• • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.

)

1 :08

)

)

~cv.. l 31 7 .DFH -JMS~

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Introduction

1. A significant number of prisoners committed to the care and custody of the

Indiana Department of Correction have serious mental illnesses that significantly impede

their ability to function within the prison environment. The Indiana Department of

Correction provides insufficient programs and placements to treat these prisoners and

many are confined in segregation or excessively isolated and harsh conditions which

exacerbate their illnesses and conditions where they fail to receive adequate mental health

care. The failure of the Indiana Department of Correction and its agents to adequately

treat the prisoners in non-segregated and therapeutic environments violates the Eighth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the Americans with Disabilities

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. This action for

injunctive and declaratory relief is brought by Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services

Commission ("IPAS") which is empowered and charged by federal law to protect the

rights of mentally ill and developmentally disabled individuals in Indiana and has

• •

standing to bring this action on behalf of its numerous clients and constituents who are

mentally ill prisoners affected by defendant's unlawful actions and inactions

Jurisdiction, venue, cause of action 2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3. Declaratory reliefis authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

4. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation,

under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution ofthe United States, as well

as being brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and

the Rehabilitation Act, 20 U.S.C. § 794.

Parties

6.

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services (IPAS) is an agency, created under

State law (Indiana Code § 12-28-1-1, et. seq.) pursuant to Federal mandate, which agency

is funded through eight separate federal programs to advocate for and protect the rights

and interests of developmentally disabled individuals, individuals with mental illness, and

other persons with disabilities. 7. Defendant Commissioner is the duly appointed head of the Indiana Department of

Correction ("DOC"), a state agency which receives federal financial assistance and is a

public entity as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B).

Factual allegations

Facts concerning IPAS 8. The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 10801, et seq., provides for the establishment and funding of systems within each state

2

• •
which are designed to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with mental illness as well as to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of those with mental illness. 9. The federal funding is to be given to independent agencies or organizations which have the capacity to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with mental illness. 42 U.S.C. §§ 10804, 10805. 10. The system established by each State to protect and advocate the rights of mentally ill individuals must have the authority to "pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care or treatment in the State." 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(1)(B). 11. Pursuant to Indiana law, Indiana Code § 12-28-1-1, et seq., IPAS has been designated as the protection and advocacy agency under both the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act and the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act. 12. IPAS receives absolutely no State funding. 13. IPAS has the legal authority to "[p]rovide legal and other advocacy services throughout Indiana to individuals or organizations on matters related to the protection of the legal and human rights of individuals with a developmental disability . . . [and] individuals with a mental illness." IND. CODE §12-28-1-12(3). 14. IPAS has the legal authority to "sue and be sued" in its own name. IND. CODE § 12-28-1-12(4). 15. IPAS has the legal authority to enter into contractual relationships in its own name. Id.
3

• •
16. IPAS has the legal authority to "apply for, solicit, and accept contributions or grants of money, property, or services made by gift, devise, bequest, grant or other means from any source." IND. CODE § 12-28-1-12(5). 17. One of IPAS' primary legal responsibilities is to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect involving individuals with mental illness and to advocate for appropriate treatment and programs for such individuals. IPAS' legal role is to ensure that their legal and civil rights are provided for and protected; that they are treated with dignity and respect; and that they receive appropriate services to address their needs. 18. IPAS brings this action on behalf of prisoners within the DOC, who are currently clients and constituents of IPAS, and who are mentally ill and are confined in segregation or other isolated confinement or seclusion settings, and who are not receiving adequate treatment programs. 19. The prisoner clients and constituents of IPAS in this action, confined within the DOC, are confined to "facilities" rendering care and treatment for the mentally ill as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 10802(3).
Facts concerning the levels ofconfinement within the DOC 20. Prisoners who are committed to the Indiana Department of Correction may be placed in, among other places, an array of state institutions which range from minimally restrictive to high security institutions. 21. These state institutions are owned, managed and operated by the State of Indiana with the exception of the New Castle Correctional Facility which, although owned by the State of Indiana, is operated and managed by the GEO Corporation, a private, for-profit,
4

