IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSIS8t1~t';;e;;;:RN-'-;:o;;C;IST:;:;;R:;;:lcT;-:o~F-;::M~lss;':;ls=sIP:::;:pMI

JACKSON DIVISION

F I LED

)

J.A., by and through her next friend, Kimberly )

Hornsby; RD. by and through her next friend,

)

Roy Dowdy; S.G., by and through her next friend, )

Billie Stewart; M.S. by and through her next friend, )

Audrea Sibley; E.S. by and through her next friend, )

Alicia Stojic; S.W. by and through her next friend, )

Virginia Cook; and the Mississippi Protection and )

Advocacy Systems, Inc.

)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR, in his official )

capacity; DONALD TAYLOR, in his official

)

capacity as Executive Director of the Mississippi )

Department of Human Services; L. DONALD

)

ARMAGOST in his official and individual

)

capacities as the administrator of Columbia

)

Training School; RICHARD JAMES, in his

)

official and individual capacities as Assistant

)

Administrator of Columbia Training School;

)

KATHY PITTMAN, in her official capacity

)

as Director of the Division of Youth Services;

)

Mr. ALEXANDER in his official and individual )

capacities as a Columbia Training School Security )

Officer.

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

-----------------------------)

JUL 11 2007

J. T. NOBLIN, CLERK

BY

OEPUTY

COMPLAINT

1. This is a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to vindicate the rights of mentally ill

girls committed to Columbia Training School under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution. The individual Plaintiffs are all girls living with mental illness

who were committed to Columbia Training School for non-violent offenses; most of the girls are victims of past physical or sexual abuse. All were sent to Columbia to receive rehabilitative treatment so that they could turn their troubled lives around. Indeed, the Constitution demands that youth committed to Columbia Training School receive individualized care and treatment to enable them to become productive members of society. Youth committed to Columbia also have a "right to treatment," which includes the right to reasonably safe conditions of confinement, rehabilitative training, and freedom from unreasonable bodily restraint. Children committed to .- tra.ining schools are further protected by the tSonstitution's prohibition- on cruel and -unusual punishment.
2. Despite a well-docmnented history of widespread abuse at Columbia Training School, the Defendants fail to implement the staff oversight policies and practices that would protect the girls from violations of their constitutional rights. Defendants continue to deny rehabilitative and mental health treatment to disabled girls at Columbia and have failed to take appropriate measures to protect the girls from illegal abuses.
3. Instead of providing the individual Plaintiffs with constitutionally required care and rehabilitation, the Defendants ignore well-established law and act with deliberate indifference by subjecting the girls to horrendous abuses such as prolonged, punitive shackling and, in at least one case, a sexual assault. Compounding these abuses, the Defendants also deny disabled girls the mental health and rehabilitative care that they desperately needed and to which they are entitled under federal law.
4. While tmder the care of the Defendants, several individual Plaintiffs engaged in acts of serious self-harm because of Defendants' failure to provide them with constitutionally adequate mental health treatment and supervision. One suicidal girl was left alone long enough to slice her wrist on the edges of her concrete bunk. Another cut herself with glass and with a razor blade
2

she found just outside her cell. A third girl carved the words "HATE ME" into her forearm while she was purportedly on a high level of suicide watch.
5. The individual Plaintiffs are joined by Mississippi Protection and· Advocacy, Inc. ("P&A"), a non-profit organization authorized by Congress to enforce the civil rights of people living with disabilities. P&A seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of those Mississippi citizens with disabilities who are adversely affected by the illegal policies and practices at Columbia Training School-namely all disabled girls who are committed to the . Division of Youth Services.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action arises under the Eighth and Fomieenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3),2201, and 2202. 7. Because the Defendants reside in Columbia, Mississippi, and Jackson, Mississippi, and because the events giving rise to this action occurred in Columbia, Mississippi, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
PARTIES PLAINTIFFS
8. Plaintiff lA. is a 13-year-old girl who is currently housed at the Columbia Training School. She was committed to Columbia on May 17, 2007. She brings this action by and tlu'ough her next friend and mother, Kimberly Hornsby. lA. takes psychotropic medications for her various mental illnesses, including a mood disorder. She has a history of self-harming behavior and substance abuse.
3

9. Plaintiff H.D. is a 15-year-old girl who was committed to Columbia Training School from April 27, 2007, until June 29, 2007. She is currently in her home commlmity, awaiting placement for appropriate treatment. She brings this action by and through her next friend and father, Roy Dowdy. B.D. takes psychotropic medications for a mood disorder and has a history of multiple suicide attempts and substance abuse.
10. Plaintiff E.S. is a 17-year-old girl who was committed to Columbia Training School from April 2, 2007, until July 9, 2007. She is currently in her home community, awaiting placement for appropriate treatment. She brings this action by and through her next friend- andmother, Alicia Stojic. E.S. takes psychotropic medications for borderline personality disorder. She has a history of sexual abuse, substance abuse, and multiple suicide attempts.
11. Plaintiff S.W. is a 16-year-old girl who was committed to Columbia Training School from January 16,2007, to June 11,2007. She is committed to the Specialized Treatment Facility in Gulfport, MS, a residential mental health facility operated by the Mississippi Department of Mental Health. She brings this action by and through her next friend and guardian, Virginia Cook. S.W. has a history of suicidal behavior and self-harm. She takes psychotropic medications for her multiple mental illnesses.
12. Plaintiff S.G. is a 15-year-old girl who was committed to Columbia Training School from May 10, 2007, until June 20, 2007. She brings this action by and through her next friend and mother, Billie Stewart. S.G. takes psychotropic medications for her mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. S.G. has a history of sexual abuse and a suicide attempt.
13. Plaintiff M.S. is a 15-year old girl who was committed to Columbia Training School from February 12,2007, until June 15,2007. She is currently in her home community, awaiting placement for appropriate treatment. She brings this action by and through her next friend and
4

mother, Audrea Sibley. M.S. takes three different psychotropic medications for her various mental illnesses, including bi-polar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. She has a history of sexual abuse and has been repeatedly committed to mental health treatment facilities.
14. Plaintiff P&A is a Mississippi nonprofit organization authorized by Congressional mandate to protect and advocate for the civil rights of persons with disabilities pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (PAlMI), 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et. seq., the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, (PADD Act) 42 U.S.C. "§15041 etseq., and tlre--Pl'Oiection &-Advocacy for Individual Rights Act (PAIR Act), 29 U:S.C.-·'--~-- '-' . §794e et seq. PAlMI, PADD and PAIR authorize P&A to monitor facilities and programs that house individuals with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities, to investigate suspected incidents of abuse and neglect and to pursue administrative, legal, and other remedies on behalf of individuals with mental illnesses or developmental disabilities wherever progranls for such individuals are operated within the State of Mississippi.
15. Pursuant to its duties and this authority, P&A has monitored the conditions at Columbia Training School, has met with and provided legal assistance to the disabled girls confined there, and has investigated complaints of abuse and neglect.
16.' Protection of the rights of youth with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities is central to P&A's purpose. Federal statutes charge Plaintiff P&A with the responsibility to represent the interests of persons with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities in state institutions, including training schools, who also have standing to sue in their own right. See 45 C.F.R. § 1386.25.
5

DEFENDANTS 17.. Defendant Haley Barbour is the Governor of Mississippi and is responsible for
ensuring that all Mississippi agencies comply with applicable federal law. Defendant Barbour oversees and directs the activities of the Mississippi Department of Human Services pursuant to Miss. Code Am1 §43-1-2. Defendant Barbour is sued in his official capacity only.
18. Defendant L. Donald Armagost is the Administrator of the Columbia Training School. In that capacity, Defendant Armagost exercises administrative control of and has responsibility for the<Columbia Training SchooL~~He 'is responsible forthe day;;.to-day operations ofthe facility~ .. and supervises all conditions and practices therein. Defendant Armagost directly supervises Columbia staff and is responsible for the implementation of policy and procedure at the Columbia Training School. Defendant Armagost is sued in his individual and official capacities.
19. Defendant Richard James is an Assistant Administrator of the Columbia Training School. In that capacity, Defendant James assists Defendant Armagost in exercising administrative control of Columbia Training School and in supervising all conditions and practices therein. He is second in command at the facility, and shares responsibility for the dayto-day operations of the facility and supervises all conditions and practices therein. Defendant James assists Defendant Armagost in directly supervising Columbia staff. Defendant James is responsible for the implementation of policy and procedure at the Columbia Training School. Defendant Jan1es is sued in his individual and official capacities.
20. Defendant Mr. Alexander is an employee of Columbia Training School. In that capacity, he is directly responsible for the day-to-day care of the girls committed to the facility. His primary responsibility is ensuring the safety and care of the girls committed to Columbia Training School. Defendant Alexander is sued in his individual and official capacities. Defendant Alexander's first name is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
6

21. Defendant Kathy Pittman is the Director of the Division of Youth Services. In that capacity, Defendant Pittman exercises administrative control of and has responsibility for the operation of Columbia and Oakley Training Schools. Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-1-2; 43-1-5; 43-27-2; 43-27-8; 43-27-1; 43-27-11, Defendant Pittman is directly responsible for training and monitoring all staff employed at the Columbia Training School and developing and overseeing policy development and implementation at the facility. As the Director of Youth Services she has "exclusive supervisory care, custody and active control of all children properly cornmittedor confined in its facilities' and included-in its programs." Miss. Code Ann. §- 43-27-' 12. She is responsible for ensuring that the Columbia Training School operates in a mrumer consistent with state and federal law. Defendant Pittman is sued in her official capacity only.
22. Defendant Donald Taylor is the Executive Director of the Mississippi Deprutment of Human Services. Youth Services is a Division of the Department of Human Services. Pursuant to Miss. Code Aml. §§ 43-1-2; 43-1-4; 43-27-2; 43-27-8; 43-27-10; 43-27-11, Defendant Taylor is directly responsible for training and monitoring all staff employed at the Division of Youth Services and developing and overseeing policy development and implementation in the Division. Defendant Taylor is responsible for ensuring that Mississippi Training Schools operate in a mrumer that is consistent with state ruld federal law. As Executive Director, Defendant Taylor has "executive ruld administrative supervision over all state-owned facilities used for the detention, cru"e, treatment ruld after-cru·e supervision of children." Miss. Code Ann. § 43-27-10. He is responsible for ensuring that the Columbia Training School operates in a mrumer consistent with state and federal law. Defendrult Taylor is sued in his official capacity only.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 23. Columbia Training School, which houses all delinquent girls committed to the Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services, is one of two facilities in
7

