Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

William Suggs, both individually and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, CUMBERLAND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, GLENN : SAUNDERS, both individually and in his official capacity as the Warden ofthe Cumberland County Correctional Facility, LEWIS WALKER, both individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Warden of the Cumberland County Correctional Facility, KEITH LAMCKEN, both individually and : in his official capacity as Captain for Security and Operations of the Cumberland County Correctional Facility, CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL BARRUZZA, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of : the County of Cumberland, JAMES ELLIOTT, both: individually and in his official capacity as Under sheriff of the County of Cumberland,
Defendants.

Civil Action
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, for his Complaint herein, alleges the following on information and belief except as to the allegations concerning himself, which he asserts upon personal knowledge.
NATURE OF ACTION 1. Plaintiff, William Suggs, bring this class action on behalf of himself, and on behalf of, as more particularly defined in paragraph 15 below, a class of all persons who were strip-searched at the Cumberland County Correctional Facility after being charged

1

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 2 of 18
-
with petty crimes and traffic violations in contravention of their rights against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
2. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for himself and each member of the proposed class who have suffered from the wrongful actions ofthe Defendants described herein; a declaration that the Defendants' policies are unconstitutional; and, an injunction precluding the Defendants from continuing to violate the rights of those placed in their custody or detention.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, William Suggs ("Suggs") is, and at all times relevant hereto has been, a resident of the State of New Jersey. On or about July 9, 2005 was arrested by Medford City Police Department for a child support warrant and subsequently transported to the Cumberland County Jail with a purge of $2,0000.00 which two days later was dropped to $500.00 and Plaintiff was released upon payment. On or about July 9, 2005 Plaintiff was illegally strip searched at the Cumberland County Correctional Facility. 4. Defendant County of Cumberland (the "County") is a county government organized and existing under the laws of New Jersey. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriffs Department and Correctional Facility, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertainingto the Cumberland County Correctional Facility and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department and Cumberland County Correctional Facility's personnel, including those working in the Cumberland County Correctional Facility. In addition, at all relevant times, the County
2

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 3 of 18
was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Cumberland County Correctional Facility and for ensuring that Sheriff's Department and Cumberland County Correctional Facility's employees obey the Constitution and the laws of the United States and New Jersey.
5. Defendant Cumberland County Correctional Facility (the "Correctional Facility") is a political subdivision created through the County of Cumberland, State of New Jersey. At all times relevant hereto, the Correctional Facility, together with the County, was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Correctional Facility personnel working in the Correctional Facility. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Correctional Facility, together with the County of Cumberland, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Correctional Facility and for ensuring that Correctional Facility personnel employed in the Correctional Facility obeyed the Constitution and the laws of the United States and of the State of New Jersey.
6. The Cumberland County Sheriff's Department (the "Sheriff's Department") is .a County of Cumberland political subdivision, organized and existing under the laws of New Jersey. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriff's Department, together with the County of Cumberland, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Sheriff's Department, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff's Department personnel and that they obey the Constitution and the laws of the United States and of the State of New Jersey.
7. Defendant Glenn Saunders ("Warden Saunders") is the Warden of the Correctional Facility and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of
3

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 4 of 18
pretrial and other detainees over which the Correctional Facility exercises custodial or other control. Warden Saunders is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant Lewis Walker ("Assistant Warden Walker") is an Assistant Warden ofthe ~orrectional Facility and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pretrial and other detainees over which the Correctional Facility exercises custodial or other control. Assistant Warden Walker is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
9. Defendant Kenneth Lamcken ("Captain Lamcken") is a Captain at the Correctional Facility, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pretrial and other detainees over which the Correctional Facility exercises custodial or other control. Captain Lamcken is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
10. Defendant Michael Barruzza ("Sheriff Barruzza") is the Sheriff of Cumberland County and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pretrial and other detainees over which the Sheriffs Department exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Barruzza is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
11. Defendant James Elliott (" Undersheriff Elliott") is the Undersheriff of Cumberland County and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pretrial and other detainees over which the Sheriffs Department exercises custodial or other control. Undersheriff Elliott is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
4

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 5 of 18
12. Collectively, Cumberland County, the Correctional Facility, and the Sheriff's Department, will be referred to as the "Municipal Defendants".
13. Collectively, Warden Saunders, Assistant Warden Walker, Captain Lamcken, Sheriff Barruzza, and Undersheriff Elliott, will be referred to as the "Policy Making Defendants".
JURISDICTION a. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.c. §§1331, 1341 and 1343 because it was filed to obtained compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the United States Constitution and by federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of28 U.S.C. §2201, as it was filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the Constitutionality of the policies of a local government. b. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §139 I(e)(2) because the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 14. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(I), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals who were arrested for misdemeanors or other petty crimes or minor violations and who were unlawfully detained and strip-searched upon their entry into the Correctional Facility.
5

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 6 of 18
15. The Class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined of: All persons who have been or will be placed into custody of the Cumberland County Correctional Facility after being charged and arrested within the County of Cumberland for misdemeanors, violations, traffic infractions, failing to make payment on outstanding traffic violations, failing to make payment on outstanding fines or other minor crimes or violations and were or will be strip-searched upon their transfer and entry into the Cumberland County Correctional Facility.
The Class period commences on or about January 9, 2004 and extends to the date on which the Municipal Defendants are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip-searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
16. This action may be brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
17. The members of the Class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. There are and have been hundreds of people who have been arrested for misdemeanors, violations, traffic infractions, failing to make payment on outstanding traffic violations, failing to make payment on outstanding fines or other minor crimes who were stripsearched under the circumstances described herein.
18. Joinder of all these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of Class members and the fact that Class members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members, residing outside of Cumberland County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, many members of the Class are low-income persons, may
6