• •
company through a contract with the DOC and the DOC is ultimately in control of the care and custody of its prisoners confined there. 22. The lower security institutions feature dormitory-style housing and tend to house prisoners with less violent crimes and shorter criminal histories than those in the higher security-level prisons. 23. The higher security prisons, including Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, Indiana State Prison (also known as Michigan City), and Pendleton Correctional Facility, house many prisoners in cells and have prisoners who, because of their committing offense and criminal history, require closer supervision and restrictive security measures. 24. The higher security prisons contain segregation units where prisoners may be placed either for disciplinary reasons for a specific period of time or for indeterminate periods of time if the prisoners are on administrative segregation. 25. The DOC also maintains, at the Westville Correctional Facility and the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, secure confinement units which are long-term segregation units. 26. The DOC has specific policies and administrative procedures that govern both administrative and disciplinary segregation of prisoners. 27. By policy and procedure, prisoners who are III segregation will be placed in solitary cells generally for 23 hours each day. 28. They are released from their cells for a minimum of three solitary showers a week and for one hour of daily recreation. Some segregated prisoners receive recreation only 5 days a week.
5

• •
29. The recreation may be solitary although outdoor recreation may take place in contiguous cages housing other prisoners engaged in outdoor recreation.
General facts concerning the treatment of mentally ill prisoners within the DOC system 30. All medical care, including mental health care, within the DOC, has been contracted to a private, for-profit, company, Correctional Medical Services. 31. The DOC has a Mental Health Services Plan for Adult Offenders that provides, among other things, for services for prisoners who are diagnosed with "mental illness," "serious mental illness," or a "developmental disability." 32. The above terms are defined as follows by the DOC: -mental illness: "Axis I disorder, exclusive of Substance Abuse/Dependence of Paraphilia, with a OAF score above 40." -serious mental illness: "Axis I disorder, exclusive of Substance Abuse/Dependency of Paraphilia, with a OAF score of 40 or below." 33. An Axis I disorder refers to the listing of mental disorders maintained in the DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, a handbook used by mental health professionals. 34. The OAF score is the global assessment of functioning scale, a subjective measure of the patient's overall level of psychological, social, and occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum from 0 (the lowest) to 100 (the highest). 35. Because the OAF score is a subjective impression of the person's functioning at the moment he is seen by a clinician, it has no direct bearing on the severity of a mental impairment. In fact, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration has specifically indicated that the OAF score has no direct correlation to the mental disorder
6

• •
listings utilized to evaluate a person's disability. 65 Fed. Reg. 50746, 50764-65 (Aug. 21,2000). 36. The GAF score is of limited use in a prison setting inasmuch as it is supposed to measure, among other things, social and occupational functioning, both of which are severely restricted or nonexistent in the prison setting.
The residential treatment and chronic care units at Michigan City 37. Pursuant to a private settlement agreement entered into in the case of Mast v. Donahue, No. 2:05-CV-037 LJM/WGH (U.S. Dist. Ct. - So. Dist. of Ind.), the DOC has agreed not to house any prisoner with an Axis I diagnosis within the secure confinement unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. 38. In 2007 the DOC opened up two units at Michigan City to house mentally ill prisoners. 39. One of these is called the RTU or Residential Treatment Unit and is designed to house up to 66 prisoners in a program designed to transition them to regular housing. 40. On information and belief, prisoners in the RTU have infrequent individual contact with mental health professionals, although they are allowed out of their cells for three hours each day. 41. Prisoners in the RTU have reported that there have been two suicides by prisoners confined there. 42. The other unit at Michigan City is the Chronic Care Unit, which is a long-term unit for mentally ill prisoners who are not expected to return to general population within the DOC.
7

• •
43. Prisoners confined to the Chronic Care Unit report that they have infrequent contact with mental health staff, although they are allowed out of their cells multiple hours each day.
The secure mental health treatment unit at New Castle 44. In the summer of 2008 the DOC opened a new unit at New Castle Correctional Facility, the Secure Mental Health Treatment Unit (SMHTU), for prisoners who fall within the DOC's definition of Seriously Mentally III and who are subject to segregation in the DOC. 45. There are 96 beds available at the SMHTU, but at the current time the DOC is planning only to fill 67 of them. 46. Prisoners at the SMHTU are housed in individual cells behind solid doors. 47. Although the DOC does not consider SMHTU to be a segregation unit, prisoners are left in their cells 23 hours a day, with one hour individual recreation. Three times a week the prisoners are also released for a solitary shower. 48. The doors to the cells in the SMHTU are solid doors with a small window and a cuff port that is locked from the outside except when it is opened to slide in meals or for the prisoner to extend his wrists so they can be cuffed from behind before he leaves the cell. 49. The prisoners are fed in their cells. 50. Because the doors are solid the prisoners have no way of seeing other prisoners. 51. Recreation either takes place indoors in a small barred area that has been constructed for the prisoners in a day room that prisoners formerly had access to or in one of a number of cages constructed outside.
8

