyhan moves to amend the class certification order in this case to expressly include the claims of the plaintiffs in another case pending in this district, Moneyhan v. Keller, 5:1O-CT-3053-BO, in which Moneyhan is a plaintiff. He also asks the court to delay judgment on any settlement in this action until plaintiffs from the Moneyhan v. Keller case have an opportunity to object. In the motion for settlement negotiations accommodation, he similarly requests that the participants in the settlement negotiations in the instant case be required to notify the plaintiffs in Moneyhan v. Keller of settlement offers and proposals, and to allow the plaintiffs in Moneyhan v. Keller to participate in those negotiations.

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 52 Filed 10/29/12 Page 1 of 2

The court is aware that discovery in Moneyhan v. Keller has been stayed pending the outcome of the settlement negotiations in this case. (See, e.g., Moneyhan v. Keller (D.E. 76)). However, the two actions have not been consolidated and Moneyhan has not demonstrated that amendment of the certification order is warranted. Nor has he established an entitlement of the Moneyhan v. Keller plaintiffs to participate in and be kept advised of the details of settlement negotiations in this matter. For these reasons, Moneyhan's motions to amend (D.E. 38) and for settlement negotiations accommodations (D.E. 49) are hereby DENIED.
In his third motion, Moneyhan urges the court to consider revisions to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in connection with conditions at Pender Correctional Facility, which he contends may not be encompassed by settlement negotiations in the instant matter. The court is cognizant of its legal obligations and is certain that the parties will address all matters relevant to the complaint in this action as part of settlement negotiations. The court will not require settlement negotiations to include other matters outside of the pleadings. For these reasons, Moneyhan's motion for consideration of revised regulations (D.E. 42) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 29th day of October 2012.
Ja E. Gates United States Magistrate Judge
2
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 52 Filed 10/29/12 Page 2 of 2

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR Tiffi EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:10-CT-3166-BO

CHAD BUMGARNER, EDMUND GAUD, )

RAYMOND HALL, ROGER HOWELL, )

RANDY JOHNSON, and WAYNE PAYNE )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTION, ALVIN W. KELLER,

)

ROBERT LEWIS, LAURA YATES, and )

PAULA Y. SMITH,

)

)

Defendants.

)

STIPULATED CONSENT DECREE

The parties hereto, through counsel, having agreed and stipulated to the entry of this

Consent Decree, and the Court having reviewed the record herein and being sufficiently advised,

THE COURT FINDS AS FACT AND LAW:

1. This Consent Decree will grant prospective relief with respect to the equal

opportunity and access of the Plaintiff Class to the Sentence Credits of the Division of Adult

Correction of the Department of Public Safety/ Section of Prisons.

2. The relief granted herein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to

correct a violation of a federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

violation of a federal right.

1Pursuant to Session Laws 2011-145, s. 19.1(h) and (I), effective January 1, 2012, the Department of Correction is the "Division of Adult Correction ofthe Department of Public Safety."

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 1 of 13

3. None of the provisions of this Consent Decree violate the restrictions on prospective relief set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED, 1. The Defendants and their subordinates and their successors in positions within the
;
administration of the Division of Adult Correction of the Department of Public Safety, Section of Prisons (hereinafter collectively referred to as "DAC"). shall establish and implement a policy to provide access to Sentence Credits to qualified inmates with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehab Act"), consistent with legitimate penological interests. DAC shall unifonnly apply and
enforce the policy entitled Reasonable Accommodation for Inmates with Disabilities Policy (the "ADA Policy"), as set forth in Attachment A hereto, for unifonn application and enforcement
throughout its prison facilities; provided, however, that minor, occasional, non-willful deviations from the time limits for completing disability assessments (DC-927) and processing Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Request Detennination Forms (DC-746) or from other administrative provisions of the ADA Policy shall not be considered a violation of this Consent Decree so long as DAC uses its best efforts to minimize such deviations and to correct them when they occur. Further, within sixty (60) days of the date this Consent Decree is filed the following DAC policies and fonns shall be amended and modified, as set forth in Attachments B through E hereto.
a. Developmental Disabilities, TX VII-1 (Attachment B) b. Department of Correction, Division of Prisons Policy and Procedure,
Chapter B § .0112, "GAIN TIME;" Chapter B, § .0113 "EARNED TIME CREDITS;" and Chapter B, § .0117, "GAIN and EARNED TIME CREDIT FOR MEDICALLY AND PHYSICALLY UNFIT
2
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 2 of 13

INMATES," within Chapter B, § .0100, Title: Sentence Credits (Attachment C) c. Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Request (''IRAR") Form, DC-746 (Attachment D) d. Evaluation Criteria for Persons Under the ADA, Form DC-927 (Attachment E) 2. Unless exigent circumstances necessitate a shorter advance notice period or no advance notice (in which case DAC shall provide written notice as soon as possible), DAC shall provide counsel for the Plaintiff Class, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. (''NCPLS"), with written notice of any substantive proposed change to the DAC policies and forms attached hereto as Attachments A through E (including the perceived penological objective of the proposed change) at least forty-five (45) days in advance of the effective date of such proposed change. Within fifteen (15) days after receiving such notice, NCPLS shall submit to DAC its written comments and suggestions regarding the proposed change, which DAC shall consider in good faith. If NCPLS objects to the change (as proposed by DAC after considering NCPLS's comments and suggestions) for reasons based on the ADA and Rehab Act, NCPLS may move the Court to disallow or modifY the change, as provided in Paragraph 10 herein. 3. Any good-faith denial by DAC of an IRAR form (DC-746) submitted by an inmate/guardian requesting the accommodation based on one or more of the justifications for denial of requests for accommodations set forth in the ADA Policy shall not be considered a violation of the ADA Policy or this Consent Decree; provided, however, that this Consent Decree shall not be construed to prevent an inmate with standing from legally challenging any such denial in an independent legal action; provided, further, that the ADA Policy shall not be construed as a waiver by DAC of any requirement that an inmate exhaust his or her available
3
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 3 of 13

administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit.

4. DAC, under the direction of the Division ADA Coordinator, shall define the

purpose and essential functions of every work assignment and program activity available to

inmates that are eligible for the application of Sentence Credits. Further, every work assignment

and program activity will be modifiable to accommodate all qualified inmates with disabilities

unless such modification would require the cancellation of an essential function or would result

in a fundamental alteration to the work assignment or program activity; i.e., the nature or

business of the work assignment or program activity would not be met as intended. Each and

every eligible otherwise qualified inmate with a disability shall have the same opportunity for

access to the work assignment and program activity options as eligible otherwise qualified

non-disabled inmates.

5. DAC shall provide information on the ADA and Rehab Act to all employees and

inmates in the following ways.

a. Means of communication to employees:

1.

Policy and Procedure Manual; and

u. Announcements at meetings and in memos; and

iii. ADA training sessions

b. Means of communication to inmates: i. Facility orientation; and ii. Posting at all prison facilities; and iii. Correctional Case Managers; and iv. Inmate Handbook (next revision)

6. DAC will create and fund a new full-time (LCSW/MSW) position (Social Work

Program Supervisor BEACON #60061323) dedicated to compliance and monitoring of the new

ADA policy that will report to the Social Work Program Director/Division ADA Coordinator.