Mississippi where children who have been adjudicated delinquent are committed for the purpose of rehabilitation and treatment. Most of the youth at Columbia suffer from mental disorders or disabilities. A study commissioned by the Mississippi Department of Public Safety and the Mississippi Department of Mental Health found that 66% to 85% of incarcerated juveniles in Mississippi suffer from at least one diagnosable mental disorder, compared to only 14% to 20% of youth in the general population. Angela Robertson & Jonelle Husain, Mississippi State University, Prevalence of Mental Illness & Substance Abuse Disorders Among Incarcerated Juveniles (July 2001). <"According to a legislative--audit;the vast majority of-girls committed to·,~ -Columbia are there for non-violent offenses such as drug charges and shoplifting. Joint Committee on Pe7jormance, Evaluation and Expenditure Review, Memorandum to Representative George Flaggs, Jr. (Sept. 22, 2006).
24. Columbia Training School has a long and troubled history of failing to care for the youth in its custody. In May 2002, the Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review ("PEER") submitted a report to the Mississippi Legislature entitled Health and Safety Issues at the Oakley and Columbia Training Schools. The PEER Report found numerous deficiencies at both training schools in the areas of medical care, dental care, prevention of abuse, and treatment and programming for children with special needs. Among many other recommendations, the RepOli suggested that Columbia change its suicide policy to require that staff respond to suicidal children by "counseling [them] rather than using plmitive or disciplinary measures." Defendants knew of PEER's findings, but failed to adequately address these documented concerns.
25. In December 2003, the United States Department of Justice ("DOl") sued the State of Mississippi over conditions in both training schools. After conducting a sweeping investigation, DOJ found shocking and abusive conditions at Columbia, including rampant and unchecked
8

staff-on-youth abuse. Children with disabilities were routinely denied the mental health, educational and rehabilitative services to which they were legally entitled.
26. In May 2005, the United States and the State of Mississippi settled the lawsuit, entering into a Consent Decree and a Memorandum of Understanding. The parties engaged Ms. Joyce Burrell as an independent monitor and gave her full access to inspect the training schools. Ms. Burrell files quarterly reports with the Court that document the state's level of compliance with the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree. Since May 2005, Ms. Burrell has filed six reports. Each report documented that Mississippi-continually fails to comply with-the majority ofthe settlement provisions. See, e.g., Sixth Quarter Monitor's Report, United States v. Mississippi, 3:03-cv-01354-HTW-JCS (filed June 8, 2007). Defendants knew of these violations and they failed to take adequate action to address the critical violations of the settlement agreement.
27. This ongoing history of widespread abuse and the Plaintiffs' allegations, explained more fully below, illustrates the Defendants' continuing custom and practice of acting with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the disabled girls at the Columbia Training School.
Protection from Harm Violations: Shackling Mentally III Girls for 12 Hours a Day 28. In all apparent response to unsubstantiated allegations that Plaintiffs lA., B.D., S.G., E.S. and S.W. p1rumed to escape from Columbia Training School, Defendants Armagost and James ordered that Columbia staff shackle the girls as a form of punishment for approximately twelve hours a day for time periods ranging from approximately eight days to one month. The girls were required to eat, attend school ruld use the bathroom while shackled. Defendants Armagost and Jrunes also forced the girls to walk to and from their sleeping quruiers and the
9

school, the cafeteria, the medical clinic and the chapel while wearing shackles. They were similarly required to participate in recreational activities and to conduct visitation with their families while shackled. There was absolutely no security or other penological or rehabilitative justification for the shackling of the girls.
29. Defendants Armagost and James ordered Plaintiff lA. shackled for approximately twelve hours a day from May 24 until May 31, 2007.
30. Defendants Armagost and James ordered Plaintiff RD. shackled for approximately --- -----.------"twelve hours a day from May 4 until May,3!, 2 0 0 7 . - - - - - - - - - ..---.- ---
31. Defendants Armagost and James ordered Plaintiff E.S. shackled for approximately twelve hours a day from May 17 through May 31, 2007.
32. Defendants Armagost and James ordered Plaintiff S.G. shackled for approximately twelve hours a day from May 24 until May 31, 2007.
33. Defendants Armagost and James ordered Plaintiff S.W. shackled for approximately twelve hours a day from May 17 until May 31, 2007.
34. Pursuant to the orders of Defendants Armagost and James, Columbia staff shackled the girls immediately after they took their showers in the morning, before they went to see the nurse to receive their psychotropic medications. Most frequently, security officers shackled the girls, but occasionally Colun1bia staff ordered the girls to shackle themselves. Security officers would remove the girls' shackles shortly before they were to take their showers each evening.
35. At times, Columbia staff failed to "double-lock" the shackles so that they would tighten around the girls' ankles with every step they took. This caused the girls excruciating pain, and they frequently complained to Columbia staff about the injuries they sustained as a result of the shackling. Defendants and Columbia staff did nothing to address the girls' complaints of pain.
10

36. The girls were forced to walk around the campus in their shackles in full view of medical staff, teachers, administration, security officers and all other Columbia employees. Even though Columbia employees are mandatory reporters of child abuse pursuant to MS Code § 4321-353, upon information and belief, not one Columbia staff member contacted the child-abuse hotline to report the Defendants' prolonged, punitive shackling of these mentally ill girls.
37. In a May 4, 2007 memorandum to Columbia staff member Vonsha Wash-Weary, Defendant Armagost referred to Plaintiff B.D. and wrote, "Do you think we need to put her on ... --'run risk' status? That would mean leg shackles'·and limited movement. '-ret me lmow what you think." That same day, Columbia staff member AnoIa Barber wrote: "please put this student [H.D] in leg shackles and on limited movement per attached memo."
38. Defendants Armagost and James made no effort to substantiate allegations that the girls plmmed to run away. They never questioned the girls or their guardians about the alleged plans. The Defendants failed to inform the girls' guardians of their alleged suspicion that the girls might attempt to leave the cmnpus without permission.
39. Defendants Armagost and James failed to attempt a less restrictive means of preventing the girls from leaving the Columbia campus, such as increased supervision or confinement to a specific area of campus.
40. By shackling the girls for such a prolonged time period mld for punitive purposes, Defendants Armagost and James blatantly violated their own policy on the use ofrestraints. The Division of Youth Services' policy on the use of restraints states: "Mechanical devices [moe] used to prevent an uncontrollable youth from injuring him or herself or others. Mechmlical restraints may be only used for short periods of times and must be used under medical supervision. Mechanical restraints shall be defined as plastic or metallic handcuffs or wristlets, chains or anklets, or any other approved or authorized device used to limit the movement of the juvenile'S
11

body... Use of mechanical restraints is restricted to necessary applications: a) to gain control of out of control juveniles; b) as a precaution against escape during transport; c) for medical reasons under the direction of medical staff." Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services, Juvenile Institutions, Use of Force Policy. The Division of Youth Services Policy on Abusive Institutional Practices also states "[p]ractices and or behaviors which humiliate demean andlor abuse youth will never be used to control behavior." The list of abusive practices specifically refers to "[i]mproper use of restraints: restraining youth as punishment, using-tedmiques such as hog-tying -or pole shackling is abuse. The prolonged--application--of-restraints is also abuse." Mississippi Department ofHuman Services, Division of Youth Services, Juvenile institutions, Abusive Institutional Practices.
41. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs were mentally ill and that they had histories of abuse. 42. At no time during their recent commitments to Columbia Training School did Plaintiffs act in an uncontrollable manner or in any other mrumer that could justify the prolonged use of ankle shacldes under the Defendants' own policies or tmder the U.S. Constitution. By shackling mentally ill girls-many of whom have extensive histories of physical and sexual abuse-Defendrults Armagost and James acted with deliberate indifference, significrultly departed from reasonable professional judgment ruld violated cleru·ly established law. 43. Despite their knowledge of Columbia Training School's long history of widespread abuse and neglect of girls in its custody, Defendants Barbour, Taylor and Pittmrul implement, enforce, encomage ruld/or srulction a practice and/or custom of deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of disabled girls which manifest in egregious abuses like the excessive use of restraints described above. 44. The excessive use of restraints ordered by Defendrults Armagost and James caused Plaintiffs lA., H.D., S.G. and E.S. and S.W. to suffer physical injuries including bruises,
12

abrasions, pain and extreme discomfort. Defendants Armagost and James' actions exacerbated Plaintiffs' mental illnesses and caused them humiliation and extreme mental anguish.
Protection from Harm: Staff-on-Youth Sexual Assault 45. Several months into her commitment at Columbia Training School, Plaintiff M.S. was placed in the Observational Management Unit ("OMU"), which Columbia uses for disciplinary segregation. 46. During Plaintiff M.S.'s first night in the OMU, Defendant Alexander sexually assaulted her. Defendant Alexander stood outside of M.S.'s cell door watching her while she dressed after she had taken her evening shower. He then motioned to her to lift up her shirt to show him her breasts. M.S. refused. 47. Defendant Alexander then entered M.S.'s cell with a tissue in his hand. He proceeded to grab M.S. in an embrace, kiss her, and rub her breasts and genitals with his hands over her clothes. After a few minutes, Defendant Alexander then abruptly left M. S. ' s cell. 48. Defendant Alexander returned later that same night to deliver M.S's nightly snack. He again entered her cell, grabbed her around her waist and attempted to put his hand in her underwear. M.S. struggled against Defendant Alexander, and he then left her cell. 49. Other students in the OMU observed Defendant Alexander gesture to M.S. and touch her inappropriately. 50. The Division of Youth Services Policy on Abusive Institutional Practices states that "sexual comments, advances or gestures, including making embarrassing comments about a youth's body or sex, making gestures that have a sexual connotation and/or touching or pointing to a youth's body in ways that are sexually suggestive or provocative" should be considered
13

abusive institutional practices. The policy further states that "a youth housed in a training school will not be subject to abusive institutional practices."
51. Defendant Alexander's attack on M.S. violated clearly established state and federal law. Mississippi Code § 97-3-104 criminalizes sexual activity between any "jailer or guard" and an offender "incarcerated at any jailor any state, county or private correctional facility." This offense is punishable by a fine of up to $5000 and a prison term of up to 5 years.
52. M.S. reported Defendant Alexander's assault to various Columbia staff members " ihcluding Ms. Quinn-ahCl.-VdhshaWash-Weary. M.S. Was never informed of the results ofany··--
investigation into this incident, and she never received any mental health services to help her deal with the trauma ofthis abuse. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to M.S.'s complaints that Defendant Alexander sexually abused her and to the consequences of that abuse.
53. In addition to M.S.'s other disabilities, M.S. was sexually abused by her biological father and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of this abuse. Defendant Alexander's victimization of M.S. caused a marked increase in her levels of anxiety, depression, humiliation and anguish.
54. Despite knowledge of Columbia Training School's long history of widespread abuse and neglect of girls in its custody, Defendants Barbour, Taylor and Pittman implement, enforce, encourage andlor sanction a practice andlor custom of deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of girls which manifest in egregious abuses like the sexual assault described above.
55. Disabled children are more than twice as likely as their non-disabled peers to be sexually abused. L.A. Davis, More Common than We Think: Recognizing and Responding to Signs of Violence, University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration (2000). By their failure to follow their own policies and state and federal law, and tru:ough their inability to
14

effectively monitor and train staff, Defendants continue to subject disabled Columbia students to

an unacceptable risk of sexual assault and further violations of federal constitutional rights.