• •
52. If a prisoner elects to take a shower he is cuffed and then escorted to the shower where he may be left for an extended period of time. 53. When prisoners are removed from their cells they wear leg chains and their hands are cuffed. A leash is connected to the leg chains and they are escorted by guards. 54. The large majority of interactions between the mentally ill prisoners and mental health professionals on the SMHTU take place in short discussions at cell fronts which require the prisoner and professional to yell at each other through the solid cell door. This is an unsatisfactory and inappropriate mental health intervention inasmuch as there is absolutely no privacy. Because ofthe lack of confidentiality, it is extremely difficult to accurately assess the prisoner's mental health functioning, and prisoners do not disclose necessary information concerning their mental conditions. 55. The major programming planned for prisoners in the SMHTU is the ACT program, present in other locations within the DOC, which is a behavior modification program where the prisoner, in his cell, views recordings broadcast via closed circuit television and completes worksheets which he returns, not to a mental health professional, but to his correctional counselor. As the person progresses through the program he will earn first some, and then more, commissary privileges. It is not a program that will adequately and effectively treat mental illness. 56. Confinement in virtual isolation exacerbates the illnesses of those who are mentally ill and is extremely deleterious to the mental health of mentally ill prisoners.
The continued segregation ofmentally ill prisoners
9

• •
57. After all the prisoners who the DOC plans to move out of segregation units into the SMHTU are moved, there will still be more than 230 prisoners who have Axis I diagnoses who will be confined in segregation units within the DOC. 58. In these units they will be subjected to severe isolation and lack of environmental stimulation. This isolation is extremely detrimental and harmful to the mental health of mentally ill persons. 59. In these units the primary, if not sole, contact the prisoners will have with mental health staff will be brief conversations at their cell doors which, for the reasons indicated above, is wholly inadequate. 60. An example of the segregation units to which mentally ill persons are being confined is the Custody and Control Unit which is located at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. 61. There are a significant number of prisoners on this unit who are mentally ill. 62. As in all segregation units, those imprisoned in this unit are held in isolation for 23 hours a day. They are released for solitary recreation and showers. 63. The prisoners are held behind solid doors which only increases their isolation and the mental health problems flowing from the isolation. 64. Mentally ill prisoners on this segregation unit report that they are frequently and violently extracted from their cells by armored correctional officers. 65. These violent encounters are often caused by the prisoners' mental illness when, for example, they engage in such irrational behavior as refusing to "cuff up" so they can leave their cells.
lO

• •
66. Prisoners, including mentally ill prisoners, who are deemed to have misbehaved in the Custody and Control Unit are punished by being placed in strip cells for 21 days. The prisoners are stripped of most of their clothing but have it returned to them over time if their behavior improves. 67. However, during the entire 21 day period the prisoners are fed "nutraloaf," which is a food substance made by cooking vegetables together so they form a block. All the prisoners receive for their meals is a portion of nutraloaf and two pieces of bread. 68. On information and belief there have, recently, been a number of attempted suicides in this unit. 69. Mentally ill prisoners confined in other segregation units throughout the DOC do not see mental health staffwith any frequency.
General factual allegations 70. IPAS represents as clients and constituents severely mentally ill prisoners who are placed in segregation throughout the DOC as well as in the SMHTU. 71. The segregation units as well as the SMHTU into which the DOC has placed the more than 300 prisoners, including IPAS' clients and constituents, who have Axis I diagnoses or are otherwise seriously mentally ill, feature severe social isolation, lack of environmental stimulation, and lack of frequent contact with mental health staff and cause psychological deterioration of the prisoners confined there. 72. These conditions create a substantial risk of serious harm to the mentally ill prisoners who are confined there, including IPAS' clients and constituents, and in fact cause them ongoing and severe harm.
11

•

•

•

73. These conditions deprive mentally ill prisoners, including IPAS' clients and

constituents, ofthe minimal civilized measure oflife's necessities.