4

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 4 of 13

This person will be responsible for tracking, monitoring, and reporting DAC's compliance with this Consent Decree. DAC will also create and fund three new full-time, permanent positions within DAC/Prisons Section as follows: (1) ADA Facilitator (Social Worker Ill BEACON #65013796), (2) ADA Facilitator (Social Worker III BEACON #65011117), and (3) ADA Compliance Specialist in Programs (Correctional Program Director Ill BEACON #60066931) The ADA Facilitators will be responsible for facilitating the determination process for all potentially eligible inmates considered for accommodations under the ADA and Rehab Act. The ADA Compliance Specialist will be tasked with an overall responsibility to ensure that the Prisons Section complies with the ADA and Rehab Act and other federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to persons with disabilities. The DAC will also create and fund two new forty hour per week contract positions in Program Services. The duties and responsibilities of the two new contract positions will include developing essential and non-essential (marginal) job functions for all full-time jobs for inmates in the custody and control of DAC as well as doing a review of programs, practices, activities and services to assure accessibility (structural and programmatic) to inmates. The ADA Compliance Specialist and the two new forty hour per week contract positions will work under the guidance and supervision of the Assistant Chief of Program Services and in collaboration with the Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and ADA Facilitators in Social Work.
7. NCPLS shall administer a program to monitor DAC's compliance with this Consent Decree, which will include the retention of an outside consultant by NCPLS. The Monitor and NCPLS shall be entitled to reasonable access to information sufficient to monitor
5
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 5 of 13

DAC's compliance with plans, policies, and procedures that are outlined in this Consent Decree. DAC shall provide NCPLS with relevant documents for provision to the monitoring entity. The DC-746 will be retained in accordance with the DAC forms retention schedule. Every ninety (90) days DAC will make available to NCPLS true and accurate copies of all new DC-746 forms and, DC-927 forms, and DC-410 forms which have been properly submitted by inmates consistent with all applicable DAC policies. These forms and accompanying documents will be reviewed for compliance by the Monitor and/or NCPLS. These reviews will continue every ninety (90) days for a period of two (2) years. In the event that the Monitor and/or NCPLS objects to the conclusion of a DC-746 form, or discovers any noncompliance with the Consent Decree, NCPLS will report any objections and concerns to a person designated by DAC who is able to substantively respond. The designee will provide a response to NCPLS within thirty (30) calendar days. DAC will provide all materials used in trainings regarding the policy changes arising from this Consent Decree for both staff and inmates to the Monitor and NCPLS within thirty (30) days of a training being offered to staff or inmates. As new trainings are implemented DAC will provide those materials to the Monitor and NCPLS within thirty (30) days of the new training being offered. In the event that DAC changes, modifies or alters any policy relating to this Consent Decree, DAC will provide the draft policy to NCPLS and the Monitor at least thirty (30) days before it is enacted and will offer NCPLS a comment period prior to implementation. NCPLS will be allotted ten (1 0) working days for comments.
8. DAC shall establish and implement a review process for potential eligibility to prospectively correct an inmate's projected release date. This internal process will identify
6
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 6 of 13

inmates eligible to petition to have their projected release date adjusted. It will be upon the

inmate to produce documentation showing that he or she fits at least one of the descriptions for

inmates allowed to petition.

a. Inmates allowed to petition

i.

Any qualified, disabled inmate who has been identified by NCPLS and is

currently still in the custody and control of the DAC that have made a complaint that he

or she was denied an award of sentence reduction credits by reason of his or her

disability. These qualified, disabled inmates must have submitted either a DC-746

Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Request or a DC-41 0 grievance in a manner

consistent with applicable DAC policies and procedures no later than the date this

Consent Decree is Approved and Ordered by this Court.

ii. Any qualified, disabled inmate who submits a new IRAR Form DC-746 in

the manner proscribed in paragraph (g) under the Procedures section of the Reasonable

Accommodation for Inmates with Disabilities Policy as provided in paragraph 9 of this

Consent Decree. The new IRAR Form DC-746 shall include reference to the inmate's

previous written complaint about the denial of sentence credits because of his or her

disability.

b. DAC internal review process

1.

Programs and/or Custody staff at each of the prison facilities will review

the DC-41 0 grievances submitted by those inmates allowed to petition and listed at their

facility since the start date of the review (September 17, 2007) until the date this Consent

7

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 7 of 13

Decree is Approved and Ordered by this Court. Programs and/or Custody staff will then forward true and accurate copies of all said grievances and IRAR forms for each of the listed inmates that note disability, lost gain time, medically unfit gain time requests, or denial of access to jobs/programs/services/activities based on disability to the Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator in Raleigh. The Programs and/or Custody staff will receive appropriate ADA training prior to performing these tasks.
11. The Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and Social Work staff will review all of the DC-746 Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Requests and the DC-41 0 grievances received since the start date of the review (September 17, 2007) and ending with the date this Consent Decree is Approved and Ordered by this Court and pull for further review all of the denials related to disability, lost gain time, medically unfit gain time requests, or denial of access to jobs/programs/services/activities based on
disability. The Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and Social Work staff will determine the start date of the individual review for each inmate based upon the
earliest date of the identified denial related to disability, lost gain time, medically unfit gain time requests, or denial of access to jobs/programs/services/activities based on disability located in either the DC-746 Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Request or the DC-410 grievance. The earliest identified date becomes the start date of the review if this date is not earlier than September 17, 2007. If no specific date is referenced in either the DC-746 or the DC-41 0 the review will start on September 17, 2007, or on the date of the inmate's admission in the custody and control ofDAC, whichever is later.
8
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 8 of 13

IV. Using that established start date, each inmate will be reviewed for eligibility utilizing the protocols pursuant to the policy outlined in the DC-927 Evaluation for Inmates under the ADA. Each inmate's eligibility will be re-determined annually using the DC-927 form.
v. The Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and Social Work staff will review the inmate movement and assignments screens in OPUS and determine any period of ineligibility based upon Out to Court, ASeg, DSeg, ICON, MCON, HCON or any other status making inmates ineligible for gain/earned time credits.
VI. The Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and Social Work staff will review inmate assignments to jobs/programs/services/activities for which the inmate received gain/earned time sentence reduction credits and determine if such would make the inmate ineligible for retroactive gain/earned time credits.
vn. Once the periods of eligibility are determined, Division Programs staff or Senior Programs staff at the facility level as identified by the Assistant Section Chief of DAC, Section of Prisons will determine the number of days each inmate may be eligible for under the Sentence Credit Policy in effect at the time of each period of potential eligibility.
viii. Once the numbers of days are computed, the Division Programs staff or Senior Programs staff at the facility level as identified by the Assistant Section Chief of DAC, Section of Prisons will report those numbers to the Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and the ADA Compliance Specialist in Programs for each
9
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 9 of 13

inmate. IX. The Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator will report these
numbers to the Section Chief and the Deputy Section Chief for notification of the inmate of the award of retroactive gain/earned time credits within sixty (60) days. 9. As soon as practicable after the filing of this Consent Decree, counsel for the parties shall prepare and submit to the Court a notice summarizing this Consent Decree and the right, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), of any member of the Plaintiff class to object to it. Upon a finding by this Court that said notice meets the reasonable notice requirements of said Rule, DAC shall within thirty days (30) days of said finding by this Court post said notice in each of its prison facilities on a bulletin board regularly used for posting notices to inmates at the expense of the Division. For any inmates that during this period are confined in disciplinary segregation that do not have access to the prison's bulletin board regularly used for posting notices to inmates will be provided a copy of this Notice. This notice will include a provision in plain language that informs the inmate population that if any inmate has previously submitted either a grievance Form DC-410 or an IRAR Form DC-746 from September 17, 2010 until this Consent Decree is Approved and Ordered by this Court that includes a complaint that the inmate was denied an award of sentence reduction credits by reason of his or her disability the inmate may submit a new IRAR Form DC-746 in the manner proscribed in paragraph (g) under the Procedures section of the Reasonable Accommodation for Inmates with Disabilities Policy. The new IRAR Form DC-746 shall include reference to the previous complaint about the denial of sentence credits because of his or her disability and must
10
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 10 of 13

be submitted no later than thirty days (30) days from when the notice is posted in each prison facility. Inmates specifically identified by NCPLS prior to the enactment of this Consent Decree, as provided for in paragraph 8(a)(i) of this Consent Decree, will not be required to submit a new IRAR Form DC-746 in order to be considered for potential eligibility to prospectively correct an inmate's projected release date.
10. Pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(l)(A)(i), the requirements of this Consent Decree shall terminate two (2) years following its date of entry. Prior to the expiration of this two (2) year period, this Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree. IfNCPLS has reason to believe that DAC is not complying with the terms of this Consent Decree it shall notify DAC in writing to the Division ADA Coordinator. The parties shall attempt to resolve the issue informally before pursuing any judicial remedy. Upon appropriate motion the Court may issue any order permitted by law necessary to ensure that DAC complies with the terms of this Consent Decree as set forth above.
11. As soon as practicable after the filing and Court approval of this Consent Decree, DAC shall pay fifty-six thousand one hundred ninety-nine U.S. Dollars and two cents ($56, 199.02) in a lump sum by check payable to North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. (Employer Identification Number 58-1342594), for expenses associated with the implementation of this Consent Decree, including the cost for the retention of the Monitor. NCPLS agrees that it is not entitled to reimbursement of any attorney fees from DAC. Except for rights and remedies set forth in this Consent Decree, NCPLS agrees and covenants not to institute, initiate, or voluntarily participate in any action or suit against DAC in any state or federal court, agency, or
11
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 11 of 13

other tribunal with respect to the claims alleged in the Complaint filed with the Court on September 17,2010 related to the class of inmates' access to Sentence Credits awarded by DAC.
By their counsels' signatures hereto, the parties stipulate to the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein.