Inadequate Mental HealthlRehabilitative Treatment and Self-Harm Prevention Practices and Policies

56. Defendants James and Armagost allowed Plaintiffs H.D., E.S. and S.W. to harm

themselves despite their knowledge that these girls struggled with mental illness and self-harm

behaviors. They also failed and continue to fail to provide Plaintiffs and other girls residing at

Columbia with the appropriate treatment for their mental illnesses while committed to the

,h-.

".'-

training school.

57. Defendants Armagost and James placed Plaintiff H.D. on the second highest level of

suicide watch because they had knowledge of her history of self-harming behavior and found an

alleged suicide note written by B.D. While on suicide watch, H.D. was forced to strip naked and

placed in a "suicide smock," an indestructible garment that youth at risk of suicide are required to

wear. She was then placed alone in a cell for over 14 hours. Instead of providing her with

desperately needed psychological help, Defendants Armagost and James made no effort to

stabilize her mental state, and H.D. was not allowed to speak to a mental health professional.

While she was on suicide watch, Columbia staff members failed to perform periodic checks on

H.D. 's cell to ensure that she was not engaging in acts of self-harm. As a result, B.D. carved the

words "HATE ME" into her forearm, causing a deep abrasion that spans the length of her

forearm.

58. While Plaintiff E.S. was on suicide watch, Colunlbia staff members failed to perform

periodic checks on her cell to ensure that she was not engaging in acts of self-harm. As a result,

E.S. sliced her wrists with glass she found outside of her living quarters and on a separate

occasion cut her wrists on the edge of her concrete bunk. During this time, E.S. was not

15

provided with any psychological help, she was not allowed to speak to a mental health professional, and Columbia staff made no effort to stabilize her moods.
59. When S.W. was on suicide watch, Columbia staff members failed to perform periodic checks on her cell to ensure that she was not engaging in acts of self-harm. As a result, she was able to slice her wrists on the edge of her concrete bunk in the OMU. She was not provided with any psychological help, she was not allowed to speak to a mental health professional, and Columbia staff made no effort to stabilize her moods.
60. Mis'sissippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services;~Juvenile' Institutions Policy on Suicide Prevention requires that staff visually monitor suicidal youth every 10 minutes and provide youth regular access to mental health professionals.
61. In addition to failing to provide appropriate mental health services, Defendants fail to provide appropriate rehabilitative services to the disabled girls committed to Columbia, leaving them at great risk of self-harm.
62. None of the individual Plaintiffs received the rehabilitative services to which they are entitled under federal law. Defendants' failure to provide appropriate mental health and rehabilitative treatment violates clearly established federal law and substantially departs from accepted professional judgment.
63. All individual Plaintiffs were committed to Columbia with a host of clearly identified mental health needs, including depression, post-tramnatic stress disorder, substance abuse, and bi-polar disorder. Mental health services at Columbia are constitutionally inadequate to meet the needs of this population. On information and belief, the majority of girls at Columbia are mentally ill. Defendants lmew and know about Plaintiffs' and other girls' histories of mental illness, but do not provide them with adequate mental health treatment.
16

64. The abuses inflicted on the Plaintiffs at Columbia were compounded by the inadequate mental health treatment they received. This utter lack of treatment exacerbated their disabilities, caused each girl mental anguish as well as pain and suffering, and significantly retarded their progress towards rehabilitation. Defendants' policy, practice, and custom of providing inadequate mental health care harmed Plaintiffs and continues to harm girls who reside at Columbia.
65. In addition to failing to provide appropriate mental health services, Defendants failed to provide appropriate-rehabilitative services to the disabled-girls committed to Columbia. None of the Plaintiffs received the rehabilitative services to which they were entitled under federal law-services which would have helped turn their troubled lives around.
66. Defendants' failure to provide appropriate mental health and rehabilitative treatment violates clearly established federal law and substantially departs from accepted professional judgment.
67. Despite knowledge of Columbia Training School's long history of widespread abuse and neglect of girls in its custody, Defendants Barbour, Taylor and Pittman implement, enforce, encourage and/or sanction a practice and/or custom of deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of girls which manifest in egregious abuses like the failure to provide constitutionally adequate mental health and rehabilitative services.
EXHAUSTION 68. The individual Plaintiffs have exhausted all available administrative remedies. 69. In a series of letters dated June 4, June 11, and June 27, 2007, P&A brought these matters to the attention of the state and attempted to reach a cooperative, mutually agreeable resolution of these claims. The State has declined to engage in settlement discussions with
17

individual Plaintiffs and with P&A. P&A has exhausted administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 10807.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT 1
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO REMEDY EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS: INADEQUATE MENTAL HEALTH
AND REHABILITATIVE TREATMENT 70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained III the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 71. By their forgoing actions and inactions, Defendants Barbour, Taylor, Pittman, Armagost and James failed and continue to fail to provide adequate mental health and rehabilitative treatment to disabled girls committed to the Columbia Training School. These Defendants know of the wide-spread failure to provide constitutionally adequate care to disabled girls, yet they continue to willingly and knowingly disregard the girls' constitutional rights. Their deliberate indifference to the serious mental health needs of the Plaintiffs and their substantial departure from accepted professional standards of treatment violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiffs lA. and P&A will suffer irreparable and repeated injury lmless this Court orders equitable relief. Damages cannot adequately address the injuries suffered by disabled girls at the Columbia Training School. Plaintiff J.A. and P&A are entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the unlawful conduct described herein. 72. For reasons including, but not limited to, those stated herein, an actual dispute exists between Plaintiffs J.A. and P & A and the Defendants, which parties have genuine and opposing interest, which interests are direct and substantial, and of which a judicial determination will be final and conclusive. This dispute entitles Plaintiffs J.A. and P&A to a declaratory judgment that
18

the Defendants' conduct is unconstitutional, as well as such other and further relief as may follow from the entry of such a declaratory judgment.
COUNT 2
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO REMEDY EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS: FAILURE TO PROTECT FROM HARM
73. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained In the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
74. By their forgoing actions and inactions, Defendants Barbour, Taylor, Pittman Armagost, James and Alexander fail to protect disabled girls at Columbia from harm. The Defendants know of Columbia Training School's wide-spread failure to protect disabled girls from harm as the Constitution requires, yet they continue to willingly and knowingly disregard the girls' constitutional rights. Their deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs to be protected from excessive force and substantial harm violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiffs lA. and P&A will suffer ilTeparable and repeated injury unless this Court orders equitable relief. Damages cannot adequately address the injuries suffered by disabled girls at the Columbia Training School. Plaintiff lA. and P&A are entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants fi.'om engaging in the unlawful conduct described herein.
75. For reasons including, but not limited to, those stated herein, an actual dispute exists between Plaintiffs lA, and P & A and the Defendants, which parties have genuine and opposing interest, which interests are direct and substantial, and of which a judicial determination will be final and conclusive. This dispute entitles Plaintiffs J.A. and P&A to a declaratory jUdgment that
19

the Defendants' conduct is unconstitutional, as well as such other and further relief as may follow from the entry of such a declaratory judgment.
COUNT 3 DAMAGES FOR EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS:
EXCESSIVE USE OF RESTRAINTS 76. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained In the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 77. By taking the actions alleged above, Defendants James and Armagost· were deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs J.A., H.D., S.G., E.S. and S.W to be free from excessive force and substantial harm, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced though 42 U.S.C § 1983. Because these Defendants acted in clear violation'of well-settled law, of which a reasonable person would have been aware, they are not entitled to a good faith or official immunity defense. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, reckless, and showed a callous disregard of or indifference to the rights of these Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs J.A., H.D., S.G., E.S. and S.W seek a declaratory judgment and compensatory and punitive damages against these Defendants.
COUNT 4 DAMAGES FOR EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS:
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE REHABILTIVEIMENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT AND PROTECTION FROM HARM
78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained In the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
79. By taking the actions alleged above, Defendants Armagost and James intentionally and maliciously violated Plaintiffs B.D., E.S., and S.W. rights to receive adequate mental health and . rehabilitative treatment and to be protected from harm, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
20

Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced though 42 U.S.C § 1983. Because these Defendants acted in clear violation of well-settled law, of which a reasonable person would have been aware, they are not entitled to a good faith or official immunity defense. Defendants' Armagost and James actions were intentional, malicious, reckless, and showed a callous disregard of or indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs H.D., B.S., and S.W. Plaintiffs H.D., E.S., and S.W. seek declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Armagost and James.
COUNTS" DAMAGES FOR EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS:
STAFF ON YOUTH SEXUAL ASSAULT 80. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained 111 the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 81. By taking the actions alleged above, Defendant Alexander intentionally and maliciously violated Plaintiff M.S. 's right to be free from excessive force and substantial harm, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced though 42 U.S.C § 1983. Because this Defendant acted in clear violation of well-settled law, of which a reasonable person would have been aware, he is not entitled to a good faith or official immunity defense. Defendant Alexander's actions were intentional, malicious, reckless, and showed a callous disregard of or indifference to the rights of Plaintiff M.S. Plaintiff M.S. seeks declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant Alexander.
21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this HonorableCourt grant the following relief:
a. Declare that the acts and omissions of the Defendants violate the Constitution and federal law;
b. Enter a permanent injunction requiring the Defendants, their agents, employees and all persons acting in concert with them cease their unconstitutional and unlawful practices;
c. Grant the individual Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages .for the pain, suffering, anguish and humiliation they suffered as a result of Defendants' unlawful practices;
d. Award to the Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorney's fees; and e. Grant the Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court deems just.
22