74. The psychological and mental health needs of these prisoners, including IPAS'

clients and constituents, represent a serious medical need and the exacerbation of their

illnesses and conditions due to the conditions of their confinement also constitutes a

serious medical need.

75. Despite prior litigation which highlighted the danger of confining mentally ill

prisoners in 23 hour-a-day isolation, the defendant continues to do so and has failed to

provide adequate mental health care for persons so confined, including IPAS' clients and

constituents.

76. The defendant is aware of the risk of harm caused by this form of confinement

and is deliberately indifferent to it.

77. The prolonged isolated confinement of mentally ill persons, including IPAS'

clients and constituents, causes severe harm and defendant, at all times, has been aware

of this fact.

78. The defendant has not reasonably accommodated the mentally ill prisoners in

segregated and isolated conditions, including IPAS' clients and constituents, by providing

appropriate treatment in non-segregated and non-isolated environments.

79. The continued confinement of mentally ill prisoners, including IPAS' clients and

constituents, in the segregated and isolated conditions noted above, and without

appropriate treatment, is causing them irreparable harm for which there is no adequate

remedy at law.

12

•

•

•

80. The mentally ill prisoners confined within the DOC, including IPAS' clients and

constituents, are qualified individuals as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act,

42 U.S.c. §§ 12102(2), 12131(2), and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

Specifically, they have mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of the

major life activities, as well as having records of having such impairments and further are

regarded as having such impairments.

81. As qualified individuals with disabilities, the mentally ill prisoners within the

DOC, including IPAS' clients and constituents, meet the essential eligibility requirements

for the receipt of services or the participation in activities provided by defendant.

82. At all times defendant has acted under color of state law.

Legal claims

83. The continued confinement of mentally ill prisoners, including IPAS' clients and

constituents, in the segregated and isolated conditions noted above, and without adequate

and appropriate mental health care and treatment, violates the rights of the prisoners to be

free from cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the

United States Constitution as made applicable to the State of Indiana by the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

84. Defendant has discriminated against the mentally ill prisoners, including IPAS'

clients and constituents, in segregated and isolated confinement throughout the DOC by

failing to provide non-segregated and non-isolated housing and increased treatment as a

reasonable accommodation to prevent confinement conditions which exacerbate the

prisoners' mental illnesses. This represents discrimination against these prisoners in

13

• •

violation of both the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 29

u.S.c. § 794,42 U.S.C. § 12132.

Request for relief

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, on behalf of the mentally ill prisoners who are its clients

and constituents, requests that this Court:

a.

Accept jurisdiction of this case and set it for hearing at the earliest

opportunity.

b. Declare that the actions and inactions of defendant are unlawful and unconstitutional for the reasons specified above.

c. Enter a preliminary injunction, later to be made permanent, enJOlmng defendant from continuing to violate the constitutional and statutory rights of the mentally ill prisoners noted above and enjoining it to provide adequate treatment to the prisoners in appropriate and therapeutic settings.

d. Award plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

e. Award all other proper relief.

CLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org grose@aclu-in.org
14

• • ··~cte.vuJ 01. ~ K en T. Davis No. 4825-49
Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services
4701 N. Keystone Ave. Suite 222 Indianapolis, IN 46205 ·3171722-5555
fax: 3171722-5564
ktdavis@ipas.IN.gov djdial@ipas.IN.gov gricks@ipas.IN.gov drsmith@ipas.IN.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff
15

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND

)

ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-1317-DFH-JMS

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction, by counsel, David A. Arthur, Deputy Attorney General, urges the Court, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(1), to dismiss the cause of action herein for the reason that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter because the plaintiff lacks standing and because this court lacks jurisdiction over “intramural” disputes between state agencies.
A memorandum in support of this motion is filed herewith and is made a part hereof.

WHEREFORE, defendant urges the Court to dismiss the cause of action

herein and to grant him all other just and proper relief.

Respectfully submitted,

STEVE CARTER Indiana Attorney General

By: s/David A. Arthur David A. Arthur Deputy Attorney General Atty. No. 2461

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 15, 2008, a copy of the foregoing

motion was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following

by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this

filing through the Court’s system.