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 7 of 18
not speak English, may not know of their rights and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually.
19. Common questions oflaw and fact exist as to all members of the Class that predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. The predominant common questions oflaw and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants' written and/or de facto policies of strip-searching individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or violations when transferred to and placed into the custody of the Correctional Facility violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the Class period.
20. PlaintiffSugg's claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Plaintiff and all members of the Cjass have sustained damages arising out of Defendants' course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiff are typical of the harms suffered by the Class.
21. The representative Plaintiff has the requisite personal interest in the outcome ofthis action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members oftheClass.
22. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the Class is impracticable given the large number of Class members and the fact that they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the Class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of
7

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 8 of 18
adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnifY the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class.
23. The named Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience and success in the prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation. Plaintiff Suggs is being represented by William Riback; Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP; Elmer Robert Keach, III; and Seth Lesser and Fran Rudich ofthe Locks Law Firm, PLLC.
24. William Riback is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has successfully litigated class actions in both state and federal courts in a number of jurisdictions across the country.
25. Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, have extensive experience in state and federal trial and appellate courts, before law enforcement authorities and in proceedings before the United States Congress. Cuneo and LaDuca have successfully prosecuted complex class actions, including cases involving securities fraud, antitrust violations, consumer protection and products liability in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In addition to this experience, Cuneo and LaDuca are co-counsel in several strip-search class actions, with Mr. Keach, one of which was recently certified in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against the County of Schenectady and other related Defendants.
8

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 9 of 18
26. Mr. Keach is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has litigated a wide variety of civil rights actions and has litigated class action lawsuits in state and federal courts in five states. Mr. Keach has successfully litigated strip search cases against the Troy City Police Department and the Schenectady City School District, and was lead counsel in the Rensselaer County Jail strip search class action that recently settled in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
27. Seth Lesser and Fran Rudich of the Locks Law Firm with offices in Cherry Hill and New York City, are both experienced civil rights and class action attorneys,. Mr. Lesser is one of this country's premier class action attorneys having successfully litigated civil rights, consumer protection and products liability class actions against Fortune 500 companies in courts across the country, including both New Jersey state and federal courts. Ms. Rudich has litigated scores of individual and class action civil rights cases against a number of Defendants in over ten jurisdictions throughout the United States.
28. In short, Plaintiffs counsel have the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against the Defendants. Counsel for the Plaintiff is not aware of any conflicts among members of the Class, or between counsel and members of the Class.
29. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the Defendants' flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals, even though the Defendants have maintained their illegal strip-search regimen for at least the past several years.
9

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 10 of 18
30. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all Class members were subject to the same policy requiring the illegal strip-searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes that were transported to and placed into the custody of the Correctional Facility. In short, the Municipal Defendants and the Policy Making Defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to all Class members. 31. In addition to, and in the alternative, Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule
23(b)(3) or seek partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4). FACTS
Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 32. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the employees they supervise, from performing strip searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes or violations unless there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband. 33. Cumberland County, the Sheriff's Department, the Correctional Facility, and the Policy Making Defendants have, nonetheless, instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip-searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Correctional Facility regardless of the nature oftheir charged crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband. 34. Further, Cumberland County, the Sheriff's Department, the Correctional
10

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 11 of 18
Facility, and the Policy Making Defendants have also instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of conducting visual body cavity searches (visual inspection of the vaginal and rectal cavities) on all individuals who enter the custody of the Correctional Facility, regardless of the individual characteristics or the nature of their charged crime. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as "strip-searches."
35. Cumberland County, the Sheriffs Department, the Correctional Facility, and the Policy Making Defendants know or should know,that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip-searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion
36. The Defendants' written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip-searches of all misdemeanor and violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.
37. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip-search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest.
38. Cumberland County, the Sheriff's Department, the Correctional Facility, and Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip-searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Cumberland County Correction Facility without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip-searching of pre-trial detainees routine;
11

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 12 of 18
neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip-searches.
39. Pursuant to this written and/or de facIo policy, each member of the Class, including the named Plaintiff was the victim of a routine strip-search upon their entry into the Correction Facility. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of reasonable suspicion, and in fact were not supported by reasonable suspicion. Strip-searches are conducted for individuals arrested for, among other innocuous offenses such as, traffic violations, outstanding traffic fines and other minor fines.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip-search conducted pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip-searches - each member of the Class, including the named Plaintiff- has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff
41. Mr. Suggs' experience is representative of the Class. 42. On or about July 9, 2005 at approximately 6:00 p.m. Plaintiff was
transported to the Cumberland County Correctional Facility and detained on a child support warrant. 43. Plaintiff was immediately brought to a holding cell with other detainees. Plaintiff was called out of said cell at approximately 6:30 p.m. by a male Correctional Officer. Plaintiff was brought to private room in direct vicinity of the holding cell. Plaintiff was directed to pull his pants down, and at that
12

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 13 of 18
time a visual cavity search was conducted. Plaintiff was then visually inspected from the front by said Correctional Officer.
CAUSES OF ACTION AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law (Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies
To Avoid Constitutional Deprivations Under Color of State Law) 44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 42. 45. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip-searches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or violations abscnt some particularized suspicion that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons. 46. The actions of all Defendants as detailed above, violated Plaintiffs and the Class' rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Correctional Facility personnel to strip-search Plaintiff and the members of the Class based on their arrests for misdemeanor/violation charges. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Correctional Facility personnel to conduct such searches or to have a police or practice permitting such searches.
13