Respectfully submitted,

Shei A. Bedi, Miss. Bar. No. 101652 Kristen Levins, Miss. Bar. No. 101916 Mississippi Youth Justice Project A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center P.O. Box 9283 Jackson, Mississippi 39286 601-948-8882 (phone) 601-948-8882 (fax)

',' lr~

Robert B. McDuff, Miss.' Bar. No. 2532

767 North Congress Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39202

60 1-969-0802 (phone)

601-969-0804 (fax)

Ira Bumim, D.C. Bar. No. 406145* The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005 202-467-5730 (phone) 202-223-0409 (fax)
*pro hac vice motion to be filed

23

 
 Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

)

l.A., et aI.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR, et aI., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

CASE NO. 3:07CV394 DlP.JCS

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
This challenge to the Defendants' unconstitutional policy of denying incarcerated children their rights under the U.S. Constitution presents a classic case for class certification. The Plaintiff class - consisting of all children who are now or will in the future be committed to Columbia Training School - seeks permanent injunctive relief, along with corresponding declaratory relief. Although it would literally be impossible to join every present and future resident of Columbia in single suit, the named Plaintiffs will more than adequately represent the interests of the class. By granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Court will help resolve this suit with speed, consistency and fairness to all parties.
Cases dealing with prisons and jails are one of the most typical situations where class certification is granted. See, e.g., Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996); Castillo v. Cameron County, 238 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2001); Gates v. Cook, 234 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2000). Indeed, the class action device was

1

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 2 of 11
specifically developed to improve the ability of courts to resolve suits involving the criminal justice system. HERBERT B. NEWBERG, 485 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 25.18 (2d ed. 1985). Courts have broad discretion to certify any class that comes within the parameters of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. See Spence v. Glock, Ges. m. b.H, 227F.3d 308,310 (5th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs seeking class certification must establish all of the elements of Rule 23(a), as well as at least one element of Rule 23(b). See Sears Bolin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 231 F.3d 970,975 (5th Cir. 2000). Each of the foregoing requirements is met in this case.
A. Numerosity To satisfy Rule 23(a)(1), the "plaintiffIs] must ordinarily demonstrate some evidence or reasonable estimate of the number of purported class members." See James v. Dallas, 254 F.3d 551, 570 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Plaintiff class in this case consists of all the youth who are presently confined at Columbia, as well as an unknown - and unknowable - number of children who will be held there in the future. Even if the class were limited to youth presently committed to Columbia, the number of potential plaintiffs would easily satisfy the Fifth Circuit's standards for numerosity. Cj, e.g., Jones v. Diamond, 519 F.2d 1090, 1100 & n.18 (5th Cir. 1975) (class of 48 members), disproved in part on other grounds, Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 437 U.S. 478 (1978); Jack v. American Linen Supply Co., 498 F.2d 122, 124 (5th Cir. 1974) (class of 51 members). But the inclusion of future Columbia residents renders it literally impossible to join all members of the class, another factor that weighs heavily in favor of certification. Pederson v. Louisiana State Univ., 213 F.3d 858, 868 n.ll (5th Cir. 2000).
2

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 3 of 11
B. Commonality & Typicality The next two elements of Rule 23(a) - commonality and typicality - "serve as guideposts for determining whether . . . maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named plaintiffs claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence." Gen. Tele. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 n.D (1982); see also Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 626 n.20 (1997) (characterizing "adequacy-of-representation" as a third guidepost); accord Steering Comm. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 461 F.3d 598, 601 (5th Cir. 2006); Feder v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 429 F.3d 125, 129 (5th Cir. 2005). Although in practice the commonality and typicality requirements "tend to merge," the Fifth Circuit has provided some analytical guidance to courts to highlight the factors most relevant to each provision. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 626 n.20. The court has held that "[t]he commonality test is met when there is at least one issue, the resolution of which will affect all ora significant number of the putative class members," Lightbourn v. El Paso, 118 F.3d 421, 426 (5th Cir. 1997). In this case, common issues include the constitutionality of the Defendants' policies, customs and practices with regard to protection from harm and the provision of adequate mental health and rehabilitative services. The named Plaintiffs and the absent class members are equally affected by the Defendants' unconstitutional policies, customs and practices, and any relief ordered by this Court would impact them in the same way. Typicality focuses on "whether the class representative's claims have the same essential characteristics of those of the putative class." Stirman v. Exxon Corp., 280 F.3d 554, 562 (5th Cir. 2002). Like commonality, the typicality test is "not demanding," Lightbourn, 118 F.3d at 426, and is easily satisfied in this case. If class certification was
3

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 4 of 11
denied, every child at Columbia would be forced to pursue an individual action to vindicate her rights under the U.S. Constitution. Each of those complaints would be virtually identical to the class complaint at issue here. Cf Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620, 625 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that typicality requirement was met where "the Named Plaintiffs' and the proposed class members' legal and remedial theories appear[ed] to be exactly the same").
C. Adequacy of Representation There is no question that the named Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. See FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4); Stirman, 280 F.3d at 563 (holding that Rule 23(a)(4) requires consideration of "[1] the zeal and competence ofthe representative[s'] counsel and ... [2] the willingness and ability of the representative[s] to take an active role in and control the litigation and to protect the interests of absentees"); accord Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 257 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir. 2001); accord Feder, 429 F.3d at 129-130. First, Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with ample experience in class actions and civil rights litigation - both in general and with respect to adult and juvenile prison cases in particular. See Ex. 1 (Bedi Decl). Counsel are capable of pursuing the case vigorously on behalf of the class. fd. Second, with respect to the named Plaintiffs, courts faced with child representatives have not attempted to hold these young litigants to adult standards, focusing instead on the engagement level of the children's next friends. Cf Horton v. Goose Creek fndep. Schl. Dist. 690 F.2d 470, 484 (5th Cir. 1982). The next friends in this case have clearly demonstrated their commitment to protect not only their own children's rights, but also the rights of the absent class members.
4

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 5 of 11
D. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Plaintiffs also satisfy Rule 23(b)(2). Defendants' actions have been taken "on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(2). Because this subsection is particularly applicable to suits by prisoners, NEWBERG § 25.18, it is clear that the Plaintiff class satisfies this element of Rule 23. For all the above reasons, the Plaintiffs request that their motion for class certification be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
~i2'
Robert B. McDuff, Miss. Bar. No. 2532 767 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 60 1-969-0802 (phone) 601-969-0804 (fax) J. Cliff Johnson, Miss. Bar. No. 9383 Carlton W. Reeves, Miss. Bar. No. 8515 Pigott Reeves Johnson, P.A. 775 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 Phone: 601-354-2121 Facsimile: 601-354-7854
5

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 6 of 11 Ira Burnim, D.C. Bar. No. 406145* The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005 202-467-5730 (phone) 202-223-0409 (fax)
* pro hac vice motion to be filed
6

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 7 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served by hand delivery on:
Harold E. Pizzetta, III Special Assistant Attorney General Chief, Civil Litigation Division Office of the Attorney General 550 High Street Jackson, MS 39201
She! a A. Bedi

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 8 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

)

J.A., et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR, et aI., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

CASE NO. 3:07CV394 DJP.JCS

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs move this
Honorable Court to issue an order certifying named Plaintiffs J.A., R.B. and L.R. to represent a
class composed of all children who are currently or will in the future be confined at Columbia
Training School. This proposed class seeks only declaratory and permanent injunctive relief.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, one or more named plaintiffs may bring suit
as representative parties on behalf of a class
[O]nly if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Each requirement is met here. First, Columbia Training School has the
capacity to house more than one hundred children on any given day. Because the length of each
child's commitment varies, the facility's population changes on a weekly - if not daily - basis.
Recently, Columbia Training School's population has fluctuated between thirty to sixty girls but

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 9 of 11
the facility has the capacity to house over 100 children on any given day. The class also includes future, unknown members who cannot be joined. Second, this action involves questions of law and fact that are common to all class members. Third, because the challenged policies and practices apply with equal force to all class members, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class. Finally, the named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The named Plaintiffs have a personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit, and their counsel is experienced in class action litigation and is prepared to pursue the case vigorously on behalf of the class.
Because the putative class satisfies every element of Rule 23(a), and because the Defendants have acted and refuse to act on grounds generally applicable to the class a whole, class certification is proper under Rule 23(b)(2).
For the reasons stated above and explained in the memorandum of law accompanying this filing, Plaintiffs request that their motion for class certification be granted.
Sheila A. Bedi, Miss. Bar. No. 101652 Kristen Levins, Miss. Bar. No. 101916 Mississippi Youth Justice Project A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center P.O. Box 9283 Jackson, Mississippi 39286 601-948-8882 (phone) 601-948-8882 (fax)
2

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 10 of 11
Robert B. McDuff, Miss. Bar. No. 2532 767 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 60 1-969-0802 (phone) 601-969-0804 (fax) J. Cliff Johnson, Miss. Bar. No. 9383 Carlton W. Reeves, Miss. Bar. No. 8515 Pigott Reeves Johnson, P.A. 775 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 Phone: 601-354-2121 Facsimile: 601-354-7854 Ira Burnim, D.C. Bar. No. 406145* The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005 202-467-5730 (phone) 202-223-0409 (fax)
*pro hac vice motion to be filed
3

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 6 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 11 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

)

lA., et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR, et aI., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

CASE NO. 3:07CV394 DJP.JCS

PROPOSED ORDER BEFORE THIS COURT is Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Having considered the pleadings, memorandum of law, and supporting evidence, this Court finds that the motion is well taken and should be GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court hereby CERTIFIES that Plaintiffs lA., RB. and L.R. will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class and ORDERS that this matter proceed as a class action on behalf of all children who are currently or will in the future be confined at Columbia Training School. SO ORDERED, this the _ _ day of July, 2007.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

4

 
 Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

J.A., by and through her next friend, Kimberly Hornsby; L.R., by and through her next friend Robert Rosenthal; R.B., by and through her next friend, Helen Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated; H.D., by and through her next friend, Roy Dowdy; S.G., by and through her next friend, Billie Stewart; M.S., by and through her next friend, Audrea Sibley; E.S., by and through her next friend, Alicia Stojic; S.W., by and through her next friend, Virginia Cook; and the Mississippi Protection and Advocacy Systems, Inc.
V.
GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR, in his official capacity; DONALD TAYLOR, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Mississippi Department of Human Services; L. DONALD ARMAGOST in his official and individual capacities as the administrator of Columbia Training School; RICHARD JAMES, in his official and individual capacities as Assistant Administrator of Columbia Training School; KATHY PITTMAN, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of Youth Services; Mr. ALEXANDER in his official and individual capacities as a Columbia Training School Security Officer