1/'3/t3

Julie . Solm.s North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. Counselfor Plaintiffs

12 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 12 of 13

1/z/ IJ r~ate

DIVISION OF ADULT CORRECTION NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, SECTION OF PRISONS
ChiefDeputy Secretary/ChiefOperating Officer

ate /

er

C iefDeputy Secretary

~#?-"'
&arutraG:White
General Counsel

'Date APPROVED AND ORDERED:
Date

ssistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice Counselfor Defendants
~~·
United States District Judge

13
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 61 Filed 02/14/13 Page 13 of 13

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:1 O-CT-3166-BO

CHAD BUMGARNER, EDMUND GAUD, )

RAYMOND HALL, ROGER HOWELL, )

RANDY JOHNSON, and WAYNE PAYNE )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTION, ALVIN W. KELLER,

)

ROBERT LEWIS, LAURA YATES, and )

PAULA Y. SMITH,

)

)

Defendants.

)

STIPULATED CONSENT DECREE

The parties hereto, through counsel, having agreed and stipulated to the entry of this

Consent Decree, and the Court having reviewed the record herein and being sufficiently advised

and following the Rule (e)(2) Fairness Hearing on 30 July 2013,

THE COURT FINDS AS FACT AND LAW:

1. This Consent Decree will grant prospective relief with respect to the equal

opportunity and access of the Plaintiff Class to the Sentence Credits of the Division of Adult Correction of the Department of Public Safety,1 Section of Prisons.

2. The relief granted herein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to

correct a violation of a federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

violation of a federal right.

1Pursuant to Session Laws 2011-145, s. 19.1(h) and (I), effective January 1, 2012, the Department of Correction is the "Division of Adult Correction of the Department of Public
Safety."

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 1 of 13

3. None of the provisions of this Consent Decree violate the restrictions on prospective relief set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED, 1. The Defendants and their subordinates and their successors in positions within the administration of the Division of Adult Correction of the Department of Public Safety, Section of Prisons (hereinafter collectively referred to as "DAC") shall establish and implement a policy to provide access to Sentence Credits to qualified inmates with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehab Act"), consistent with legitimate penological interests. DAC shall uniformly apply and enforce the policy entitled Reasonable Accommodation for Inmates with Disabilities Policy (the "ADA Policy"), as set forth in Attachment A hereto, for uniform application and enforcement throughout its prison facilities; provided, however, that minor, occasional, non-willful deviations from the time limits for completing disability assessments (DC-927) and processing Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Request Determination Forms (DC-746) or from other administrative provisions of the ADA Policy shall not be considered a violation of this Consent Decree so long as DAC uses its best efforts to minimize such deviations and to correct them when they occur. Further, within sixty (60) days of the date this Consent Decree is filed the following DAC policies and forms shall be amended and modified, as set forth in Attachments B through E hereto. a. Developmental Disabilities, TX VII-I (Attachment B) b. Department of Correction, Division of Prisons Policy and Procedure,
Chapter B § .0112, "GAIN TIME;" Chapter B, § .0113 "EARNED TIME CREDITS;" and Chapter B, § .0117, "GAIN and EARNED TIME CREDIT FOR MEDICALLY AND PHYSICALLY UNFIT
2
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 2 of 13

INMATES," within Chapter B, § .0100, Title: Sentence Credits (Attachment C) c. Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Request ("IRAR") Form, DC-746 (Attachment D) d. Evaluation Criteria for Persons Under the ADA, Form DC-927 (Attachment E) 2. Unless exigent circumstances necessitate a shorter advance notice period or no advance notice (in which case DAC shall provide written notice as soon as possible), DAC shall provide counsel for the Plaintiff Class, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. (''NCPLS"), with written notice of any substantive proposed change to the DAC policies and forms attached hereto as Attachments A through E (including the perceived penological objective of the proposed change) at least forty-five (45) days in advance of the effective date of such proposed change.· Within fifteen (15) days after receiving such notice, NCPLS shall submit to DAC its written comments and suggestions regarding the proposed change, which DAC shall consider in good faith. If NCPLS objects to the change (as proposed by DAC after considering NCPLS's comments and suggestions) for reasons based on the ADA and Rehab Act, NCPLS may move the Court to disallow or modify the change, as provided in Paragraph 10 herein. 3. Any good-faith denial by DAC of an IRAR form (DC-746) submitted by an inmate/guardian requesting the accommodation based on one or more of the justifications for denial of requests for accommodations set forth in the ADA Policy shall not be considered a violation of the ADA Policy or this Consent Decree~ provided, however, that this Consent Decree shall not be construed to prevent an inmate with standing from legally challenging any such denial in an independent legal action; provided, further, that the ADA Policy shall not be construed as a waiver by DAC of any requirement that an inmate exhaust his or her available
3
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 3 of 13

administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit.

4. DAC, under the direction of the Division ADA Coordinator, shall define the

purpose and essential functions of every work assignment and program activity available to

inmates that are eligible for the application of Sentence Credits. Further, every work assignment

and program activity will be modifiable to accommodate all qualified inmates with disabilities

unless such modification would require the cancellation of an essential function or would result

in a fundamental alteration to the work assignment or program activity; i.e., the nature or

business of the work assignment or program activity would not be met as intended. Each and

every eligible otherwise qualified inmate with a disability shall have the same opportunity for

access to the work assignment and program activity options as eligible otherwise qualified

non-disabled inmates.

5. DAC shall provide information on the ADA and Rehab Act to all employees and

inmates in the following ways.

a. Means of communication to employees: i. Policy and Procedure Manual; and ii. Announcements at meetings and in memos; and m. ADA training sessions

b. Means of communication to inmates:

1.

Facility orientation; and

ii. Posting at all prison facilities; and

iii. Correctional Case Managers; and

iv. Inmate Handbook (next revision)

6. DAC will create and fund a new full-time (LCSW/MSW) position (Social Work

Program Supervisor BEACON #60061323) dedicated to compliance and monitoring of the new

ADA policy that will report to the Social Work Program Director/Division ADA Coordinator.

4

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 4 of 13

This person will be responsible for tracking, monitoring, and reporting DAC's compliance with this Consent Decree. DAC will also create and fund three new full-time, permanent positions within DAC/Prisons Section as follows: (1) ADA Facilitator (Social Worker III BEACON #65013796), (2) ADA Facilitator (Social Worker III BEACON #65011117), and (3) ADA Compliance Specialist in Programs (Correctional Program Director III BEACON #60066931) The ADA Facilitators will be responsible for facilitating the determination process for all potentially eligible inmates considered for accommodations under the ADA and Rehab Act. The ADA Compliance Specialist will be tasked with an overall responsibility to ensure that the Prisons Section complies with the ADA and Rehab Act and other federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to persons with disabilities. The DAC will also create and fund two new forty hour per week contract positions in Program Services. The duties and responsibilities of the two new contract positions will include developing essential and non-essential (marginal) job functions for all full-time jobs for inmates in the custody and control of DAC as well as doing a review of programs, practices, activities and services to assure accessibility (structural and programmatic) to inmates. The ADA Compliance Specialist and the two new forty hour per week contract positions will work under the guidance and supervision of the Assistant Chief of Program Services and in collaboration with the Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and ADA Facilitators in Social Work.
7. NCPLS shall administer a program to monitor DAC's compliance with this Consent Decree, which will include the retention of an outside consultant by NCPLS. The Monitor and NCPLS shall be entitled to reasonable access to information sufficient to monitor
5
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 5 of 13

DAC's compliance with plans, policies, and procedures that are outlined in this Consent Decree. DAC shall provide NCPLS with relevant documents for provision to the monitoring entity. The DC-746 will be retained in accordance with the DAC forms retention schedule. Every ninety (90) days DAC will make available to NCPLS true and accurate copies of all new DC-746 forms and, DC-927 forms, and DC-41 0 forms which have been properly submitted by inmates consistent with all applicable DAC policies. These forms and accompanying documents will be reviewed for compliance by the Monitor and/or NCPLS. These reviews will continue every ninety (90) days for a period of two (2) years. In the event that the Monitor and/or NCPLS objects to the conclusion of a DC-746 form, or discovers any noncompliance with the Consent Decree, NCPLS will report any objections and concerns to a person designated by DAC who is able to substantively respond. The designee will provide a response to NCPLS within thirty (30) calendar days. DAC will provide all materials used in trainings regarding the policy changes arising from this Consent Decree for both staff and inmates to the Monitor and NCPLS within thirty (30) days of a training being offered to staff or inmates. As new trainings are implemented DAC will provide those materials to the Monitor and NCPLS within thirty (30) days of the new training being offered. In the event that DAC changes, modifies or alters any policy relating to this Consent Decree, DAC will provide the draft policy to NCPLS and the Monitor at least thirty (30) days before it is enacted and will offer NCPLS a comment period prior to implementation. NCPLS will be allotted ten (10) working days for comments.
8. DAC shall establish and implement a review process for potential eligibility to prospectively correct an inmate's projected release date. This internal process will identify
6
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 6 of 13

inmates eligible to petition to have their projected release date adjusted. It will be upon the

inmate to produce documentation showing that he or she fits at least one of the descriptions for

inmates allowed to petition.

a. Inmates allowed to petition

i.