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 14 of 18
47. These strip-searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of Cumberland County, the Sheriff's Department, and the Correctional Facility. As such, these Defendants are directly liable for the damages of the Class.
48. Upon information and belief, Cumberland County, the Sheriff's Department, and the Correctional Facility are responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Correctional Facility and are responsible for the implementation of the strip-search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Cumberland County, the Sheriff's Department, and the Correctional Facility are each individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class.
49. Cumberland County, the Sheriff's Department, and the Correctional Facility kllew that the above-described strip-search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiff and members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
50. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
51. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff and the Class have been irreparably injured.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Demand for Declaratory Judgment 52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 50.
14

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 15 of 18
53. The policy, custom and practice of the Defendants is unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip-searches of all individuals placed into the Correctional Facility without particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
54. Plaintiff and members of the Class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip-search policies of the Defendants to be unconstitutional.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction 55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 53. 56. The policy, custom and practice ofthe Defendants are unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip-searches of all individuals placed into the Correctional Facility without particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons. 57. This policy is currently in place at the Correctional Facility, with new and/or prospective members of the Class subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiff. 58. The continuing pattern of strip-searching individuals charged with minor crimes or violations will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class and an adequate remedy does not exist at law. 59. Plaintiff demands that the Defendants immediately desist from strip searching
15

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 16 of 18
individuals placed into the custody of the Correctional Facility absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons, and seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 60. The actions of the Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip-search policy even though they know for a fact that their actions are unconstitutional. 61. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendants have no respect for the civil rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements ofthe United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Cumberland County.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 62. The Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff William Suggs, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated, request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief:
A. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 with Mr. Suggs as Class representative. B. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to
16

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 17 of 18

named Plaintiff Suggs and each member of the proposed Class in an amount to be determined by a Jury and/or the Court on both an individual and a class wide basis. C. A judgment against Policy Making Defendants on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. D. A declaratory judgment against Cumberland County, the Sheriffs Department, and the Correctional Facility declaring their policy, practice and custom of strip and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the Correctional Facility, regardless ofthe crime charged or suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper. E. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants Cumberland County, the Sheriffs Department, and the Correctional Facility from continuing to strip and visual cavity search individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and violations absent particularized, reasonable suspicion that the arrestee subjected to the search is concealing weapons or other contraband. F. A monetary award for attorney's fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Respectfully submitted by:

Dated: January 9, 2006 Camden, New Jersey

/s/ William A. Riback
William Riback, Esquire 527 Cooper Street, 2nd Floor
Camden, N.J. 08102

17

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 18 of 18
856/342-9700 Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esquire Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 507 C. Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 202/789-3960 ElmerRobert Keach, III, Esquire One Steuben Place Albany, NY 12207 518/434-1718 Seth R. Lesser, Esquire Fran L. Rudich, Esquire
(Motion for Admission To Be Filed)
LOCKS LAW FIRM 457 Haddenfield Road, Suite 500 Cherry Hill, N.J. 08002 856/663-8200
-and110 E. 55th Street, 12'h Floor New York, NY 10022 212/838-3333
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND PROPOSED CLASS
18

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00087-RBK-JBR Document 5 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

William Suggs, both individually and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action Case No.: 06-cv-87 (JHR) (JBR)

COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, CUMBERLAND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, GLENN SAUNDERS, both individually and in his official capacity as the Warden of the Cumberland County Correctional Facility, LEWIS WALKER, both individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Warden of the Cumberland County Correctional Facility, KEITH LAMCKEN, both individually and in his official capacity as Captain for Security and Operations of the Cumberland County Correctional Facility, CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL BARRUZZA, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Cumberland, JAMES ELLIOTT, both individual and in his capacity as Under sheriff of the County of Cumberland,

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS

Defendants.

Defendants County of Cumberland, Cumberland County Correctional Facility, Glenn Saunders, Lewis Walker, Keith Lameken, Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department, Michael Barruzza, and James Elliott, by way of Answer to plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint, say that:
NATURE OF ACTION 1. Defendants deny that either plaintiff or any class of persons were strip-searched at the Cumberland County Correctional Facility in contravention of any Fourth Amendment rights. 2. Defendants deny that either plaintiff or his putative class are entitled to any of the relief requested.

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RBK-JBR Document 5 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 2 of 7
PARTIES 3. Defendants deny that plaintiff was strip-searched at the Cumberland County Jail on or about July 9, 2005. It is further denied that plaintiff was committed in the Cumberland County Jail on July 9, 2005. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph and, accordingly deny those allegations. 4. Defendant Cumberland County admits that the Cumberland County Correctional Facility is and, at all relevant times, was a department of the County of Cumberland and that defendant County of Cumberland is and was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision and implementations of proper policies at the Cumberland County Correctional Facility. Defendants deny that either the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department or any personnel in the Sheriff’s Department had any role whatsoever in the policies, practices, supervision or management of the Cumberland County Correctional Facility at any time relevant to this action. 5. Defendants admit that the Cumberland County Correctional Facility (the “Correctional Facility”) is a department of the County of Cumberland. Defendants admit the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 6. Defendants admit that the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department is a department of the County of Cumberland. Defendants deny that the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department had any role in the operation, management or supervision of the Correctional facility at any time relevant to this action. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted.
2