PLAINTIFFS NO: 3:07-CV-394-DPJ-JCS
DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANT LARRY ALEXANDER’S ANSWER TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Comes now one of the defendants, Larry Alexander (referred to in plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as “Mr. Alexander,” and referred to hereafter as “defendant Alexander”), by and through counsel, and would answer plaintiffs’ amended complaint as follows:
1. Paragraph 1 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains no allegations against defendant

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 2 of 30
Alexander. Thus, no response to the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is made by this defendant. To such extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are applicable to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies them.
2. Paragraph 2 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains no allegations against defendant Alexander. Thus, no response to the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is made by this defendant. To such extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are applicable to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies them.
3. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in the first complete sentence of paragraph 3 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, insofar as those allegations apply to him. To the extent that the allegations contained in the first complete sentence of paragraph 3 of plaintiff’s Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than this defendant, then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. With regard to the allegations contained in the second complete sentence of paragraph 3 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint said allegations are not directed at defendant Alexander and no response is given to them. To any extent that the allegations are directed at defendant Alexander they are denied. To such extent that the allegations contained in the second complete sentence of paragraph 3 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are applicable to defendants other than defendant
-2-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 3 of 30
Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies them.
4. With regard to the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, to any extent that they are directed at defendant Alexander they are denied. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are directed at defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies them.
5. Paragraph 5 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains no allegations against defendant Alexander. Thus, no response to the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is made by this defendant. Though it does not appear that the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are directed at the remaining defendants, either, to any extent that they are, defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies them.
6. Paragraph 6 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains no allegations against defendant Alexander. Thus, no response to the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is made by this defendant. Where the allegations in paragraph 6 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are directed against the remaining defendants then defendant Alexander would state that he has insufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies them.
7. With regard to the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint Defendant Alexander denies that plaintiff M.S. is entitled to any relief of any type or in any amount from him. Should other claims for relief by the other listed plaintiffs in paragraph 7 of the Amended
-3-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 4 of 30
Complaint be directed toward defendant Alexander they are denied as well. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are directed at defendants other than defendant Alexander then this defendant would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies them.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Defendant Alexander admits the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiffs Amended Complaint. To the extent that said allegations apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny them and, therefore, denies same. 9. Defendant Alexander admits the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. To the extent that said allegations apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny them and, therefore, denies same.
PARTIES 10. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 11. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations
-4-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 5 of 30
contained in paragraph 11 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
12. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
13. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
14. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
15. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than
-5-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 6 of 30
defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
16. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
17. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
18. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
19. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information
-6-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 7 of 30
to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 20. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 20 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
DEFENDANTS 21. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 22. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 23. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information
-7-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 8 of 30
to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 24. Defendant Alexander admits the allegations contained in the first complete sentence of
paragraph 24 of plaintiffs’ complaint. With regard to the second complete sentence of paragraph 24 of plaintiffs’ complaint defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in said sentence and, therefore, denies same. With regard to the third complete sentence of paragraph 24 of plaintiffs’ complaint defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in said sentence and, therefore, denies same. Defendant Alexander admits the allegations contained in the last two complete sentences of paragraph 24 of plaintiffs’ complaint.
25. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
26. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 27. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the
-8-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 9 of 30
allegations contained in paragraph 27 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
28. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
29. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
30. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
31. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations
-9-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 10 of 30
contained in paragraph 31 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
32. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 33. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 34. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 35. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations
-10-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 11 of 30
contained in paragraph 35 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
36. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
37. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
Protection from Harm Violations: Shackling Mentally Ill Girls for 12 Hours a Day 38. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 39. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations
-11-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 12 of 30
contained in paragraph 39 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
40. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
41. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
42. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
43. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than
-12-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 13 of 30
defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
44. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
45. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
46. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
47. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information
-13-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 14 of 30
to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 48. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 48 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
49. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
50. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
51. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint to the extent that they are directed toward him. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of plaintiffs’ amended complaint
-14-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 15 of 30
and, therefore, denies same. 52. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 52 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 52 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
53. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 53 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 53 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
54. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
Protection from Harm; Excessive Use of Force 55. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information
-15-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 16 of 30
to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 56. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 56 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
57. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 57 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 57 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
58. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
59. The allegations contained in paragraph 59 of plaintiffs’ Complaint are a statement of The Division of Youth Services Policy on Abusive Institutional Practices. Where correct they are admitted by defendant Alexander, and where incorrect they are denied.
60. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations
-16-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 17 of 30
contained in paragraph 60 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
61. With regard to the allegations contained in the first complete sentence of paragraph 61 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. Where the allegations contained in the first complete sentence of paragraph 61 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. With regard to the allegations contained in the second complete sentence of paragraph 61 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, defendant Alexander denies said allegations as they apply to him. Where said allegations refer to defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
Protection from Harm Staff-on-Youth Sexual Assault 62. Defendant Alexander admits the allegations contained in paragraph 62 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. 63. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in paragraph 63 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. 64. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. 65. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in paragraph 65 of plaintiffs’
-17-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 18 of 30
Amended Complaint. 66. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in paragraph 66 of plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint. 67. The allegations contained in paragraph 67 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are a
statement of The Division of Youth Services Policy on Abusive Institutional Practices. Where correct they are admitted by defendant Alexander, and where incorrect they are denied.
68. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in paragraph 68 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
69. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in the first complete sentence in paragraph 69 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. As to the second complete sentence in paragraph 69 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, defendant Alexander would state that since there were no assaults, there was no action that needed to be taken by Defendants Armagost, James, Pittman, and Taylor.
70. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 70 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 70 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
71. With regard to the allegations contained in the first complete sentence of paragraph 71 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. Where the allegations contained in the
-18-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 19 of 30
first complete sentence of paragraph 71 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and denies same. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in the second complete sentence of paragraph 71 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
72. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 72 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 72 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
73. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 73 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 73 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
Inadequate Mental Health/Rehabilitative Treatment and Self-Harm Prevention Practices and Policies
74. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 74 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 74 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
75. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the
-19-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 20 of 30
allegations contained in paragraph 75 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 75 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
76. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
77. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 77 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 77 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
78. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 78 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 78 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
79. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 79 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations
-20-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 21 of 30
contained in paragraph 79 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
80. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 80 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 80 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
81. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 81 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 81 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
82. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 82 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 82 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
83. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 83 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 83 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than
-21-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 22 of 30
defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
84. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in paragraph 84 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as they apply to him. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 84 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, would deny same.
85. With regard to the allegations contained in the first three complete sentences in paragraph 85 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny same and, therefore, denies said allegations. Where the allegations contained in the first three complete sentences in paragraph 85 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. With regard to allegations contained in the fourth complete sentence in paragraph 85 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint defendant Alexander denies same as they apply to him. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 85 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny them and, therefore, denies said allegations.
86. With regard to the allegations contained in the first two complete sentences in paragraph 86 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny same and, therefore, denies said allegations. Where the allegations contained in the
-22-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 23 of 30
first two complete sentences in paragraph 86 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. With regard to the allegations contained in the third complete sentence of paragraph 86 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, defendant Alexander denies same as they apply to him. Where the allegations contained in the third complete sentence of paragraph 86 apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
87. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in the first complete sentence of paragraph 87 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as they apply to him. Where the allegations contained in the first complete sentence apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. With regard to the allegations contained in the second complete sentence of paragraph 87 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny same and, therefore, denies said allegations. Where the allegations contained in the second complete sentence of paragraph 87 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander, defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
88. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in paragraph 88 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 88 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander he is without sufficient information
-23-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 24 of 30
to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 89. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 89 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 89 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
EXHAUSTION 90. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 90 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 90 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same. 91. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 91 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 91 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT 1
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO REMEDY EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS: INADEQUATE MENTAL HEALTH
AND REHABILITATIVE TREATMENT
-24-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 25 of 30
92. Just as plaintiffs incorporate by reference into paragraph 92 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint all allegations heretofore stated in their Amended Complaint, defendant Alexander incorporates his answers and responses to the allegations in said paragraphs into his response to paragraph 92 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
93. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 93 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 93 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
94. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 94 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 94 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
COUNT 2 DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO REMEDY EIGHTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS; FAILURE TO PROTECT FROM HARM
95. Just as plaintiffs incorporate by reference into paragraph 95 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint all allegations heretofore stated in their Amended Complaint, defendant Alexander incorporates his answers and responses to the allegations in said paragraphs into his response to paragraph 95 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
-25-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 26 of 30
96. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 96 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 96 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
97. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 97 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 97 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
COUNT 3 DAMAGES FOR EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS:
EXCESSIVE USE OF RESTRAINTS 98. Just as plaintiffs incorporate by reference into paragraph 98 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint all allegations heretofore stated in their Amended Complaint, defendant Alexander incorporates his answers and responses to the allegations in said paragraphs into his response to paragraph 98 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. 99. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 99 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 99 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
-26-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 27 of 30
COUNT 4 DAMAGES FOR EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS: FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE REHABILTIVE [SP.]/MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT AND PROTECTION FROM HARM 100. Just as plaintiffs incorporate by reference into paragraph 100 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint all allegations heretofore stated in their Amended Complaint, defendant Alexander incorporates his answers and responses to the allegations in said paragraphs into his response to paragraph 100 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. 101. Defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 101 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Where the allegations contained in paragraph 101 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint apply to defendants other than defendant Alexander then defendant Alexander would state that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny said allegations and, therefore, denies same.
COUNT 5 DAMAGES FOR EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS:
STAFF ON YOUTH SEXUAL ASSAULT 102. Just as plaintiffs incorporate by reference into paragraph 102 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint all allegations heretofore stated in their Amended Complaint, defendant Alexander incorporates his answers and responses to the allegations in said paragraphs into his response to paragraph 102 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. 103. Defendant Alexander denies the allegations contained in paragraph 103 of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
-27-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 28 of 30
PRAYER FOR RELIEF With regard to the unnumbered paragraph beginning “WHEREFORE, . . .” including subparagraphs a. thru f., defendant Alexander denies that plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief described in this unnumbered paragraph, including its subparagraphs. With regard to the remaining defendants, defendant Alexander is without sufficient information to either admit or deny whether such relief should be granted and, therefore, he denies same.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES A. The actions of defendant Alexander as described in plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are cloaked with qualified immunity. B. As a matter of law, defendant Larry Alexander is not liable for punitive damages. C. Any award of exemplary damages would be unconstitutional under the due process clauses of the Mississippi and the United States Constitutions. D. Any assessment of exemplary damages against defendant Larry Alexander would be violative of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, including the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment thereof, the proscription on Ex Post Facto and other retroactive laws of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, and is violative of the provisions of the Mississippi Constitution, including §28 thereof. E. An award of exemplary damages against defendant Larry Alexander in this civil action would amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. F. No legislation has been enacted authorizing exemplary damages in a civil action such as
-28-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 29 of 30
this, and no legislation has been enacted placing any limit on the amount of exemplary damages. G. The criteria used for determining whether and in what amount exemplary damages may
be awarded are impermissibly vague, imprecise, and inconsistent, and are therefore in violation of the due process provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
H. An award of exemplary damages against defendant Larry Alexander in this civil action would amount to an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and of §28 of the Mississippi Constitution.
And now, having fully answered and responded to plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendant Larry Alexander herein respectfully requests that he be dismissed from this action with prejudice and with his costs.
Respectfully submitted, LARRY ALEXANDER, DEFENDANT BY: WILKINS, STEPHENS & TIPTON, P.A. BY: /s/ Bill Patterson
BILL PATTERSON, ESQ. (MSB No: 4055) BILL PATTERSON, ESQ. (MSB No: 4055) SHARON MONCURE, ESQ. (MSB No: 100687) WILKINS, STEPHENS & TIPTON, P.A. 4735 Old Canton Road One Lefleur’s Square, Suite 108, 39211 P.O. Box 13429 Jackson, MS 39236-3429 Telephone: 601-366-4343 Facsimile: 601-981-7608 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT LARRY ALEXANDER
-29-