Any qualified, disabled inmate who has been identified by NCPLS and is

currently still in the custody and control of the DAC that have made a complaint that he

or she was denied an award of sentence reduction credits by reason of his or her

disability. These qualified, disabled inmates must have submitted either a DC-746

Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Request or a DC-41 0 grievance in a manner

consistent with applicable DAC policies and procedures no later than the date this

Consent Decree is Approved and Ordered by this Court.

ii. Any qualified, disabled inmate who submits a new IRAR Form DC-746 in

the manner proscribed in paragraph (g) under the Procedures section of the Reasonable

Accommodation for Inmates with Disabilities Policy as provided in paragraph 9 of this

Consent Decree. The new IRAR Form DC-746 shall include reference to the inmate's

previous written complaint about the denial of sentence credits because of his or her

disability.

b. DAC internal review process

i.

Programs and/or Custody staff at each of the prison facilities will review

the DC-41 0 grievances submitted by those inmates allowed to petition and listed at their

facility since the start date of the review (September 17, 2007) until the date this Consent

7

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 7 of 13

Decree is Approved and Ordered by this Court. Programs and/or Custody staff will then forward true and accurate copies of all said grievances and IRAR forms for each of the listed inmates that note disability, lost gain time, medically unfit gain time requests, or denial of access to jobs/programs/services/activities based on disability to the Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator in Raleigh. The Programs and/or Custody staff will receive appropriate ADA training prior to performing these tasks.
11. The Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and Social Work staff will review all of the DC-746 Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Requests and the DC-41 0 grievances received since the start date of the review (September 17, 2007) and ending with the date this Consent Decree is Approved and Ordered by this Court and pull for further review all of the denials related to disability, lost gain time, medically unfit gain time requests, or denial of access to jobs/programs/services/activities based on disability. The Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and Social Work staff will determine the start date of the individual review for each inmate based upon the earliest date of the identified denial related to disability, lost gain time, medically unfit gain time requests, or denial of access to jobs/programs/services/activities based on disability located in either the DC-746 Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Request or the DC-410 grievance. The earliest identified date becomes the start date ofthe review if this date is not earlier than September 17, 2007. If no specific date is referenced in either the DC-746 or the DC-41 0 the review will start on September 17, 2007, or on the date of the inmate's admission in the custody and control ofDAC, whichever is later.
8
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 8 of 13

iv. Using that established start date, each inmate will be reviewed for eligibility utilizing the protocols pursuant to the policy outlined in the DC-927 Evaluation for Inmates under the ADA. Each inmate's eligibility will be re-determined annually using the DC-927 form.
v. The Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and Social Work staff will review the inmate movement and assignments screens in OPUS and determine any period of ineligibility based upon Out to Court, ASeg, DSeg, ICON, MCON, HCON or any other status making inmates ineligible for gain/earned time credits.
vi. The Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and Social Work staff will review inmate assignments to jobs/programs/services/activities for which the inmate received gain/earned time sentence reduction credits and determine if such would make the inmate ineligible for retroactive gain/earned time credits.
vii. Once the periods of eligibility are determined, Division Programs staff or Senior Programs staff at the facility level as identified by the Assistant Section Chief of DAC, Section of Prisons will determine the number of days each inmate may be eligible for under the Sentence Credit Policy in effect at the time of each period of potential eligibility.
viii. Once the numbers of days are computed, the Division Programs staff or Senior Programs staff at the facility level as identified by the Assistant Section Chief of DAC, Section of Prisons will report those numbers to the Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator and the ADA Compliance Specialist in Programs for each
9
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 9 of 13

inmate. ix. The Social Work Program Director/ADA Coordinator will report these
numbers to the Section Chief and the Deputy Section Chief for notification of the inmate of the award of retroactive gain/earned time credits within sixty (60) days. 9. As soon as practicable after the filing of this Consent Decree, counsel for the parties shall prepare and submit to the Court a notice summarizing this Consent Decree and the right, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), of any member of the Plaintiff class to
object to it. Upon a finding by this Court that said notice meets the reasonable notice
requirements of said Rule, DAC shall within thirty days (30) days of said finding by this Court post said notice in each of its prison facilities on a bulletin board regularly used for posting notices to inmates at the expense of the Division. For any inmates that during this period are confined in disciplinary segregation that do not have access to the prison's bulletin board regularly used for posting notices to inmates will be provided a copy of this Notice. This notice will include a provision in plain language that informs the inmate population that if any inmate has previously submitted either a grievance Form DC~41 0 or an IRAR Form DC·746 from September 17, 2010 until this Consent Decree is Approved and Ordered by this Court that includes a complaint that the inmate was denied an award of sentence reduction credits by reason of his or her disability the inmate may submit a new IRAR Form DC·746 in the manner proscribed in paragraph (g) under the Procedures section of the Reasonable Accommodation for Inmates with Disabilities Policy. The new IRAR Form DC·746 shall include reference to the previous complaint about the denial of sentence credits because of his or her disability and must
10
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 10 of 13

be submitted no later than thirty days (30) days from when the notice is posted in each prison facility. Inmates specifically identified by NCPLS prior to the enactment of this Consent Decree, as provided for in paragraph 8(a)(i) of this Consent Decree, will not be required to submit a new IRAR Form DC-746 in order to be considered for potential eligibility to prospectively correct an inmate's projected release date.
10. Pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(l)(A)(i), the requirements of this Consent Decree shall terminate two (2) years following its date of entry. Prior to the expiration of this two (2) year period, this Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree. IfNCPLS has reason to believe that DAC is not complying with the terms of this Consent Decree it shall notifY DAC in writing to the .Division ADA Coordinator. The parties shall attempt to resolve the issue informally before pursuing any judicial remedy. Upon appropriate motion the Court may issue any order permitted by law necessary to ensure that DAC complies with the terms of this Consent Decree as set forth above.
11. As soon as practicable after the filing and Court approval of this Consent Decree, DAC shall pay fifty-six thousand one hundred ninety-nine U.S. Dollars and two cents ($56, 199.02) in a lump sum by check payable to North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. (Employer Identification Number 58-1342594), for expenses associated with the implementation of this Consent Decree, including the cost for the retention of the Monitor. NCPLS agrees that it is not entitled to reimbursement of any attorney fees from DAC. Except for rights and remedies set forth in this Consent Decree, NCPLS agrees and covenants not to institute, initiate, or voluntarily participate in any action or suit against DAC in any state or federal court, agency, or
11
Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 11 of 13

other tribunal vvith respect to the claims alleged in the Complaint filed with the Court on September 17, 2010 related to the class ofirunates' access to Sentence Credits awarded by DAC.
By their counsels' signatures hereto, the parties stipulate to the findings of fact and
conclusions of law set forth herein.

rDate'

Julie . Solms
North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. Counsel for Plaintiffs