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RBK-JBR Document 5 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 3 of 7
9. It is admitted that defendant Kenneth Lameken is a Captain at the Correctional Facility. It is denied that Captain Lameken was a “policy maker” with respect to the treatment of detainees at the Correctional Facility.
10. Defendants admit that Michael Barruzza is the Sheriff of Cumberland County and deny all remaining allegations made in this paragraph.
11. Defendants admit that James Elliot is the Undersheriff of Cumberland County and deny all remaining allegations made in this paragraph.
12. This paragraph makes no allegations which require response by defendants. 13. This paragraph makes no allegations which require response by defendants.
JURISDICTION a. Defendants do not dispute plaintiff’s assertions as to the jurisdiction of this Court. b. Defendants do not dispute plaintiff’s assertions as to venue.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 14. Defendants deny that this action is suitable for certification as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 23, and defendants further deny that either the plaintiff or any member of his proposed class were unlawfully detained and strip-searched by defendants. 15. Defendants deny that there is any class of individuals arrested for misdemeanors, violations or any minor offense, who were unlawfully searched at defendants’ Correctional Facility. 16. Defendants deny that plaintiff’s proposed class meets any of the prerequisites of Rule 23(a).
3

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RBK-JBR Document 5 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 4 of 7
17. Defendants deny that the proposed class is so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Defendants further deny that either the plaintiff or anyone else committed to the Correctional Facility were unlawfully searched. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. 20. Denied. 21. Denied. 22. Denied. 23. Defendants lack sufficient information to determine the truth of the matters alleged in this paragraph and, accordingly denies those allegations. 24. Defendants lack sufficient information to determine the truth of the matters alleged in this paragraph and, accordingly denies those allegations. 25. Defendants lack sufficient information to determine the truth of the matters alleged in this paragraph and, accordingly denies those allegations. 26. Defendants lack sufficient information to determine the truth of the matters alleged in this paragraph and, accordingly denies those allegations. 27. Defendants lack sufficient information to determine the truth of the matters alleged in this paragraph and, accordingly denies those allegations. 28. Defendants lack sufficient information to determine the truth of the matters alleged in this paragraph and, accordingly denies those allegations. 29. Defendants admit that there are no other pending actions making the allegations made in this action. Defendants deny that they violated any rights of the plaintiff or anyone else in connection with the alleged strip-search regimen.
4

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RBK-JBR Document 5 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 5 of 7
30. Denied. 31. Defendants deny that certification of a class is appropriate under any subpart of Rule 23.
FACTS 32. This allegation is a statement of law and cannot be admitted or denied. 33. Denied. At all relevant times it was the policy of the Correctional Facility that individuals committed to the facility for minor offenses would not be strip searched in the absence of reasonable cause to suspect that the individual was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. 34. Denied. 35. Defendants did not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of any policy or practice of conducting strip searches of individuals committed for minor violations without reasonable cause. 36. Denied. Defendants written policy precludes such searches. 37. This allegation is a statement of law and cannot be admitted or denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. 41. Denied. 42. Denied. It is believed that plaintiff was taken to the Correctional Facility on July 14, 2005 at approximately 7:30 p.m. as a result of an order issued by the Superior Court holding him in contempt of court. 43. Denied.
5

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RBK-JBR Document 5 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 6 of 7
CAUSES OF ACTION 44. Defendants repeat their answer to each and every allegation made in paragraphs 1 through 42 as though fully set forth herein. 45. Defendants lack sufficient information to determine the truth of the matter alleged in this paragraph and, accordingly denies those allegations. 46. Denied. 47. Denied. 48. Denied as to the Sheriff defendants who have no role whatsoever in connection with the operation of the Correctional Facility. It is admitted that the County of Cumberland, the Correctional Facility and the Warden and Assistant Warden have and had responsibility for establishing the policies and procedures in the operation of the Correctional Facility, including the policy regarding strip-searches. It is denied that any individual defendants are personally liable for any alleged damages. 49. Denied. 50. Denied. 51. Denied. 52. Defendants repeat their answer to each and every allegation made in paragraphs 1 through 50 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 53. Denied. 54. Denied. 55. Defendants repeat their answer to each and every allegation made in paragraphs 1 through 50 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 56. Denied.
6

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RBK-JBR Document 5 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 7 of 7
57. Denied. 58. Denied. 59. Defendants deny that any injunction should issue. 60. Denied. 61. Denied.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Defendants respectfully request that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and with an award of costs and counsel fees to be received by defendants.
BROWN & CONNERY, LLP 360 Haddon Avenue Westmont, NJ 08108 (856) 854-8900 Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: May 12, 2006

By: /s/Michael J. Vassalotti Michael J. Vassalotti (7907)

7

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 48 Filed 11/25/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 546

UNITED STATES DISTRIeI' COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WILLIAM SUGGS, et aI.,
Plain(i 11\
v.
THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, ct al. Defendants.

) ) ) Case No.1 :06-cv-000S7(RMB)(JS)
) ) ) ) ) )

tr Fife *' 'l
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUOCMENT
THIS CASE coming on l'Or hearing before the Honorable Renee Marie Bumb, U.S.D.J. on November 25, 200S, pursuant to tllis Court's Order of August 19, 200S, in order for this Court to conduct a final fainless hearing to determine, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(f) whether the proposed Settlement Agreement between tile parties is fair, reasonable and adequate, and to address Class Counsel's application pursuant to Federal Rules or Civil Procedurtl 23(h) and 54(d)(2) for all award of attOnley' s fees and costs; and the Setll",ment Class Members being represented by Class Counsel and Defendants being represented by their aUonley;
AND THE COURT having read and considered tl1e Settlement Agreement, the Notice Plan, and Memoranda of Law submitted by Class Counsel, having received evidence at tl1e hearing, having heard arguments from Class Counsel and the Defendants, and having considered the submissions by Class Members, now makes the following:

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 48 Filed 11/25/08 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 547
FiNDINGS OF FACT I. This action was commenced on January 9, 2006, as a class action. 2. After two years of intensive litigation, including extensive discovery and motion practice, and as a result of intensive, arm's length negotiations between Class Counsel and Defi:ndants, including settlement conferences betbre fom1ef Magistrate Judge Joel Rosen, the parties have reached accord with respect to a Settlement that provides substantial benefits to Settlement Class Members, in return for a release and dismissal of the claims at issue in this case against the Defendants ("Settlement Agreement"). TIle
resulting Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court on August 19, 20011. 3. As part of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval, this Court approved a proposed Notice Plan and Class Notice, which provided Settlement Class Members notice of the proposed settlement. The Notice Plan provided an opportunity for Class Members 10 file objections to the Settlement, and an oppOliunity to opt-out of Ihe Settlement. 4. As of the deadline for the filing of objections, no objcction~ or opt-outs were Jiled. Given the size of this Settlement, and the Notice Plan described above, thi~ Court finds that the lack of objections and opt-outs is indicative of Ihe faimess, rea~on..'tblencss and adequacy of (he Settlement with the Defendants. 5. The settling parties have filed with the Court an affidavit iTom The Garden City Group declaring that the mailing of the Court-approved notice, consistent with the Notice Plan, has been completed. 6. The COllrt finds that the published notice, nlailed notice and [ntemel posting
2

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 48 Filed 11/25/08 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 548
constitute the best practicable notice of the fairness Hearing, proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's application for fees and expenses, and other matters set forth in the Class Notice and Short Form Notice; and that such notice constituted valid, due and sufficient notice to all members of the Settlement Cla~s, and complied fully with (he reqllirements of Rule 23 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of New Jersey and any other applicable law. 7. Any persons who wished \(1 he e:».cluded .trom this action were provided an opportunity to "opt-out" pursuant to the Notice. However, no individuals opted to exclude themselves from this action. S. Settlement Class Members are bound by the: Settlement, Settlement Agreement, the tenng llf th", releases contained within the Settlement Agreement, and the Final Order and Judgment. Settlement Class Memoors do not have a rurther opportunity to opt-out or this Action. 9. Any Class Member who did not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement Agreement, to the entry of Final Order and Judgment, or to Plaintiff's Class Counsel' $ application for fees, costs, and expenses, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and mandated in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval 01' SeUJement, is deemed to have waived any such o~jection hy appeal, collateral attack, or othen'Vise. 10. On the basis or all of the issues in this litigation, and the provisions of the Settlen1ent Agreement, the Court is of' the opinion that the Settlement is a fair, reasonable and adequate compromise of the claims agaillBt the Defendants in this case, pursuant to Rule 23 of'the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are a number of factors which the
3

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 48 Filed 11/25/08 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 549
Court has considered in aflirming this Settlement, including: a. The liability issues in this case have been vigorously contested. b. TIlis Settlement has the benefit of providing reJiei'to Class Members now,
without further litigation, under circumstances where the liability issues are still vigorously eontc$ted among the patties to this litigation and among the parties to the individual litigation. This Settlement provides Class Members with a substantial monetary bene!l!.
c. This Settlement is clearly a byproduct of hard-fought litigation between the parties, and not a result or any collusion on the part of Class Counselor Counsel for the Defendants. 11. Class Counsel submitted to the Court and served on the Defendants their application I(lt reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses consistent with (he krms of the Settlement Agreement. This Court has considered Class Counsel's request and hereby grants the request. 12. The claims procedure established under the Settlement Agreement is fair, a simplified process, and workable. In any event, the Court will retain jurisdiction to work out any unanlicipallold probllolms.
NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OJ!' THE .FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE COURT HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWIN(i CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 13. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. 14. Pursuant to Rule 23 of (he Federal Rules or Civil Procedure, the fI:JlIowing
4

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 48 Filed 11/25/08 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 550
Settlement Class is certitied lor Plll'POSCS of finlll settlement: All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Cumberland County Corr~ctional Facility after being charged and arrested witbin th~ County of Cumberland for misdemeanors, violations, tramc infractions, tailing to make payment on outstllnding lrallie violations, failing to make payment on outstanding fines or other minor crimes or violations and Were or will be strip s~archcd upon their transfer and entry into Cumberland COllnty Correctional Facility. The class period cmnmences on January 9, 2004 and extends until December 1, 2006. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective atlliiatcs, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employe~s or assignees.
15. The Court finds that, for the purpOStl of this Settlement, the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure IIrt: satisfied, and that a class action is an appropriate method for resolving the disputes in this litigation. All the prerequisites for class eertitication under Rule 23 are present. The Class Membtlr8 are asecrlainabltl and
too numerous to be .joined. Q.uestions of law and fact common to all Class members
predominate over individual issues and should be determined in one proceeding with respect to all Class member:;, The Class Represtlntative's claims are lypical of those or
thc Class. The Class action mechanism is superior to altenlative means for udj udicating
and resolving this action. 16. The Settlement Class Representative, William Suggs, is entitled to and is hereby awarded a payment of $15,000, in recognition of the efforts he undertonk in cOllllection with this lawsuit. All Class Members who have made claims on the Stltllerncnt are
entitled to receive their PI'/) rata share of the settlement fund atler administrative
expenses, attorneys' fees und expenses, and incentive awards are deducted from the fund. 17. Class Counsel are qualified, tlxptlrienced, and have aggressively litigated this case, thereby demonstrating their adequacy as counsel lor the Settlement Class. Scth Lesser, Esquire, of Klal'tcr Lesser & Olsen LLP, Haddonfield, New Jersey and White Plains, New York; Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire, of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
5