David R. Smith INDIANA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICES drsmith@ipas.in.gov

Debra J. Dial INDIANA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICES djdial@ipas.in.gov

Gary W. Ricks INDIANA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICES gricks@ipas.in.gov

Karen T. Davis INDIANA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICES ktdavis@ipas.in.gov

Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA kfalk@aclu-in.org

Gavin M. Rose ACLU OF INDIANA grose@aclu-in.org

Office of Attorney General Indiana Govt. Center South, Fifth Floor 302 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770 Telephone: (317) 232-6286 Fax: (317) 232-7979 E-Mail: David.Arthur@atg.in.gov 518455s4

s/David A. Arthur David A. Arthur Deputy Attorney General

2

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/09/09 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 198

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY )

SERVICES COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 1:08-CV-1317 DFH-JMS

CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

I. Parties and Representatives

A. Plaintiff

1. Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission

2. Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, ACLU of Indiana, 1031 E. Washington St., Indianapolis, IN, 46202, 317/635-4059, kfalk@aclu-in.org, grose@aclu-in.org

David R. Smith, Karen Davis, Debra Dial, Gary Ricks, Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services, 4701 N. Keystone Ave., Suite 222, Indianapolis, IN 46205, 317/722-5555, drsmith@ipas.IN.gov, ktdavis@ipaswIN.gov, djdial@ipasINgov, gricks@ipaswIN.gov

B. Defendant

1. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

2. David A. Arthur, Eric J. Beaver, Deputy Attorneys General, IGCS5th Floor, 302 W. Washington St., Indianapolis, IN 46204,
317/232-6286 (Arthur), 232-5683 (Beaver), fax: 232-7979,
David.Arthur@atg.in.gov, Eric.Beaver@atg.in.gov.

Counsel shall promptly file a notice with the Clerk if there is any change in this information.

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/09/09 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 199
II. Synopsis of Case
A. Plaintiff, on behalf of its clients and constituents claims that the isolated confinement of seriously mentally ill prisoners, without adequate treatment, within the Department of Correction and the New Castle Correctional Facility violates the 8th amendment to the United States Constitution.
B. Defendant contends that the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims on behalf of prisoners and that there is no case or controversy because this is a matter within and between Indiana state agencies. Defendant further contends that this case is or soon will be moot due to changes in the procedures and practices of the Department of Correction relating to care for mentally ill offenders.
III. Pretrial Pleadings and Disclosures
Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss which is fully briefed and pending before the trial court. Defendant contends that it is premature to impose any case management planning and any deadlines until and unless the Motion to Dismiss is resolved in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant therefore objects to any and all deadlines. The below deadlines are entered into by the defendant with the understanding that his initial position is that no deadlines should be entered at all at this juncture. By agreeing to the deadlines, defendant does not waive his right to argue that no deadlines should be entered at this time.
A. The parties shall serve their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 initial disclosures on or before May 1, 2009. This is 7 months from the Anchor Date.
B. Plaintiff shall file preliminary witness and exhibit lists no later than 30 days following the trial court’s resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (provided that the Motion is denied).
C. Defendant shall file preliminary witness and exhibit lists no later than 60 days following the trial court’s resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (provided that the Motion is denied).
D. All motions for leave to amend the pleadings and or/or to join additional parties shall be filed no later than 90 days following the trial court’s resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (provided that the Motion is denied).
E. Plaintiff shall serve defendant (but not file with the Court) a settlement demand, no later than 5 months following the trial court’s resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (provided that the Motion is denied). Defendant shall serve on the plaintiff (but not file with the Court) a response thereto within 60 days after receipt of the demand.
2

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/09/09 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 200

F. Plaintiff shall disclose the name, address, and vita of all expert witnesses, and shall serve the report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) no later than November 1, 2009. However, if plaintiff uses expert witness testimony at the summary judgment stage, such disclosures must be made no later than 60 days prior to the summary judgment deadline.

The list of final witnesses shall include a brief synopsis of the expected testimony and counsel's certification that the witness has been interviewed and/or deposed.