12 Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 12 of 13

1 /z/tJ r~ate

DIVISION OF ADULT CORRECTION NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, SECTION OF PRlSONS
ChiefDeputy Secretary/ChiefOperating Officer

ate /
~If?-'"
'ta~ General Counsel

'nate
APPROVED AND ORDERED:
~~~~fDJJ ate

onne B. Ricci ssistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice Counselfor Defendants
~YL~~ United States District Judge

13

Case 5:10-ct-03166-BO Document 213 Filed 08/15/13 Page 13 of 13

 
 Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 1 of 18
CLOSED,USMJ Gates
U.S. District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Western Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:10−ct−03166−BO

Bumgarner et al v. North Carolina Department of Correction et al Assigned to: District Judge Terrence W. Boyle Cause: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/17/2010 Date Terminated: 08/15/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Chad Bumgarner

represented by Julie Solms N.C. Prisoner Legal Services 1110 Wake Forest Rd.. P. O. Box 25397 Raleigh, NC 27604 919−856−2200 Fax: 919−856−2223 Email: jsolms@ncpls.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann Marie Ferrari N.C. Prisoner Legal Services 1110 Wake Forest Rd.. P. O. Box 25397 Raleigh, NC 27604 919−856−2200 Fax: 919−856−2223 Email: aferrari@ncpls.org TERMINATED: 09/08/2011

Emily S. Coward N. C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. P. O. Box 25397 1110 Wake Forest Rd. Raleigh, NC 27611 919−856−2577 Fax: 919−856−2223 Email: ecoward@ncpls.org TERMINATED: 01/07/2011

J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. N. C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. P. O. Box 25397 Raleigh, NC 27611−5397 919−856−2200 Fax: 856−2223 Email: pgriffin@ncpls.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tod Michael Leaven NC Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. P. O. Box 25397 1110 Wake Forest Rd. Raleigh, NC 27611 919−856−2577 Fax: 919−856−2223 Email: tleaven@ncpls.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 2 of 18

Edmund Gaud

represented by Ann Marie Ferrari (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2011

Emily S. Coward (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2011

J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Solms (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tod Michael Leaven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Raymond Hall

represented by Ann Marie Ferrari (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2011

Emily S. Coward (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2011

J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Solms (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tod Michael Leaven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Roger Howell

represented by Ann Marie Ferrari (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2011

Emily S. Coward (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2011

J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Solms (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tod Michael Leaven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 3 of 18

Randy Johnson

represented by Ann Marie Ferrari (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2011

Emily S. Coward (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2011

J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Solms (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tod Michael Leaven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wayne Payne

represented by Ann Marie Ferrari (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2011

Emily S. Coward (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/07/2011

Julie Solms (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tod Michael Leaven (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant North Carolina Department of Correction
Defendant Alvin W. Keller Secretary of the Department of

represented by Yvonne Bulluck Ricci N.C. Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602−0629 919−716−6540 Fax: 919−716−6761 Email: yricci@ncdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norma Smithwick Harrell N. C. Dept. of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602−0629 919−716−6900 Fax: 716−6763 Email: nharrell@ncdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/29/2011
represented by Yvonne Bulluck Ricci (See above for address)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 4 of 18

Correction, in his official capacity

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norma Smithwick Harrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2011

Defendant
Robert Lewis Director of the Division of Prisons of the Department of Correction, in his official capacity

represented by Yvonne Bulluck Ricci (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norma Smithwick Harrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2011

Defendant
Laura Yates ADA Coordinator for the Department of Correction, in her official capacity

represented by Yvonne Bulluck Ricci (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norma Smithwick Harrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2011

Defendant
Dr. Paula Y. Smith Medical Director for the Division of Prisons of the Department of Correction, in her official capacity

represented by Yvonne Bulluck Ricci (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norma Smithwick Harrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2011

Date Filed 09/17/2010
09/17/2010 09/17/2010 09/17/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0417−1330024.), filed by Wayne Payne, Raymond Hall, Edmund Gaud, Chad Bumgarner, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Index Index to Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 14 Summons − Department of Correction, # 15 Summons − Alvin W. Keller, # 16 Summons − Robert Lewis, # 17 Summons − Laura Yates, # 18 Summons − Paula Y. Smith) (Coward, Emily) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Ann Marie Ferrari on behalf of Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Ferrari, Ann) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
3 MOTION to Certify Class by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Ferrari, Ann) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
4 Memorandum in Support re 3 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Ferrari, Ann) (Entered: 09/17/2010)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 5 of 18

09/17/2010 09/20/2010
11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/12/2010 11/15/2010
12/05/2010

Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel re: 3 MOTION to Certify Class. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re: 1 Complaint − EXHIBITS − This document does not comply with Section L of this court's Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual pertaining to clear and complete identification/description of attachments and exhibits in the docket entry text. Any FUTURE filings with unnamed exhibits counsel will be directed to refiled. (Fogle, L.) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Norma Smithwick Harrell on behalf of Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates (Harrell, Norma) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Ricci, Yvonne) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 3 MOTION to Certify Class, 4 Memorandum in Support by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Ricci, Yvonne) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Wayne Payne, Raymond Hall, Edmund Gaud, Chad Bumgarner, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson. North Carolina Department of Correction waiver sent on 9/17/2010, answer due 11/16/2010. (Coward, Emily) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Wayne Payne, Raymond Hall, Edmund Gaud, Chad Bumgarner, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson. Alvin W. Keller waiver sent on 9/17/2010, answer due 11/16/2010. (Coward, Emily) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Wayne Payne, Raymond Hall, Edmund Gaud, Chad Bumgarner, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson. Robert Lewis waiver sent on 9/17/2010, answer due 11/16/2010. (Coward, Emily) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Wayne Payne, Raymond Hall, Edmund Gaud, Chad Bumgarner, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson. Laura Yates waiver sent on 9/17/2010, answer due 11/16/2010. (Coward, Emily) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Wayne Payne, Raymond Hall, Edmund Gaud, Chad Bumgarner, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson. Paula Y. Smith waiver sent on 9/17/2010, answer due 11/16/2010. (Coward, Emily) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
Motions Submitted to Staff Counsel re: 7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 3 MOTION to Certify Class, 4 Memorandum in Support MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 3 MOTION to Certify Class, 4 Memorandum in Support, 6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
13 ORDER− the Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain management of the complaint. Granting 6 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer − Alvin W. Keller answer due 12/15/2010; Robert Lewis answer due 12/15/2010; North Carolina Department of Correction answer due 12/15/2010; Paula Y. Smith answer due 12/15/2010; Laura Yates answer due 12/15/2010. Granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 3 MOTION to Certify Class (Responses due by 1/5/2011). Signed by Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 11/15/2010. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Tod Michael Leaven on behalf of Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne (Leaven, Tod) (Entered: 12/05/2010)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 6 of 18

12/15/2010 12/21/2010 01/05/2011 01/05/2011
01/05/2011
01/07/2011 01/11/2011 01/12/2011 01/13/2011 02/17/2011
02/18/2011
03/02/2011 04/20/2011

15 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates. (Ricci, Yvonne) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
16 Request for Discovery Stipulation. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
17 RESPONSE in Opposition re 3 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates. (Harrell, Norma) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
18 AFFIDAVIT re 17 Response in Opposition to Motion of Cynthia Bostic by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A NC Divisionof Prisions Policy, Chapter C, Section.1400, # 3 Exhibit B NC Division of Prisons Policy, Chapter B, Section.0100, # 4 Exhibit C Program Services Resource Manual, # 5 Exhibit D Facility Jobs, Programs, Activity Allocations, # 6 Exhibit E NCDOC Statistics of Idle Inmates, # 7 Exhibit F Program Services Inmate Incentive Wage Manual) (Harrell, Norma) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
19 AFFIDAVIT re 17 Response in Opposition to Motion of Laura Yates by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A Health Services Policy, # 3 Exhibit B NCDOC Facilities Designated Medical Missions and Accesses, # 4 Exhibit C DC−746, # 5 Exhibit D Accommodations/Services History Report, # 6 Exhibit E TTY &TTD Machines Report, # 7 Exhibit F List of Manual Typewriters, # 8 Exhibit G Report of Incidences of Use of Interpreters) (Harrell, Norma) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
20 Notice of Substitution of Counsel by J. Phillip Griffin, Jr on behalf of Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson substituting for Emily Coward (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
21 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Wayne Payne, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates. (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
22 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 17 Response in Opposition to Motion to Certify Class by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
23 ORDER granting 22 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re: 3 MOTION to Certify Class. Replies due by 2/18/2011. Signed by Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 1/13/2011. (Taylor, B.) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
24 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A− Policy #A−2: Intake Physical Exam and PULHEAT System, # 3 Exhibit B− Policy #A−9: Patient Acuity Rating System, # 4 Exhibit C− Affidavit of Timothy Sheff, # 5 Exhibit D− Affidavit of Gordon Stutzenburg, # 6 Exhibit E− Affidavit of David Armand, # 7 Exhibit F− Affidavit of Antonio Holliman, # 8 Exhibit G− Affidavit of James Ezzell, # 9 Exhibit H− Affidavit of Joe Reynolds, # 10 Exhibit I− Affidavit of Billy Ledwell) (Leaven, Tod) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