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 48 Filed 11/25/08 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 551
Washin!"rton, DC; Elmer Robert Keach, III, ofthe Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, Ill, Amsterdam, New York; and William A. Riback of William Riback, I.I.C, are hereby appointed as Counsel for the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and (g). 18. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement, as heing fair, reasonable and adequate, pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that distrihution should proceed pursuant to the Iinal ftllll1 or the Plan or Distrihution that has been submitted to the Court. 19. The Court tlnds that the request for allorneys' lees In the amount or $1 ,350,000 and reimbursement of costs of $22,000, made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h) and 54(d)(2), is reasonable and is granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDTN(]S OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Motion for Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement is GRANTED. 2. The Settlement Class Representative, William Suggs, is entitled to and is hereby awarded a payment of $15,000 in recognition of the efforts he undertook in connection with this lawsuit. All Class Members who have made claims on the settlement arc entitled to reed ve their pro rata share of the settlement fund after administrative expenses, attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive awards arc deducted from the fund. 3. The Class Counsel's application for aUom(;lYS' fees and expenses is granted. 4. This Action and all claims against the Settling Defendant are hereby dismissed Witll prejudice, but the Court shall rdatn exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of the
6

Case 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS Document 48 Filed 11/25/08 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 552

Action, all Parties, and Settlement Class Members, to interpret and enfbrce the terms,

conditions and obligations of this Settlement Agreement.

5, All Class Members who have not timely filed an opt-out request (and no such opt·

outs were received) ure barred and cnjoined from commencing andlor prosecuting any

claim or action against the Defendants, Any Class Member who has not timely filed a

request to exclude himself or herself (and no such requests were received) shall be

enjoined from initiating andlor proceeding as a class action in any forum.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ~ 2-t;; 'Loot

~ , ' r ;;;S<B'''''''''''' ,-_., Hon. Rence Marie Bumb United States District Judge

7

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS As of: 05/08/2013 10:02 PM EDT 1 of 7
CLOSED,RULE16,SCHEDO
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Camden) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−00087−RMB−JS

SUGGS v. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND et al Assigned to: Judge Renee Marie Bumb Referred to: Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Movant
JAMIE K. HAYES PRISON #581472 SBI #242980C NORTHERN STATE PRISON PO BOX 2300 168 FRONTAGE RD NEWARK, NJ 07114

Date Filed: 01/09/2006 Date Terminated: 11/25/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
WILLIAM SUGGS both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated

represented by SETH R. LESSER KLAFTER OLSEN &LESSER, LLP 2 International Place Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 914−934−9200 Email: slesser@klafterolsen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

WILLIAM A. RIBACK WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC 132 HADDON AVENUE HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033 (856) 857−0008 Fax: (856) 857−0028 Email: ribacklaw@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELMER ROBERT KEACH , III 1040 RIVERFRONT CENTER PO BOX 70 AMSTERDAM, NY 12010 (518) 434−1718 Email: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND

represented by MICHAEL J. VASSALOTTI BROWN &CONNERY, LLP 360 HADDON AVENUE P.O. BOX 539 WESTMONT, NJ 08108 (856) 854−8900 Email: mvassalotti@brownconnery.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS As of: 05/08/2013 10:02 PM EDT 2 of 7

Defendant CUMBERLAND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Defendant GLENN SAUNDERS both individually and in his official capacity as the Warden of the Cumberland County Correctioanl Facility
Defendant Lewis Walker both individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Warden of the Cumberland County Correctional Facility
Defendant KEITH LAMCKEN both individually and in his official capacity as Captain for Security and Operations of the Cumberland County Correctional Facility
Defendant CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Defendant MICHAEL BARRUZZA both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Cumberland
Defendant JAMES ELLIOTT both individudally and in his official capacity as Under sheriff of the County of Cumberland

represented by MICHAEL J. VASSALOTTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MICHAEL J. VASSALOTTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MICHAEL J. VASSALOTTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MICHAEL J. VASSALOTTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MICHAEL J. VASSALOTTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MICHAEL J. VASSALOTTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MICHAEL J. VASSALOTTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/09/2006
02/07/2006 02/07/2006 03/29/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against MICHAEL BARRUZZA, JAMES ELLIOTT, COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, CUMBERLAND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, GLENN SAUNDERS, Lewis Walker, KEITH LAMCKEN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 304112.) JURY DEMAND, filed by WILLIAM SUGGS.(TH, ) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
2 Letter from William A. Riback for issuance of summons. (ar1, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
Summons Issued as to COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, CUMBERLAND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. Days Due − 20. (ar1, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by WILLIAM SUGGS. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND served on 2/21/2006, answer due 3/13/2006; CUMBERLAND

Case: 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS As of: 05/08/2013 10:02 PM EDT 3 of 7

04/18/2006 05/12/2006
05/15/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006 06/06/2006 06/28/2006 07/05/2006 07/11/2006 07/13/2006
07/21/2006 07/21/2006 07/21/2006 07/24/2006

COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY served on 2/9/2006, answer due 3/1/2006; CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT served on 2/9/2006, answer due 3/1/2006. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III on behalf of all plaintiffs (KEACH, ELMER) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
5 ANSWER to Complaint by MICHAEL BARRUZZA, JAMES ELLIOTT, COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, CUMBERLAND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, GLENN SAUNDERS, Lewis Walker, KEITH LAMCKEN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.(VASSALOTTI, MICHAEL) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
6 ORDER Setting Initial Scheduling Conference for 6/28/2006 at 2:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel B. Rosen. Signed by Judge Joel B. Rosen on 5/15/06. (ar1, ) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by SETH R. LESSER on behalf of WILLIAM SUGGS (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
8 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Robert B. Kugler for all further proceedings. Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 5/15/06. (ar1, ) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
9 STIPULATION AND ORDER accepting service of process and extending time to respond to the complaint. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 6/6/06. (ar1, ) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
10 RE−SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 7/24/2006 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel B. Rosen.Signed by Judge Joel B. Rosen on 6/28/06. (sb) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
11 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Renee M. Bumb for all further proceedings. Judge Robert B. Kugler no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 7/5/06. (js) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
12 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter# 2 Declaration coler# 3 Declaration laduca# 4 Text of Proposed Order coler# 5 Text of Proposed Order laduca# 6 proof mailing)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
CLERKS OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE − The (MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE) filed by (W. RIBACK) on (07/11/06) was submitted incorrectly as a (NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE TO RECEIVE NEF). PLEASE RESUBMIT THE (MOTION and DECLARATIONS WITH SCANNED SIGNATURES) BY (07/18/06) USING (MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE). This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (db, ) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Charles J. LaDuca by WILLIAM SUGGS. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter# 2 Declaration LaDuca# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service mailing)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Alexandra Coler by WILLIAM SUGGS. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter# 2 Declaration Coler# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service mailing)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
15 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Fran Rudich by WILLIAM SUGGS. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter# 2 Declaration Rudich# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service mailing)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
Setting Deadlines as to 15 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Fran Rudich, 14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Alexandra Coler, 13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Charles J. LaDuca. Motion Hearing set for 8/18/2006 before Magistrate Judge Joel B. Rosen. PLEASE BE ADVISED

Case: 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS As of: 05/08/2013 10:02 PM EDT 4 of 7

07/24/2006 08/01/2006
08/14/2006 08/14/2006 09/14/2006 10/12/2006 10/13/2006
10/18/2006 10/18/2006 11/06/2006 11/09/2006 11/13/2006 11/13/2006 11/15/2006 01/04/2007 01/05/2007 02/09/2007 02/15/2007 02/23/2007

THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT. (db, ) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel B. Rosen : Scheduling Conference held on 7/24/2006. (bb, ) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 12/14/2006 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel B. Rosen. Amended Pleadings due by 11/6/2006. Disp. Motions due by 3/5/2007. Signed by Judge Joel B. Rosen on 8/1/06. (js) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
17 ORDER granting 13 Motion for Charles J. LaDuca Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge Joel B. Rosen on 08/14/06. (db, ) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
18 ORDER granting 14 Motion for Alexandra Coler Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, granting 15 Motion for Fran Rudich Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge Joel B. Rosen on 08/14/06. (db, ) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number 305283 received from pro hac attorney Alexandra Warren (db, ) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by ALEXANDRA COLER WARREN on behalf of WILLIAM SUGGS (WARREN, ALEXANDRA) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
CLERKS OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE − Please be advised the Attorneys admitted to appear pro hac vice, may have local counsel file a request for them to recieve notice of electronic filings. They are not permitted to file documents electronically. Re: Notice of Appearance, Document 19 (db, ) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number 305431 received from pro hac attorney Charles J. LaDuca (db, ) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number 305431 received from pro hac attorney Charles J. LaDuca (db, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
Judge Joel Schneider added. Judge Joel B. Rosen no longer assigned to case. (gn, ) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel Schneider : Scheduling Conference by phone held on 11/9/2006. (bb, ) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
20 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Alexandra Warren to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
21 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Charles J. LaDuca to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
22 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 1/4/2007 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 11/15/06. (db, ) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel Schneider : Status Conference held on 1/4/2007. (bb, ) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
23 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 3/2/2007 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 01/05/07. (db, ) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
24 Letter from Elmer Keach re 23 Scheduling Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Document Requests# 2 Exhibit Interrogatories# 3 Exhibit Letter to Defendants' Counsel)(KEACH, ELMER) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
25 Letter from Magistrate Judge Schneider. (db, ) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
26 RE−SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 3/2/2007 at 11:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 02/23/07. (db, ) (Entered: 02/23/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS As of: 05/08/2013 10:02 PM EDT 5 of 7

03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/29/2007
05/17/2007 05/17/2007 06/07/2007
07/12/2007 08/03/2007 08/06/2007 10/11/2007 10/11/2007 12/14/2007 12/14/2007 01/04/2008 02/15/2008
02/29/2008 02/29/2008 04/01/2008 05/01/2008

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel Schneider : Status Conference held on 3/2/2007. (bb, ) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
27 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 4/27/2007 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 03/02/07. (db, ) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
28 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION: Telephone Conference set for 5/17/2007 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 03/29/07. (db, ) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel Schneider : Status Conference held on 5/17/2007. (bb, ) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
29 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 8/3/2007 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider.Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 5/17/07. (sb) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
30 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION: Status Conference set for 8/3/2007 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 6/7/07. (sb) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel Schneider : Status Conference held on 7/12/2007. (bb, ) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel Schneider : Status Conference held on 8/3/2007. (bb, ) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
31 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephone Status Conference set for 10/11/2007 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 8/6/07. (sb) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
32 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephone Status Conference set for 12/14/2007 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 10/11/07. (sb) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel Schneider : Status Conference held on 10/11/2007. (bb, ) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
33 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephone Status Conference set for 2/15/2008 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Judge Joel Schneider on 12/14/07. (sb) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joel Schneider : Status Conference held on 12/14/2007. (bb, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
34 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Fran L. Rudich to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
35 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION: Telephone Status Conference set for 2/29/2008 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 2/15/08. (sb) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
36 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephone Status Conference set for 4/1/2008 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 2/29/08. (sb) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider: Status Conference held on 2/29/2008. (bb, ) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
37 RE−SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephone Status Conference set for 5/1/2008 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 4/1/08. (sb) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider: Status Conference held on 5/1/2008. (sb, ) (Entered: 05/02/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS As of: 05/08/2013 10:02 PM EDT 6 of 7