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 12 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 30 of 30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Bill Patterson, the undersigned attorney for defendant Larry Alexander, do hereby certify that on August 20th, I electronically filed the foregoing Defendant Larry Alexander’s Answer to the Amended Complaint with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following:
Sheila A. Bedi, Esq. - Sbedi@splcenter.org Carlton W. Reeves, Esq. - creeves@prjmlaw.com J. Clifton Johnson, II, Esq. - cjohnson@prjlawyers.com Kristen M. Levins, Esq. - kristen.levins@splcenter.org Robert B. McDuff, Esq. - RBM@McDuffLaw.com Shawn Stephen Shurden, Esq. - SSHUR@ago.state.ms.us Mailed to: Ira A. Burnim - PHV Judge Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005 This the 20th day of August, 2007.
/s/Bill Patterson Bill Patterson, Esq.
-30-

 
 Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 13 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

J.A., by and through her next friend, Kimberly Hornsby; L.R., by and through her next friend, Robert Rosenthal; R.B., by and through her next friend, Helen Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated; H.D., by and through her next friend, Roy Dowdy; S.G., by and through her next friend, Billie Stewart; M.S., by and through her next friend, Audrea Sibley; E.S., by and through next friend, Alicia Stojic; S.W., by and through her next friend, Virginia Cook; and the Mississippi Protection and Advocacy Systems, Inc.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07cv394DPJ-JCS

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR, in his official capacity; DONALD TAYLOR, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Mississippi Department of Human Services; L. DONALD ARMAGOST, in his official and individual capacities as the Administrator of Columbia Training School; RICHARD JAMES, in his official and individual capacities as Assistant Administrator of Columbia Training School; KATHY PITTMAN, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of Youth Services; Mr. ALEXANDER in his official and individual capacities as a Columbia Training School Security Officer

DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COME NOW the Defendants, in their official capacities,1 and file their Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to

1
Defendants L. Donald Armagost, Richard James and “Mr. Alexander” are represented by separate counsel regarding Plaintiffs’ individual capacity claims.

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 13 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 2 of 3
the Memorandum of Authorities accompanying this Motion, including the assertion of Eleventh Amendment, the Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion.
Wherefore, premises considered, the Defendants respectfully request that this Court GRANT the present Motion to Dismiss.
Respectfully submitted, this the 20th day of August 2007. By: JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL s/ Shawn S. Shurden SHAWN S. SHURDEN, MSBN 99678 HAROLD E. PIZZETTA III, MSBN 99867 SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION Counsel for the Defendants
Civil Litigation Division Office of Attorney General Post Office Box 220 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Telephone: (601) 359-3680
2

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-JCS Document 13 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 20, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following:
Sheila A. Bedi Southern Poverty Law Center-Jackson 753 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 Carlton W. Reeves, Esq. Pigott, Reeves, Johnson & Minor 775 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2725 J. Clifton Johnson, II, Esq. Pigott, Reeves, Johnson & Minor 775 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2725 Kristen M. Levins, Esq. Mississippi Youth Justice Project 753 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 Robert B. McDuff, Esq. 767 North Congress Street Jackson, Mississippi 39202 This 20th day of August, 2007.
s/ Shawn S. Shurden SHAWN S. SHURDEN
3

 
 Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-FKB Document 58 Filed 08/18/09 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

JACKSON DIVISION

_________________________________________

J.A., et al.

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

Case No. 3:07-cv-00394 DPJ-JCS

)

BARBOUR, et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF DISMISSAL, RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND
RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY

Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), the Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for relief from its order dismissing Defendants Donald Armagost and Richard James from this lawsuit for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 57). The Plaintiffs’ failure to response to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss was the result of a miscommunication between the Plaintiffs’ six counsel about who was going to file the response. The Plaintiffs also respond to the Court’s order directing them to show cause why this case should not be dismissed in its entirety. In support of this motion and response, Plaintiffs state the following:
1. This case was filed for injunctive relief and monetary damages on behalf of teenage girls living with mental illness who were committed to the Columbia Training School. During their commitments, the girls suffered a host of unconstitutional abuses, including prolonged shackling, a sexual assault, and Defendants’ failure to provide appropriate mental

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-FKB Document 58 Filed 08/18/09 Page 2 of 7
health and rehabilitative services. After the case was filed, the state of Mississippi decided to close the Columbia Training School, rendering moot the Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief.
2. Pursuant to a joint motion by the parties in February 2008, the official capacity (injunctive relief) claims were stayed while the issue of Columbia’s closure was proceeding in the Mississippi legislature. (Doc. 52). Later, after Columbia actually closed, the Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to drop the injunctive relief claims, and the Court granted the motion in September 2008. (Doc. 55). Three claims remained: (1) Count 3 (damages for excessive use of restraints against defendants James and Armagost); (2) Count 4 (damages for failure to provide adequate rehabilitative/mental health treatment and protection from harm against defendants James and Armagost); and (3) Count 5 (damages for sexual assault against defendant Alexander).
3. Perhaps because of the stay, the activity around Columbia’s closure, and the later dismissal of the injunctive relief claims, none of the parties moved the Court for a Rule 16 scheduling order or took any action to proceed on the remaining claims in the case.
4. On July 24, 2009, Defendants Armagost and James moved to dismiss claims 3 and 4. (Doc. 56). Because of a serious miscommunication among the Plaintiffs’ six co-counsel, Plaintiffs counsel failed to respond to the Defendant’s motion, prompting this Court to enter an order several weeks later dismissing the claims with prejudice and ordering the Plaintiffs to show cause why the entire litigation should not be dismissed. (Doc. 57).
5. Plaintiffs’ counsel recognize that their failure to respond to the motion was a grievous error and apologize to the Court and to opposing counsel. But this mistake should not bar the Plaintiffs from seeking redress for the abuse they suffered while committed to the Columbia Training School. Plaintiffs’ counsel respectfully request that, instead, the Court
2

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-FKB Document 58 Filed 08/18/09 Page 3 of 7
impose upon counsel sanctions that would not limit the ability of the named Plaintiffs to pursue their claims. See Burden v. Yates, 644 F.2d 503, 505 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that where a plaintiff refused to comply with three clear directives of the Court, dismissal was improper and that “[t]he proper course would have been to impose such lesser sanctions as costs or fines when appellant initially acted improperly, and then, if these failed to deter the conduct, to impose the greater sanction of dismissal.”); Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2370, at 201 n.86 (1971) ("Many courts have thought it advisable to impose some lesser sanction than dismissal where the fault is with the attorney rather than the client.")
6. The Fifth Circuit has held that “dismissals with prejudice for failure to prosecute are proper only where 1) there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff and 2) the district court has expressly determined that lesser sanctions would not prompt diligent prosecution or the record shows that the district court employed lesser sanctions that proved to be futile.” Stearman v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 436 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2006). Neither of these factors is present here. First, there is no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. Plaintiffs’ failure to file a timely response to the Defendants’ motion resulted from a misunderstanding among co-counsel regarding which attorney was responsible for the filing. This mistake is a serious one, but it does not reflect a willful refusal to abide by the Court’s deadlines. Second, lesser sanctions, such as an order to show cause, could have (and would have) prompted diligent prosecution. Less stringent measures may include assessments of fines, costs or damages against the plaintiff or his counsel, and explicit warnings. See Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317, 322 (5th Cir. Tex. 1982).
7. Plaintiffs’ counsel do not minimize their error in failing to respond in a timely fashion to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss and in failing to ensure the diligent prosecution of
3

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-FKB Document 58 Filed 08/18/09 Page 4 of 7
this case. But the Court’s dismissal of this case with prejudice could be considered a sanction that is disproportionately harsh. “The ultimate sanction for the litigant is dismissal of his case with prejudice. This most extreme penalty should be imposed only after full consideration of the likely effectiveness of less-stringent measures Hornbuckle v. Arco Oil & Gas Co., 732 F.2d 1233, 1237 (5th Cir. Tex. 1984). Absent a clear record of delay that resulted from intentional conduct or a willful disregard of court directives, courts generally look with disfavor on dismissals with prejudice for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626 (1962) finding, in litigation that lasted over six years, that Plaintiff deliberately proceeded in “dilatory fashion” when he missed numerous deadlines and failed to appear at a pre-trial conference); McGowan v. Faulkner Concrete Pipe Co., 659 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1981) (reversing dismissal of employment discrimination action and finding there was no clear record of delay and that lesser sanctions should have been imposed when, in litigation that was pending for about two years, the plaintiff took no depositions, engaged in no discovery, exchanged no exhibits, filed a pretrial order six days late, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law 43 days late, and failed to reimburse defendant for discovery costs) Burden v. Yates, 644 F.2d 503, 504 (5th Cir. 1981) (reversing a dismissal that had the effect of a dismissal with prejudice when, on three separate occasions, the plaintiff failed to obey the clear directive of the court; plaintiff’s “failure to comply with the court order was more a matter of negligence than purposeful delay or contumaciousness”) Counsels’ conduct here—missing one deadline as a result of a miscommunication—simply does not create a record of intentional delay.
8. In addition to requiring a clear record of intentional delay and a consideration of lesser sanctions, the Fifth Circuit generally requires at least one of three aggravating factors before a court may dismiss with prejudice for failure to prosecute: 1) plaintiff culpability, 2)
4