NOTICE OF CORRECTION re: 24 Reply to Response to Motion − Pursuant to Section L of the CM/ECF Policy Manual, counsel is reminded that attachments and exhibits must be identified with a clear and complete description of the document (e.g., Exhibit 1 is insufficient. Affidavit of Jane Doe would meet the requirement). Clerk has corrected docket text to identify exhibit attachments. No need to refile. (Jenkins, C.) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel re: 3 MOTION to Certify Class. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
25 STIPULATION OF DISCOVERY Amended by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Wayne Payne, Paula Y. Smith, Laura

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 7 of 18

05/12/2011 08/01/2011 09/08/2011 09/20/2011 09/21/2011 09/21/2011
09/21/2011
09/21/2011 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 09/28/2011 12/29/2011 02/03/2012
02/03/2012 02/03/2012 02/07/2012
03/08/2012

Yates. (Ricci, Yvonne) (Entered: 04/20/2011)
26 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 11/21/2011; Motions due by 12/21/2011. Signed by US Magistrate Judge William A. Webb on 5/12/2011. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 05/12/2011)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Julie Solms on behalf of All Plaintiffs.(Solms, Julie) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
28 Notice of Substitution of Counsel by Julie Solms on behalf of Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson and Wayne Payne substituting for Ann Ferrari. (Solms, Julie) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
29 ORDER − GRANTING 3 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 9/19/2011. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
30 STIPULATION OF DISCOVERY (Amended) by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Solms, Julie) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
31 MOTION for Protective Order (by consent of the parties) by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith and Laura Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−proposed consent protective order) (Ricci, Yvonne) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re: 30 Stipulation of Discovery. Since a scheduling order has been filed, a motion for modify the scheduling order should be filed along with a a proposed order. Please re−file the document as a motion requesting modification of the scheduling order and indicate the reasons for the request. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
Motions referred to US Magistrate Judge William A. Webb: 31 MOTION for Protective Order (by consent of the parties). (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
32 MOTION to Amend/Correct 26 Scheduling Order by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Solms, Julie) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
33 CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by US Magistrate Judge William A. Webb on 09/22/2011. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
34 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 32 Motion to Amend. The discovery period shall be extended by four months. Signed by US Magistrate Judge William A. Webb on 09/28/2011. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
35 NOTICE by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel. (Harrell, Norma) (Entered: 12/29/2011)
36 MOTION to Amend/Correct 34 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Solms, Julie) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel re: 36 MOTION to Amend 34 Order on Motion to Amend. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
MOTION REFERRED to Magistrate Judge William A. Webb re: 36 MOTION to Amend 34 Order on Motion to Amend. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
37 ORDER − re 36 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. It is hereby ORDERED that discovery is extended until 7/7/2012. Discovery is stayed until 5/7/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge William A. Webb on 2/7/2012. Attorneys should read entire order for critical dates and deadlines. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
38 MOTION to Amend or Alter the Class Certification Order filed by Boyce S. Moneyhan. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/08/2012)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 8 of 18

03/20/2012 05/01/2012 05/02/2012 05/03/2012 05/11/2012 06/01/2012 07/09/2012 07/10/2012 07/10/2012 09/07/2012 09/07/2012 09/10/2012
09/13/2012
09/17/2012
09/28/2012

39 Document − entitled "Settlement Negotiations" by Boyce S. Moneyhan. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
40 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time of February 7, 2012 Scheduling Order by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order for amendment of scheduling order) (Ricci, Yvonne) (Entered: 05/01/2012)
Motion Submitted to US Magistrate Judge William A. Webb regarding 40 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time of February 7, 2012 Scheduling Order. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
41 ORDER granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge William A. Webb on 05/02/2012. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel regarding 38 MOTION to Amend or Alter the Class Certification Order. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
42 MOTION for Consideration of Revised Regulations Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by Boyce S. Moneyhan. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
43 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time of May 3, 2012 Scheduling Order by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Ricci, Yvonne) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
Motion Submitted to US Magistrate Judge William A. Webb: 43 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time of May 3, 2012 Scheduling Order. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
44 ORDER granting 43 Motion for Extension of Time. Discovery is stayed until 9/10/2012. Discovery by 11/12/2012. Motions due by 12/12/2012. Signed by US Magistrate Judge William A. Webb on 7/10/2012. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
45 Fourth MOTION for Extension of Time of the 10 July 2012 scheduling order (jointly proposed) by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Ricci, Yvonne) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel regarding 45 Fourth MOTION for Extension of Time of the 10 July 2012 scheduling order (jointly proposed). (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
46 ORDER − GRANTING 45 Motion for Extension of Time. Discovery extended to 1/14/2013 and stayed until 11/12/2012. Dispositive motions due within 30 days of the close of the discovery period. Magistrate Judge William A. Webb shall be the assigned settlement magistrate. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 9/7/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
47 ORDER − At the direction of the court and for the continued efficient administration of justice, the above−captioned case is hereby reassigned to the Honorable James E. Gates, United States Magistrate Judge, for purposes of the settlement conference. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 9/13/2012. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
48 ORDER − No later than 1 October 2012, counsel for the parties shall confer and determine three dates before 30 October 2012 upon which they and the other required attendees under Local Civil Rule 101.2(d)(l) are mutually available for the settlement conference and at which courthouse they would prefer the conference be held. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 9/17/2012. Counsel is reminded to read the entire order for critical dates and deadlines. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
49 MOTION for Settlement Negotiations Accommodation by Boyce S. Moneyhan. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 09/28/2012)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 9 of 18

09/28/2012 10/03/2012 10/11/2012 10/29/2012 10/30/2012
12/03/2012 12/19/2012
01/03/2013 01/03/2013 01/03/2013

50 RESPONSE to Order regarding 48 Order, Proposed Settlement Conference Dates filed by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Solms, Julie) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
Motions referred to US Magistrate Judge James E. Gates: 49 MOTION for Settlement Negotiations Accommodation, 42 MOTION for Consideration of Revised Regulaions Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and 38 MOTION to Amend or Alter the Class Certification Order. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
51 Order Setting Hearing − Settlement Conference set for 10/30/2012 at 10:30 AM in Raleigh, NC (Courtroom to be determined) before Magistrate Judge James E. Gates. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 10/11/2012. Counsel is reminded to read the entire order for critical information and deadlines. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
52 ORDER − denying 38 Motion to amend or alter the class certification order; denying 42 Motion for consideration of revised regulations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and denying 49 Motion for settlement negotiations accommodation. Signed by US Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 10/29/2012. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 10/29/2012)
53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James E. Gates in Raleigh − Settlement Conference held on 10/30/2012. Parties for both sides present. Opening Statements made. Settlement negotiations started. The Court directed the parties to continue their negotiations on the issues specified. No later than 14 November 2012, they are to submit to the chambers inbox three proposed dates in December 2012 for a settlement status conference. (Court Reporter − FTR) (Powers, S.) Modified on 10/30/2012 to include language regarding the negotiations (Powers, S.). (Entered: 10/30/2012)
54 Order Setting Hearings − Court Hosted Settlement Conference set for 12/19/2012 at 10:30 AM (Location To Be Determined) before US Magistrate Judge James E. Gates. Signed by US Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 12/3/2012. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
55 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James E. Gates in Raleigh − Settlement Conference held on 12/19/2012. Parties for both sides present. Parties update the court as to where they are in settlement and remaining issues that need to be discussed. Settlement negotiations continue. Settlement has been reached. Parties to submit new stipulating consent decree by 1/4/2013 (Court Reporter − FTR) (Powers, S.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/19/2012: # 1 Amended minutes that include the settlement) Modified on 12/19/2012 to include that a settlement has been reached in this case(Powers, S.). (Entered: 12/19/2012)
56 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stipulated Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E) (Solms, Julie) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding: 56 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment− This document does not comply with Section L of this court's Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual pertaining to clear and complete identification/description of attachments and exhibits in the docket entry text. Counsel is directed to re file this document using the proper naming conventions for the exhibits. (Fogle, L.) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
57 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stipulated Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit A − Reasonable Accommodations for Inmates wtih Disabilities Policy, # 3 Exhibit B − Care and Treatment of Patient Disabilities Policy, # 4 Exhibit C − Gain Time Policy, # 5 Exhibit D − Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Request (IRAR) Form (DC−746), # 6 Exhibit E − Evaluation Criteria for Persons under the ADA (DC−927)) (Solms, Julie) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 10 of 18

01/03/2013 02/13/2013 02/13/2013 02/13/2013 02/14/2013 02/14/2013 02/15/2013 02/15/2013 02/20/2013 02/20/2013 02/27/2013 03/12/2013 03/14/2013
03/18/2013 03/18/2013 04/05/2013 04/08/2013
04/11/2013 04/12/2013

Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel as to 57 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