G. Defendant shall disclose the name, address, and vita of all expert witnesses, and shall serve the report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) within 30 days after plaintiff serves its expert witness disclosure; or, if none, defendant shall make its expert disclosure no later than December 1, 2009. However, if defendant uses expert testimony at the summary judgment stage, such disclosures must be made no later than 30 days prior to the summary judgment deadline.
H. Any party who wishes to limit or preclude expert testimony at trial shall file any such objection no later than 60 days before trial. Any party who wishes to preclude expert witness testimony at the summary judgment stage shall file any such objections with their responsive brief within the briefing schedule established by Local Rule 56.1.
I. All parties shall file and serve their final witness and exhibit lists on or before December 1, 2009.
J. Any party who believes that bifurcation of discovery and/or trial is appropriate with respect to any issue or claim shall notify the Court as soon as practicable.

K. The parties will discuss preservation and disclosure of electronically stored discovery information after a ruling on the motion to dismiss, including a timetable for making the materials available to the opposing party. If agreement cannot be reached, either party may notify the Court and request a conference with the Magistrate Judge.

IV. Discovery1 and Dispositive Motions

1The term “completed,” as used in Section IV.B, means that counsel must serve their discovery requests in sufficient time to receive responses before this deadline. Counsel may not serve discovery requests within the 30-day period before this deadline unless they seek leave of Court to serve a belated request and show good cause for the same. In such event, the proposed belated discovery request shall be filed with the motion, and the opposing party will receive it with service of the motion but need not respond to the same until such time as the Court grants the motion.
3

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/09/09 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 201
Due to the time and expense involved in conducting expert witness depositions and other discovery, as well as preparing and resolving dispositive motions, the Court requires counsel to use the CMP as an opportunity to seriously explore whether this case is appropriate for such motions (including specifically motions for summary judgment), whether expert witnesses will be needed, and how long discovery should continue. To this end, counsel must select the track set forth below that they believe best suits this case. If the parties are unable to agree on a track, the parties must: (1) state this fact in the CMP where indicated below; (2) indicate which track each counsel believes is most appropriate; and (3) provide a brief statement supporting the reasons for the track each counsel believes is most appropriate. If the parties are unable to agree on a track, the Court will pick the track it finds most appropriate, based upon the contents of the CMP or, if necessary, after receiving additional input at an initial pretrial conference.
A. Does any party believe that this case may be appropriate for summary judgment or other dispositive motion? If yes, the party(ies) that expect to file such a motion must provide a brief statement of the factual and/or legal basis for such a motion. YES
Plaintiff: Plaintiff does not believe that summary judgment is likely in this case. However, the uncontested facts may demonstrate that the segregated and isolated confinement of seriously mentally ill prisoners violates the 8th amendment.
Defendant: Defendant is making changes to the procedures applicable to care of mentally ill prisoners and although no constitutional violations are present, this action will be factually moot and subject to dismissal. .
B. Select the track that best suits this case:
X Track 2: Dispositive motions are expected and shall be filed no later than 11 months following the trial court’s resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (provided that the Motion is denied). Non-expert witness discovery and discovery relating to liability issues shall be completed no later than 10 months following the trial court’s resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (provided that the Motion is denied). Expert witness discovery shall be completed no later than February 1, 2010.
V. Pre-Trial/Settlement Conferences
The plaintiff wishes to discuss with the Court at the initial pre-trial conference in this cause whether a settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge is warranted. The defendant believes that such a discussion is premature at this time in light of the rapidly evolving procedures for handling mentally ill offenders and impending factual mootness.
4

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/09/09 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 202
VI. Trial Date
The presumptive trial date is 18 months from the Anchor Date. This would be a trial date in April 2010. The trial would be by the Court and is anticipated to take at least two weeks.
VII. Referral to Magistrate Judge
The parties wish to discuss this during the conference with the Magistrate Judge.
VIII. Required Pre-Trial Preparation
A. TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, the parties shall:
1. File a list of witnesses who are expected to be called to testify at trial.
2. Number in sequential order all exhibits, including graphs, charts and the like, that will be used during the trial. Provide the Court with a list of these exhibits, including a description of each exhibit and the identifying designation. Make the original exhibits available for inspection by opposing counsel. Stipulations as to the authenticity and admissibility of exhibits are encouraged to the greatest extent possible.
3. Submit all stipulations of facts in writing to the Court. Stipulations are always encouraged so that at trial, counsel can concentrate on relevant contested facts.
4. A party who intends to offer any depositions into evidence during the party's case in chief shall prepare and file with the Court and copy to all opposing parties either:
a. brief written summaries of the relevant facts in the depositions that will be offered. (Because such a summary will be used in lieu of the actual deposition testimony to eliminate time reading depositions in a question and answer format, this is strongly encouraged.); or
b. if a summary is inappropriate, a document which lists the portions of the deposition(s), including the specific page and line numbers, that will be read, or, in the event of a video-taped deposition, the portions of the deposition that will be played, designated specifically by counter-numbers.
5