05/07/2008 07/01/2008
07/03/2008 07/07/2008 07/31/2008 08/14/2008
08/19/2008 08/19/2008 08/20/2008 08/29/2008 11/21/2008
11/25/2008 11/25/2008
11/25/2008 02/13/2009

38 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: By 7/1/08, plaintiff shall file his Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 5/5/08. (jm1, ) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
39 First MOTION for Settlement Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and For Filing Exhibit Under Seal by WILLIAM SUGGS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Seth R. Lesser in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and for Filing Under Seal, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1A, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 1C, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 1D, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 1E, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 1F, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 10 Brief Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and for filing of Exhibit Under Seal)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
Set Returnable Date as to 39 First MOTION for Settlement Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and For Filing Exhibit Under Seal for 8/4/2008 before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. Please be advised, the motion will be decided on the papers unless otherwise notified by the Court. (th, ) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number 100 307774 (jm1, ) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
40 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Fran L. Rudich to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
41 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Revised) by WILLIAM SUGGS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Claim Form, # 2 Exhibit B − Long Form Notice, # 3 Exhibit C − Long form notice, # 4 Exhibit D − Preliminary Approval Order, # 5 Exhibit D(A) − Long form notice, # 6 Exhibit D(A) − Short form notice, # 7 Exhibit E − Short form notice, # 8 Exhibit F − Plan of distribution, # 9 Exhibit G− To be filed under seal)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
42 ORDER PRELIMINARY APPROVING SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/19/08. (jm1, ) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
44 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. (jm1, ) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
43 ORDER granting 39 Motion to permit the filing of Exhibit G to the Settlement agreement under seal. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/19/08. (jm1, ) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
45 Exhibit G Filed Under Seal; Re 43 Order permitting exhibit G to be filed under seal.(ar1, ) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
46 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval Hearing of Class Action Settlement by WILLIAM SUGGS. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in support of motion for final approval of class action settlement and judgment, # 2 Exhibit A to Brief in Support of Motion, # 3 Declaration of Seth Lesser in support of motion, # 4 Exhibit A to Lesser Declaration, # 5 Exhibit B to Lesser Declaration, # 6 Text of Proposed Order, # 7 Certificate of Service)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
Set Deadlines as to 46 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval Hearing of Class Action Settlement. Motion set for 12/15/2008 before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nf, ) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
47 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Renee Marie Bumb: Motion Hearing held on 11/25/2008. Hearing on 46 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval Hearing of Class Action Settlement filed by WILLIAM SUGGS. Ordered motion granted. Order to be entered. (Court Reporter Ted Formaroli.) (ar1, ) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
48 ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT.. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 11/25/2008. (nf, ) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
50 MOTION to Exclude Jamie K. Hayes from the Settlement by JAMIE K. HAYES. (nf, ) (Entered: 03/06/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-00087-RMB-JS As of: 05/08/2013 10:02 PM EDT 7 of 7

02/25/2009 03/06/2009
03/25/2009 03/31/2009 05/01/2009 05/19/2009 04/13/2010
04/14/2010
03/01/2011 03/09/2011 03/15/2011 04/29/2011
08/09/2011

49 Letter from Plaintiffs Counsel responding to motion for late opt−out by Jamie Hayes. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Motion request by Jamie Hayes to opt−out, # 2 Certificate of Service)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
Set Deadlines as to 50 MOTION to Exclude Jamie K. Hayes from the Settlement. Motion set for 3/16/2009 before Judge Renee Marie Bumb. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (nf, ) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
51 ORDER granting 50 Motion To be excluded from class settlement. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 3/25/2009. (nf, ) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
52 Letter from Jamie Keith Hayes, Re: Transfer to Southwoods State Prison. (nf, ) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
53 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel re Settlement Distribution. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
54 Exhibit to Motion Document# 50 by Jamie Hayes (nf, ) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
55 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel to Judge Bumb seeking ordering of stipulated agreement as to cy pres for remainder of settlement funds. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stipulated Proposed Order)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
56 STIPULATION AND ORDER, the $15,000 remaining in the Settlement Fund of the above−captioned action shall be distributed in equal amounts to The Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Consumer Advocates and Cumberland County Jail. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/14/2010. (nf, ) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
57 Letter from Seth R. Lesser. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
58 Letter from Michael J. Vassalotti, Esquire. (VASSALOTTI, MICHAEL) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
59 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Renee Marie Bumb: Telephone Conference held on 3/15/2011. (Court Reporter Lisa Marcus) (ar1, ) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
60 On March 15, 2011, the Court conducted a telephone conference with the parties [Dkt. Ent. 59], during which the Court ordered counsel for defendants, Michael Vassalotti, to update the Court within 30 days regarding his attempts to deposit the settlement fund check for the Cumberland County Jail. As of this date, the Court has not received a response. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Vassalotti shall update the Court in accordance with its prior Order via CM/ECF by May 4, 2011. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 04/29/11. (Bumb, Renee) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
61 Letter from Michael J. Vassalotti. (VASSALOTTI, MICHAEL) (Entered: 08/09/2011)