58 PRO SE MOTION to Sever and Exclude Class Plaintiff by Teddy F. Sanders. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
59 PRO SE MOTION to Sever − Exclude Class Plaintiff filed by Ronald Wayne Spann. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
60 PRO SE MOTION to Sever − Exclude Class Plaintiff filed by Bobby Eugene Rickard. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
61 Stipulated Consent Decree. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 2/13/2013. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
62 PRO SE MOTION to Sever and Exclude Class Plaintiff by Dennis E. O'Kelley. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
63 PRO SE MOTION to Sever and Exclude Class Plaintiff by Steven T. Neely . (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
64 PRO SE MOTION to Sever and Exclude Class Plaintiff by John J. Zinkand. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
65 MOTION to Stay regarding 61 Consent Decree by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Solms, Julie) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel regarding 65 MOTION to Stay regarding 61 Consent Decree . (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
66 ORDER − GRANTING 65 Motion to Stay Implementation of the Stipulated Consent Decree. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 2/27/2013. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
67 ORDER − the court will hold a telephone status conference with counsel for the parties on Thursday, 14 March 2013, at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 3/8/2013. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
68 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James E. Gates: Telephone Conference held on 14 March 2013. Julie Solms for plaintiffs; Yvonne Ricci for defendants. Court heard from parties regarding status of Rule 23 settlement process. Counsel for plaintiffs is directed to provide defense counsel with proposed class notice by 28 March 2013. The parties shall file their joint proposed class notice with the court by 11 April 2013. (CHAM, MB) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
69 PRO SE MOTION to Sever and Exclude Class Plaintiff by Michael R. Farley. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
70 PRO SE MOTION to Sever and Exclude Class Plaintiff by Scott H. McClain. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
71 MOTION "to Sever Exclude Class−Plaintiff" filed by Clyde M. Ritch. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
72 **DISREGARD THIS ENTRY***Document − entitled "Inmate Request Form" regarding case by Plaintiff Chad Bumgarner. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) Modified on 8/27/2013 to disregard this entry as it was filed in the incorrect case. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
73 NOTICE of Settlement by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Notice of Settlement) (Solms, Julie) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
74 Joint MOTION Approval of Notice and Setting of Fairness Hearing by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement Proposed Notice to Plaintiff Class Members) (Solms, Julie) (Entered: 04/12/2013)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 11 of 18

04/12/2013
04/15/2013
04/19/2013
05/15/2013 05/17/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/21/2013 05/21/2013 05/21/2013 05/21/2013
05/21/2013

Motion Submitted to US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: 74 Joint MOTION Approval of Notice and Setting of Fairness Hearing. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
75 NOTICE by Chad Bumgarner, Edmund Gaud, Raymond Hall, Roger Howell, Randy Johnson, Wayne Payne regarding 74 Joint MOTION Approval of Notice and Setting of Fairness Hearing. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Corrected Proposed Notice to Plaintiff Class) (Solms, Julie) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
76 Order Setting Hearing − Fairness Hearing set for July 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM in Raleigh − Location TDB before US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. Objections to the proposed settlement agreement due by 7/01/2013. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/19/2013. (Attachment: # 1 Notice of Proposed Settlement) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
77 Letter regarding case from Karen Sowell. (Attachments: # 1 Document in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
78 Letter regarding case from Ernest W. Jones. (Attachments: # 1 Document in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
79 Letter regarding case from Lance Goldman. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
80 Letter regarding case from Thomas T. Dillard Jr. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
81 Letter regarding case from Minister Curtis L. Wade. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
82 Letter regarding case from Jeffrey Bellamy. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
83 Letter regarding case from Donnell Gaddy. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
84 Letter regarding case from Norman E. Hamlin. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
85 Letter regarding case from Emma Williams. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
86 Letter regarding case from Michael Graham. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
87 Letter regarding case from Richard Fortner. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
88 Letter regarding case from Ricky Faircloth. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
89 Letter regarding case from Princess Zamot. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
90 Letter regarding case from Michael Graham. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
91 Letter regarding case from Eugene Hill. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
92 Letter regarding case from Gregory McClain. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
93 Letter regarding case from David Lynn Peche. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
94 Letter regarding case from Timothy Bennett. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/21/2013)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 12 of 18

05/21/2013 05/22/2013
05/22/2013
05/22/2013 05/22/2013 05/22/2013 05/22/2013 05/22/2013 05/22/2013 05/23/2013
05/23/2013
05/23/2013 05/23/2013 05/23/2013 05/23/2013 05/23/2013 05/23/2013 05/24/2013 05/24/2013 05/24/2013

95 Letter regarding case from Richard Johnson. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
96 Copy of Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by Michael Moose. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
97 Copy of Document entitled − "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by Jerry Williams. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
98 Letter regarding case from John C. Magee. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
99 Letter regarding case from Johnny Lyle. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
100 Letter regarding case from Harvey Edwards. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
101 Letter regarding case from Justin Devon Waters. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
102 Letter regarding case from Alex Gill. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
103 Letter regarding case from Juan Lopez. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
104 Copy of Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by Charles Terry. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
105 Copy of Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by John W. Galloway. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
106 Letter regarding case from Harry Fowler. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
107 Letter regarding case from Jimmy Harris. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
108 Letter regarding case from Sylvester Joyner. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
109 Letter regarding case from Nathaniel Lee Joyner. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
110 Letter − entitled "Motion to Sever to Exclude Class−Plaintiff" regarding from Marty A. Westmoreland. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding 110 Letter − the pleading does not have an original signature. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
111 Letter regarding case from Larry McLeod Pulley. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
112 Letter regarding case from Roger Amos. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
113 Letter regarding case from Lowell M. Varney. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/24/2013)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 13 of 18

05/24/2013 05/24/2013
05/28/2013 05/28/2013 05/28/2013 05/28/2013 05/28/2013 05/28/2013 05/28/2013 05/28/2013 05/29/2013 05/29/2013 05/29/2013
05/29/2013 05/30/2013 05/30/2013 05/30/2013 05/30/2013 05/31/2013 05/31/2013
05/31/2013 05/31/2013

114 Letter regarding case from Reginald E. Paylor. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
115 ORDER regarding Notice of Deficiency. Response due by June 14, 2013. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 05/24/2013. Copy sent to Marty A. Westmoreland via US Mail. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
116 Letter regarding case from Antonio Lashawn Glenn. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
117 Letter regarding case from Robert D. Farrar. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
118 Letter regarding case from Annie G. Slade. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
119 Letter regarding case from Shellmon Hughes. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
120 Letter regarding case from Donald Todd. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
121 Letter regarding case from Michael Ray Smith. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
122 Letter regarding case from Michael Bean. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
123 Letter regarding case from Charles Cope. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
124 Letter regarding case from Thurman McKinney. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
125 Letter regarding case from James A. Powell. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
126 Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by Jenyon R. McElvine regarding case. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
127 Letter regarding case from Shelly Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Document in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
128 Letter regarding case from Hubert A. Aycock. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
129 Letter regarding case from Curtis B. Williams. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
130 Letter regarding case from Wayne Davis. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
131 Letter regarding case from David Tilley. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
132 Letter regarding case from Wayne Howlett. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
133 Letter regarding case from Terrance Peterson. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Document in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
134 Letter regarding case from Jerry L. Stephens Jr. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
135 Letter regarding case from Thomas Davis. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/31/2013)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 14 of 18

05/31/2013 06/03/2013 06/03/2013 06/03/2013 06/04/2013 06/04/2013
06/04/2013 06/06/2013 06/06/2013 06/06/2013 06/06/2013 06/06/2013 06/10/2013
06/10/2013 06/10/2013 06/10/2013 06/10/2013 06/11/2013
06/11/2013
06/13/2013

136 Letter regarding case from Charles A. Brown. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
137 Letter regarding case from Paul McCombs. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
138 Letter regarding case from Karean Sowell. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
139 Letter regarding case from Willie L. Strickland. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
140 Letter regarding case from William Domonic Bullard. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Document in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
141 Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by Vernon Clyde Covette regarding case. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
142 Letter regarding case from Tanela Ervin. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