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/09/09 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 203
5. Provide all other parties and the Court with any trial briefs and motions in limine, along with all proposed jury instructions, voir dire questions, and areas of inquiry for voir dire (or, if the trial is to the Court, with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law).
6. Notify the Court and opposing counsel of the anticipated use of any evidence presentation equipment.
B. ONE WEEK BEFORE THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, the parties shall:
1. Notify opposing counsel in writing of any objections to the proposed exhibits. If the parties desire a ruling on the objection prior to trial, a motion should be filed noting the objection and a description and designation of the exhibit, the basis of the objection, and the legal authorities supporting the objection.
2. If a party has an objection to the deposition summary or to a designated portion of a deposition that will be offered at trial, or if a party intends to offer additional portions at trial in response to the opponent's designation, and the parties desire a ruling on the objection prior to trial, the party shall submit the objections and counter summaries or designations to the Court in writing. Any objections shall be made in the same manner as for proposed exhibits. However, in the case of objections to video-taped depositions, the objections shall be brought to the Court's immediate attention to allow adequate time for editing of the deposition prior to trial.
3. File objections to any motions in limine, proposed instructions, and voir dire questions submitted by the opposing parties.
4. Notify the Court and opposing counsel of requests for separation of witnesses at trial.
IX. Other Matters
There are 5 motions filed pro se by members of the purported class, docket nos. 26, 30, 33, 35, 40. The motions are fully briefed as neither counsel wishes to file a brief or motion in respect to the pending pro se motions.
The parties are not aware of any other issues at the current time.
For the plaintiff:
/s/ Kenneth J. Falk No. 6777-49
6

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/09/09 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 204
ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 et. 229 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org
/s/ Gavin Rose Gavin Rose No. 26565-53 ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 fax: 317/635-4105 grose@aclu-in.org
/s/ David R. Smith David R. Smith No. 14658-49 Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services 4701 N. Keystone Ave. Suite 222 Indianapolis, IN 46205 317/722-5555 fax: 317/722-5564 drsmith@ipas.IN.gov
For the defendant:
/s/ David A. Arthur David A. Arthur No. 2461-48 Deputy Attorney General IGCS-5th Floor 302 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 317/232-6286 fax: 317/232-7979 david.arthur@atg.in.gov
/s/ Eric Beaver Eric Beaver No. 25479-49
7

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/09/09 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 205
Deputy Attorney General IGCS-5th Floor 302 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 317/232-6201 fax: 317/232-7979 eric.beaver@atg.in.gov

************************************************************************

PARTIES APPEARED IN PERSON/BY COUNSEL ON FOR A PRETRIAL/STATUS CONFERENCE.

APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.

APPROVED AS AMENDED.

APPROVED AS AMENDED PER SEPARATE ORDER.

APPROVED, BUT ALL OF THE FOREGOING DEADLINES ARE SHORTENED/LENGTHENED BY ______________ MONTHS.

APPROVED, BUT THE DEADLINES SET IN SECTION(S) _______________ OF THE PLAN IS/ARE
SHORTENED/LENGTHENED BY ______________ MONTHS.

THIS MATTER IS SET FOR TRIAL BY

ON _____________________________. FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR

_______________________________________ AT

.M., ROOM

.

A SETTLEMENT/STATUS CONFERENCE IS SET IN THIS

CASE FOR

AT

.M. COUNSEL

SHALL

APPEAR:

IN PERSON IN ROOM

; OR

BY TELEPHONE, WITH COUNSEL FOR INITIATING THE CALL TO ALL OTHER PARTIES AND

8

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 43 Filed 04/09/09 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 206

_____________

APPROVED AS AMENDED

_____________

DISAPPROVED;

11 months after denial of motion to dismiss
______________

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE

If the required conference under LR 37.1 does not resolve discovery issues that may arise, the parties are advised to request a phone status conference prior to filing any motion to compel or for protective order. Additionally, the parties are advised to not only number but to add a descriptive identifier for any exhibits which are electronically filed. For example, Exhibit 1 affidavit of John Smith.