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-FKB Document 58 Filed 08/18/09 Page 5 of 7
prejudice to defendant, and 3) intentional conduct by plaintiff or counsel. See Kroger, 669 F.2d 317 at 322. None of these factors can be found here. The named Plaintiffs bear no responsibility for Counsels’ failure to respond to the Defendants’ motion in a timely fashion or to move this case forward. Nor will the Defendants suffer prejudice from reinstating this case. “It remains the policy of the law to favor the decision of cases on their merits. This must be weighed against any presumed prejudice to the defendant and the court may decide to excuse plaintiff's lack of diligence in the absence of any actual prejudice to the defendant." 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2370, at 216-17 (1971). Finally, as explained above, the Plaintiffs’ counsel did not intentionally ignore the deadlines set by this Court.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court (1) reconsider its Order dismissing Claims 3 and 4 and reinstate those Claims; and (2) enter a Rule 16 scheduling order on the three remaining claims in this case. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs request a hearing or telephone conference during which they will show cause as to why the dismissed claims should be reinstated and why the entire case should proceed.
Respectfully submitted, /s/Sheila A. Bedi, Miss. Bar. No. 101652 Mississippi Youth Justice Project A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center P.O. Box 9283 Jackson, Mississippi 39286 202-320-3435(phone) 601-948-8882 (fax)
5

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-FKB Document 58 Filed 08/18/09 Page 6 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

JACKSON DIVISION

_________________________________________

J.A., et al.

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

Case No. 3:07-cv-00394 DPJ-JCS

)

BARBOUR, et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________ )

PROPOSED ORDER

BEFORE THIS COURT is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Order of Dismissal,

Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss, and Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.

Having fully considered the matter, this Court finds that the motion is well-taken and should be

GRANTED.

Accordingly, the claims pending against Defendant Armagost and James are reinstated.

The Parties are further ordered to submit a proposed joint scheduling order to the Court within

fourteen days.

SO ORDERED, this the ________ day of ___________, 2009

______________________ United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00394-DPJ-FKB Document 58 Filed 08/18/09 Page 7 of 7
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on August 18, 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System.
/s/ Sheila A. Bedi

 
 Lawsuit Seeks to End Abuse of Girls in Mississippi Reform School
July 11, 2007—Troubled teenage girls in a state-run reform school in Mississippi have suffered “horrendous” physical and sexual abuse, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court today. The complaint asks the court to require the state to provide federally required
mental health and rehabilitative treatment to girls confined in the Columbia Training School.
The Bazelon Center joined the Mississippi Youth Justice Project (MYJP), a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Robert B. McDuff, a civil rights attorney in Jackson, in filing the lawsuit on behalf of six girls ranging in age from 13 to 17. All suffer from mental illnesses and all were committed to Columbia for non-violent offenses. Most are
victims of past physical or sexual abuse.
The lawsuit alleges that:
• In an apparent response to unsubstantiated allegations that they planned to escape, five of the plaintiffs were shackled around their ankles for 12 hours a day for periods ranging from eight days to a month. They had to eat, attend school, use the bathroom, participate in recreational activities and visit with their families while wearing the painful shackles.
• One girl was sexually assaulted by a male employee of the facility while she was confined in a segregated area. She reported the assault but was never informed of the results of an investigation and never received counseling to help her deal with the trauma.
• Three of the girls cut themselves while on suicide watch. None of them received any psychological help during their isolation. No attempt was made to stabilize their moods, and staff members failed to perform periodic checks to ensure their safety. One girl was placed in a cell alone for 14 hours, during which time she carved the words “HATE ME” into her forearm. One sliced her wrists with glass, and another sliced her wrists on the edge of her concrete bunk.
Most of the girls at Columbia suffer from mental disorders. And more than half were sent there for nonviolent offenses such as shoplifting, running away, disorderly conduct and other minor offenses. Most could be treated far more effectively – at half the cost – in community-based programs that focus on rehabilitation and mental health treatment. The state spends $5 million a year to house an average of 60 girls at Columbia.
Mississippi Protection and Advocacy Inc., a congressionally authorized nonprofit organization that enforces the civil rights of people with disabilities, is also a plaintiff in
the suit.

###
Media contact: Lee Carty, leec@bazelon.org, 202-467-5730 ext 121
Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 1101 15th Street, NW, Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-467-5730 Fax: 202-223-0409 Email: webmaster@bazelon.org

 
 Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 1 of 14
STAY, CLOSED, FKB
U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:07−cv−00394−DPJ−FKB

J.A. et al v. Barbour, et al Assigned to: District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III Referred to: Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
J.A. by and through her next friend, Kimberly Hornsby

Date Filed: 07/11/2007 Date Terminated: 06/17/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Ira A. Burnim − PHV JUDGE BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW 1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005 202/467−5730 − ext 129 Fax: 202/223−0409 Email: irab@bazelon.org TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rhonda Brownstein − PHV SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER − Montgomery P. O. Box 2087 Montgomery, AL 36102 334/956−8200 Fax: 334/956−8480 Email: rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 05/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER − Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601/948−8882 Fax: 601/948−8885 Email: sheila.a.bedi@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlton W. Reeves PIGOTT, REEVES, JOHNSON, P.A. 775 North Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 601/354−2121 Fax: 601/354−7854 Email: creeves@prjlawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Clifton Johnson , II PIGOTT, REEVES, JOHNSON, P.A. 775 North Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 601/354−2121

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 2 of 14

Fax: 601/354−7854 Email: cjohnson@pjlawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen M. Levins MISSISSIPPI YOUTH JUSTICE PROJECT 921 North President Street, Suite B P. O. Box 9283 Jackson, MS 39286 601/948−8882 Fax: 601/948−8885 Email: kristen.levins@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 09/28/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff ROBERT B. MCDUFF, ATTORNEY 767 North Congress St. Jackson, MS 39202 (601) 969−0802 Email: RBM@McDuffLaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER − Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601/948−8882 Fax: 601/948−8885 Email: vcarroll@splcenter.org

Plaintiff
H.D. by and through her next friend, Roy Dowdy

represented by Ira A. Burnim − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rhonda Brownstein − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlton W. Reeves (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Clifton Johnson , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen M. Levins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2009

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 3 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
S.G. by and through her next friend, Billie Stewart

represented by Ira A. Burnim − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rhonda Brownstein − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlton W. Reeves (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Clifton Johnson , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen M. Levins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address)

Plaintiff
M.S. by and through her next friend, Audrea Sibley

represented by Ira A. Burnim − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rhonda Brownstein − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 4 of 14

Plaintiff
E.S. by and through her next friend, Alicia Stojic

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carlton W. Reeves (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Clifton Johnson , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristen M. Levins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address)
represented by Ira A. Burnim − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rhonda Brownstein − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carlton W. Reeves (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Clifton Johnson , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristen M. Levins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Judith Carroll

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 5 of 14

(See above for address)

Plaintiff
S.W. by and through her next friend, Virginia Cook

represented by Ira A. Burnim − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rhonda Brownstein − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlton W. Reeves (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Clifton Johnson , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen M. Levins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address)

Plaintiff
Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc.

represented by Ira A. Burnim − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rhonda Brownstein − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen M. Levins (See above for address)

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 6 of 14

TERMINATED: 09/28/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address)

Plaintiff
L.R. by and through her next friend Robert Rosenthal, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated

represented by Rhonda Brownstein − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlton W. Reeves (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira A. Burnim − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Clifton Johnson , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristen M. Levins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address)

Plaintiff
R.B. by and through her next friend, Helen Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated

represented by Rhonda Brownstein − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlton W. Reeves (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 7 of 14

Ira A. Burnim − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Clifton Johnson , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristen M. Levins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/28/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert B. McDuff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Judith Carroll (See above for address)

V. Defendant Haley Barbour Governer, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 09/02/2008
Defendant Donald Taylor in his official capacity as Executive Director of Miss. Dept. of Human Services TERMINATED: 09/02/2008
Defendant Dr. L. Donald Armagost in his official and individual capacities as the administrator of Columbia Training School TERMINATED: 08/17/2009

represented by Shawn Stephen Shurden MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 501 N. West Street Suite 201−A Jackson, MS 39201 601/961−5497 Fax: 601/961−5469 Email: shawn.shurden@psc.state.ms.us TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Shawn Stephen Shurden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert L. Gibbs Gibbs Whitwell PLLC 1400 Meadowbrook Road Suite 100 Jackson, MS 39211 601−487−2640 Email: rgibbs@gibbswhitwell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Stephen Shurden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 8 of 14

Defendant Richard James in his official and inidividual capacities as assistant administrator of Columbia Training School TERMINATED: 08/17/2009
Defendant Kathy Pittman in his official capacity as Director of the Division of Youth Services TERMINATED: 09/02/2008
Defendant Larry Alexander in his official and individual capacities as a Columbia Training School Security Officer

Anne C. Sanders BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER &HEWES 248 East Capitol Street TNB 1400 P. O. Drawer 119 Jackson, MS 39205−0119 (601) 948−3101 Fax: 601−960−6902 Email: asanders@brunini.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert L. Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Stephen Shurden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne C. Sanders (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Shawn Stephen Shurden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Shawn Stephen Shurden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William A. Patterson WILKINS TIPTON, PA − Jackson P. O. Box 13429 Jackson, MS 39236−3429 601/366−4343 Fax: 601/981−7608 Email: bpatterson@wilkinstipton.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/11/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 20178), filed by S.G., M.S., E.S., S.W., J.A., H.D. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(THR) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 9 of 14

07/11/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/25/2007
07/26/2007
07/30/2007
08/01/2007
08/06/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007
08/07/2007 08/20/2007 08/20/2007 08/20/2007
08/20/2007