143 Document − entitled "Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment" regarding case by Charles Gene Rogers. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
144 Letter regarding case from Ronald Hammond. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
145 Letter regarding case from Gwendolyn McEachin. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
146 Letter regarding case from Richard S. Burcham. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
147 Letter regarding case from Ricky Bartlett. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
148 Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by Larry K. Green regarding case. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
149 Letter regarding case from Thomas T. Dillard Jr. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
150 Letter regarding case from Angela Tilley. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
151 Letter regarding case from William Justice. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Document in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
152 Letter regarding case from Lawrence Easter. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
153 Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by Lance Schirrman regarding case. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
154 Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by George L. Wiseman regarding case. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
155 NOTICE of Withdrawal of 58 Motion to Sever and Exclude Class Plaintiff filed by Teddy F. Sanders. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 15 of 18

06/13/2013 06/13/2013 06/13/2013
06/13/2013
06/14/2013
06/14/2013 06/14/2013 06/14/2013 06/14/2013 06/14/2013 06/14/2013 06/17/2013 06/17/2013 06/17/2013
06/18/2013
06/18/2013 06/19/2013 06/20/2013 06/20/2013 06/20/2013

156 Letter regarding case from Robert S. Ballard. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
157 Letter regarding case from Dustin Barnett. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
158 Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by Daniel George regarding case. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
159 Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by Irvin Mitehem regarding case. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
160 Letter regarding case from Michael Dedmon. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
161 Letter regarding case from Johnathan Wishneski. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
162 Letter regarding case from Larry D. Lowery. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
163 Letter regarding case from Wayne Payne. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
164 Letter regarding case from Harry Davis. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
165 Letter regarding case from Dennis M. Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
169 Letter regarding case from Randy D. Bryant. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
166 Letter regarding case from Larry A. Everett. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
167 Letter regarding case from Steven Mickle. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
168 Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" by Joel Woody regarding case. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
170 Letter regarding case from Eugene Demming. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
171 Letter regarding case from Alonzo Greene. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
172 Letter regarding case from Franky Johnson. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
173 Document − entitled "Motion to Amend for My Name" regarding case by Willie T. Kelly Jr. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
174 Document − entitled "Motion for Attorney" regarding case by James A. Powell. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
175 Document − entitled "North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Adult Correction − Inmate Reasonable Accomodation Request DC−746" regarding case by Jimmy J. Joseph. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/20/2013)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 16 of 18

06/20/2013 06/21/2013 06/24/2013 06/24/2013
06/24/2013
06/24/2013 06/24/2013 06/25/2013
06/25/2013 06/25/2013 06/26/2013
06/26/2013
06/26/2013 06/26/2013 06/26/2013
06/27/2013 06/28/2013 07/01/2013 07/01/2013
07/01/2013 07/01/2013

176 Letter regarding case from Jonathan D. Vieregge. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
177 Letter regarding case from Laura Morton. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
178 Letter regarding case from Robert Williams. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
179 Letter regarding case from Willie McLandon. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
180 Letter regarding case from Charles E. Lynch. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
181 Letter regarding case from Thomas Davis. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
182 Letter regarding case from James P. Alexander. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
183 Letter regarding case from Willie McLandon. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/25/2013)
184 Letter regarding case from Randy Bryant. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/25/2013)
185 Letter regarding case from Jerry C. Williams. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/25/2013)
186 Letter regarding case from Kenneth Capps. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
187 Letter regarding case from Cleveland Harris. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Document in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
188 Letter regarding case from Jerry C. Williams. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
189 Letter regarding case from James Gray. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
190 NOTICE of Hearing: Fairness Hearing set for July 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM in Elizabeth City before US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. **Change in Location** (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
191 Letter regarding case from Shane Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
192 Letter regarding case from Jeffrey G. McDuffie. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
193 Letter regarding case from Marc'el Jackson. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
194 Letter regarding case from Frank Tibbetts. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Document in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
195 Letter regarding case from Marqus A. Blackman. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
196 Letter regarding case from Paul Seelig. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 07/01/2013)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 17 of 18

07/01/2013 07/02/2013 07/02/2013 07/05/2013 07/08/2013 07/11/2013 07/11/2013
07/12/2013 07/22/2013 07/22/2013 07/24/2013
07/25/2013 07/26/2013 07/30/2013
08/15/2013
08/15/2013 08/15/2013

197 Document − entitled "Motion in Opposition to Proposed Settlement Agreement" regarding case. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
198 Letter regarding case from James Lee Rankin, Jr. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
199 Letter regarding case from Perry Knowles. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
200 Letter regarding case from Lawrence P. Gilmartin. Notice sent to all Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
201 Letter regarding case from Steven C. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Supporting Documentation, # 2 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
202 Letter from Thomas T. Dillard, Jr. dated July 3, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum to May 15th letter, # 2 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
203 ORDER − The parties shall submit memorandum outline of objections and issues which must be reviewed and resolved at the hearing. Response due by July 23, 2013. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 7/11/2013. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
204 Letter from Robert Andrew Bartlett, Sr. dated June 29, 2013. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
205 Letter from Jeffrey G. McDuffie regarding Notice for comments. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
206 Letter to the Court from Ronnie Long regarding Stipulated Consent Decree. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
207 RESPONSE to Order regarding 203 Order by Court to provide memo of objections and comments of the class members filed by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates. (Ricci, Yvonne) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
208 Letter from Lance Schirrman dated July 23, 2013. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/25/2013)
209 Third Letter from Jeffrey G. McDuffie. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
210 Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: Motion Hearing held in Elizabeth City, NC on 7/30/2013 regarding 74 Joint MOTION Approval of Notice and Setting of Fairness Hearing − all parties present and ready to proceed − based on the information received at this hearing − the consent agreement will be approved − status conference will be set by notice in 6 months − written order to follow. (Court Reporter Sandra Graham) (Downing, L.) (Entered: 07/31/2013)
211 NOTICE by Alvin W. Keller, Robert Lewis, North Carolina Department of Correction, Paula Y. Smith, Laura Yates of the filing of the stipulated consent decree and proposed order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order for approval of stipulated consent decree, # 2 Text of Proposed Order of stipulated consent decree signed by the parties for Judge Boyles approval and signature) (Ricci, Yvonne) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
212 Letter from Timothy D. Smith with comments and objections. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
213 Stipulated Consent Decree. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/15/2013. (Attachment: # 1 Attachments A − E) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 08/15/2013)

Case: 5:10-ct-3166 As of: 10/11/2014 08:48 PM EDT 18 of 18

08/15/2013
08/23/2013 08/27/2013 08/28/2013 10/11/2013 10/25/2013 10/25/2013 11/01/2013
01/15/2014 02/11/2014 03/24/2014 04/10/2014

214 ORDER − the proposed Stipulated Consent Decree, contemporaneously entered, is fair and adequate and is approved and Setting Status Conference set for 2/18/2014− Time and Location in To Be Determined before US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/15/2013. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
215 Letter regarding case from Brent Knight. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
216 Letter regarding case from Charles Dewberry. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
217 Letter regarding case from Ralph D. Abernathy. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
218 Letter regarding case from Billy Wells. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
219 MOTION to be Heard regarding case by Lowell Varney. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
Motion Submitted to Staff Counsel regarding 219 MOTION to be Heard. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
220 ORDER − denying 219 Motion to be Heard regarding case. Individuals shall not be barred from filing separate and distinct suits. The Clerk is DIRECTED not to accept additional filings in this action from individuals, other than through counsel in this suit, given the posture of the matter and the entry of the joint decree. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 11/1/2013. Copy mailed to movant. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
221 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 2/18/2014 at 2:00 PM in Elizabeth City − Courtroom before US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
NOTICE TO COUNSEL regarding: 221 Status Conference set for 2/18/2014 at 2:00 PM in Elizabeth City has been continued. A new date and time is to be determined. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
222 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 4/10/2014 at 3:30 PM in Raleigh − 7th Floor − Courtroom 2 before US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
223 MINUTE ENTRY FOR PROCEEDINGS held before US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: Status Conference held on 4/10/2014. Counsel for both parties present. (Court Reporter Donna Tomawski.) (Fisher, M.) (Entered: 04/10/2014)