4 Summons Issued as to Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman. (THR) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by J. Clifton Johnson, II on behalf of all plaintiffs (Johnson, J.) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Carlton W. Reeves on behalf of all plaintiffs (Reeves, Carlton) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by J.A..(Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
6 First MOTION to Certify Class by J.A. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One)(Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 5 Amended Complaint (with electronic signature) by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
Text−only ORDER terminating 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; granting 8 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Haley Barbour answer due 8/20/2007; Donald Taylor answer due 8/20/2007; L. Donald Armagost answer due 8/20/2007; Richard James answer due 8/20/2007; Kathy Pittman answer due 8/20/2007; Unknown Alexander answer due 8/20/2007. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on 7/26/07. (No further written order will be issued.) (dfk, ) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
9 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 6 First MOTION to Certify Class by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 9 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 6 First MOTION to Certify Class. Response due by 8/20/2007. Signed by Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on August 1, 2007. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT.(VCH) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
10 First MOTION for Ira Burnim to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Burnim certificate of bar admission)(Levins, Kristen) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Ira Burnim receipt number 765290 $ 100 (Levins, Kristen) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
11 ORDER granting 10 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, that Ira a. Burnim be admitted pro hac vice in this case on behalf of the plaintiffs in association with local counsel, upon payment of the required fee, and upon registration for electronic filing as required by the Court. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on August 7, 2007 (CSF) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/7/2007 (CSF). (Entered: 08/07/2007)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #11, deleted unsigned order, added signed order. (CSF) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
12 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Unknown Alexander.(Patterson, William) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
13 MOTION to Dismiss by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
14 MEMORANDUM in Support re 13 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 − 3)(Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
15 MOTION to Strike 6 First MOTION to Certify Class by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 10 of 14

08/21/2007 08/27/2007 08/28/2007
09/06/2007 09/11/2007 10/09/2007 10/09/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/19/2007 10/24/2007 10/24/2007 10/24/2007
10/29/2007 10/29/2007

(Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
16 ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on August 21, 2007 (CSF) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
17 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply To Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Class Certification Motion by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 17 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Additional Time. Plaintiffs are granted an additional seven days to respond to the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and to Strike Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs' response is due on or before September 12, 2007. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL FOLLOW. Signed by Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on August 28, 2007. (VCH) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
18 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and to Strike Motion for Class Certification by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 18 unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Response is due October 15, 2007. Signed by Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on September 11, 2007. No written order will issue. (Howell, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
19 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by L. Donald Armagost.(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
20 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Richard James.(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
21 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 15 MOTION to Strike 6 First MOTION to Certify Class filed by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
22 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 13 MOTION to Dismiss filed by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
23 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Strike Class Certification by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #23 inadvertently entered the wrong PDF. Attorney to refile with correct PDF attached. (THR) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
24 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 21 Memorandum in Opposition, 22 Memorandum in Opposition by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and to Strike Class Certification by October 29, 2007. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on October 24, 2007. (EMS) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
ORAL MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Defendants Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander. (SP) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
25 ORDER granting Oral Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on October 29, 2007. (SP) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 11 of 14

10/29/2007 10/29/2007 11/02/2007 11/09/2007 11/15/2007 11/16/2007
11/21/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 12/11/2007 12/14/2007 12/19/2007 12/24/2007 12/26/2007 01/02/2008

26 Rebuttal re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
27 Rebuttal re 21 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
28 MOTION Judicial Notice by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One)(Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 MOTION Judicial Notice filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
30 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 30 Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice. Plaintiffs shall file their reply no later than November 21, 2007. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on November 16, 2007.(EMS) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
31 REPLY to Response to Motion re 29 Response in Opposition to Motion for Judicial Notice filed by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
32 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Levins, Kristen) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
33 ATTACHMENT OF AMENDED COMPLAINT to motion #32 against all defendants, filed by J.A..(Levins, Kristen) Modified on 11/28/2007 (THR). (Entered: 11/28/2007)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #33 modified to read attachment to document #32. (THR) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
34 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
Text−only ORDER granting 34 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 32 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint Responses due by 12/19/2007 Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on 12/14/07. (No further written order will be issued.) (dfk) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
35 RESPONSE in Opposition re 32 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
36 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Opposition to motion for leave to amend the complaint by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 12/24/2007)
37 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant's opposition to motion for leave to amend by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 12/26/2007)
38 Rebuttal re 35 Response in Opposition to Motion to Amend filed by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A.,

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 12 of 14

01/02/2008
01/14/2008 01/15/2008
01/16/2008 01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/31/2008 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 02/06/2008 02/09/2008 02/11/2008
02/12/2008 02/14/2008 02/15/2008

H.D. (Levins, Kristen) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
Text−only ORDER finding as moot 36 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 32 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint ; granting 37 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 32 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint. Replies due by 1/3/2007 Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on 1/2/08 (No further written order will be issued.). (dfk) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
39 MOTION for Rhonda Brownstein to Appear Pro Hac Vice by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Levins, Kristen) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
40 ORDER granting 39 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, that Rhonda Brownstein be admitted pro hac vice on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case in association with local counsel, upon payment of the required fee and upon registration for electronic filing as required by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner on January 15, 2008 (CSF) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
41 ORDER granting 32 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner on 1/16/08 (dfk) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Rhonda Brownstein receipt number 05380000000000896064 $ 100 (Levins, Kristen) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
42 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D..(Levins, Kristen) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
43 ANSWER to 42 Amended Complaint by Unknown Alexander.(Patterson, William) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
44 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
45 MEMORANDUM in Support re 44 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/11/2008 at 1:00 PM before District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III (AN) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
46 RESPONSE in Opposition re 44 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Brownstein − PHV, Rhonda) (Entered: 02/09/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III: Telephone Conference held on 2/11/2008. The parties are to confer regarding the claimed injunctive relief and report back to the court. Follow−up Status Conference set for 2/27/2008 at 10:30 AM before District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III (AN) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
47 NOTICE of Appearance by Anne C. Sanders on behalf of L. Donald Armagost, Richard James (Sanders, Anne) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
48 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 46 Response in Opposition to Motion by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 48 Defendants' unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Reply to 44 Defendants' MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Defendants' reply shall be due no later than February 25, 2008. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on February 15, 2008. (EMS) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 13 of 14

02/15/2008 02/21/2008 02/21/2008 02/21/2008
02/27/2008 02/29/2008 03/03/2008 08/06/2008 09/02/2008 07/24/2009 08/17/2009
08/18/2009
08/20/2009 08/21/2009 08/24/2009
08/28/2009 09/03/2009

49 Joint MOTION to Stay Consideration of Certain Matters by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
50 ANSWER to 42 Amended Complaint by L. Donald Armagost.(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
51 ANSWER to 42 Amended Complaint by Richard James.(Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
52 ORDER granting 49 Motion to Stay Consideration of Certain Matters. Consideration of Plaintiffs' official capacity claims against Defendants is stayed pending further order of the Court. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on February 21, 2008. (SP) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III: Telephone Conference held on 2/27/2008 (AN) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
53 Joint MOTION to Withdraw all Pending Motions by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, L. Donald Armagost, Richard James, Kathy Pittman, Unknown Alexander (Shurden, Shawn) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 53 Motion to Withdraw all Pending Motions. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on March 3, 2008. (SP) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
54 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Brownstein − PHV, Rhonda) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
55 ORDER granting 54 Motion to Amend/Correct and dismissing claims in Counts 1 and 2 of the Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner on 9/2/08 (dfk) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
56 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution by L. Donald Armagost, Richard James (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
57 ORDER granting 56 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution as to Defendants Donald Armagost and Richard James. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Armagost and James are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs are directed to show cause by August 24, 2009 why this case should not be dismissed in its entirety. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on August 17, 2009. (SP) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
58 MOTION For Relief from Order of Dismissal, Response to Motion to Dismiss for Failture to Prosecute and Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause Why the Case Should Not be Dismissed in its Entirety by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
59 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution by Unknown Alexander (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Exhibit 1)(Patterson, William) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
60 RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution filed by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., J.A., H.D. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit one)(Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
61 RESPONSE to Motion re 58 MOTION For Relief from Order of Dismissal, Response to Motion to Dismiss for Failture to Prosecute and Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause Why the Case Should Not be Dismissed in its Entirety filed by L. Donald Armagost, Richard James (Gibbs, Robert) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
62 Rebuttal re 60 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute filed by Unknown Alexander (Patterson, William) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
63 Rebuttal re 61 Response to Motion, 62 Rebuttal TO DEFENDANTS ARMAGOST AND JAMES RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DISMISSAL filed by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 09/03/2009)

Case: 3:07-cv-394 As of: 07/27/2012 09:20 AM CDT 14 of 14

09/08/2009 09/08/2009 09/25/2009 09/28/2009 01/29/2010
03/30/2010 03/31/2010
03/31/2010 03/31/2010 04/07/2010
05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/18/2010
05/18/2010
06/17/2010

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 63 : Incorrect PDF document filed; Attorney advised to refile using the correct PDF document. (ND) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
64 Rebuttal re 62 Rebuttal PLAINTIFFS REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANTS ARMAGOST AND JAMES RESPONSE filed by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
65 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Levins, Kristen) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
66 ORDER granting 65 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Kristen M. Levins terminated Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner on 9/28/09 (dfk) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
67 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner no longer assigned to case. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 1/29/10 (RRL) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
Set Hearing: Telephonic Conference set for 3/31/2010 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III (AN) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
TEXT ONLY ORDER: The parties are instructed to contact Magistrate Judge Keith Ball to set the matter for settlement conference. All counsel of record must attend. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL FOLLOW. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on 3/31/10 (AN) Modified on 3/31/2010 (AN). (Entered: 03/31/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III: Telephone Conference held on 3/31/2010 (AN) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to Text Order dated 3/31/10. Spelling corrected. (AN) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
NOTICE of Hearing: Per Judge Jordan's directive and by agreement of the parties, a Settlement Conference is set for 5/18/2010 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball in Chambers in Jackson, MS. All parties and or/client representatives are required to attend this conference unless otherwise excused by the Court. Seven (7) days prior to the conference the parties shall submit to Judge Ball via e−mail a Confidential Memo. (CSF) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
68 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney on behalf of Rhonda Brownstein by L.R., S.G., R.B., M.S., E.S., S.W., Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., J.A., H.D. (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
69 NOTICE of Appearance by Sheila A. Bedi on behalf of all plaintiffs (Bedi, Sheila) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 69 . Incorrectly filed. Attorney advised to refile. (ND) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
70 NOTICE of Appearance by Vanessa Judith Carroll on behalf of all plaintiffs (Carroll, Vanessa) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
Text−only ORDER granting 68 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Rhonda Brownstein − PHV terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 5/18/10. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL BE ISSUED. (dfk) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball: Settlement Conference held on 5/18/2010. Case did not settle. The parties will report back to the Court their progress towards settlement. (CSF) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
71 ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice as to all parties. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 6/17/10.(RRL) (Entered: 06/17/2010)