Upon approval, this Plan constitutes an Order of the Court. Failure to comply with an Order of the Court may result in sanctions for contempt, or as provided under Rule 16(f), to and including dismissal or default.
Approved and So Ordered.

04/09/2009

_______________________________
Jane Magnus-Stinson United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:08-cv-1317-DFH-JMS ) ) ) ) ) )

ENTRY ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Introduction

Plaintiff Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission (“IPAS”) has brought suit against the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”). IPAS challenges IDOC’s alleged practice of isolating and secluding prisoners with serious mental illnesses and its failure to provide those prisoners with sufficient treatment programs and placements. IPAS claims that IDOC’s practices violate the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794). IDOC has moved to dismiss IPAS’s suit under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that IPAS lacks standing to sue on behalf of unidentified individuals and that this court lacks jurisdiction over a supposedly “intramural” dispute between state agencies. As explained below, the court denies IDOC’s motion. First, by suing on behalf of mentally ill individuals, IPAS is

exercising the powers and duties assigned to it by federal statute, and that assignment is constitutional. Second, this dispute is not a typical “intramural” dispute between state agencies that the governor should resolve. Instead, IPAS is trying to carry out a federal statutory directive to act independently of other state agencies to protect and advocate for mentally ill individuals. The governor has no authority to resolve this dispute by telling IPAS to drop this lawsuit.
The Role of IPAS in Enforcing Federal Law
IPAS is a “protection and advocacy” or “P&A” organization established pursuant to federal law. In Disability Rights Wisconsin, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 463 F.3d 719, 724-25 (7th Cir. 2006), the Seventh Circuit outlined the role of protection and advocacy organizations. As a condition of federal funding, states are required to designate protection and advocacy organizations to act on behalf of people with mental illness, developmental disabilities, and other disabilities. The specific statute at issue in this case is the Protection and Advocacy of Mentally Ill Individuals Act (“PAIMI”) enacted in 1986.1 Congress found that “individuals with mental illness are vulnerable to abuse and
1The other protection and advocacy laws are the Protection and Advocacy for Developmental Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15043 et seq., and the Protection and Advocacy for Individual Rights Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794e. Together, these statutes are referred to as the federal “Protection and Advocacy” or “P&A,” statutes, which “Congress enacted after concluding that state systems for protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities varied widely and were in many cases inadequate.” Disability Rights Wisconsin, 463 F.3d at 722. The Seventh Circuit explained in Disability Rights Wisconsin the reasons for favoring the acronym PAIMI in light of 1988 amendments to the Act. Id. at 722 n.2.
-2-

serious injury” and enacted the PAIMI to “ensure that the rights of individuals with mental illness are protected” and to “assist States to establish and operate a protection and advocacy system for individuals with mental illness which will . . . protect and advocate the rights of such individuals through activities to ensure the enforcement of the Constitution and Federal and State statutes . . . .” 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2)(A).
The PAIMI requires each state, as a condition of receiving certain federal funding, to designate a “system” (i.e., a government agency or private organization) as the protection and advocacy service for the state. 42 U.S.C. § 10803. The designated system or entity must comply with the conditions of independence and authority set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 10805. If a government agency is designated, the agency “shall be independent of any agency which provides treatment or services (other than advocacy services) to individuals with mental illness” and “shall have the capacity to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with mental illness.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 10804. The designated protection and advocacy agency must have, under federal law:
the authority to . . . pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care or treatment in the State; and pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies on behalf of an individual who . . . was an individual with a mental illness; and . . . is a resident of the State, but only with respect to matters which occur within 90 days after the date of discharge of such individual from a facility providing care or treatment.
42 U.S.C. §§ 10805(a)(1)(B), (C).
-3-

The federal statutory definition of an “individual with mental illness” includes any individual diagnosed with a significant mental illness or emotional impairment who is an inpatient or resident in a facility rendering care or treatment, including individuals involuntarily confined in a detention facility, jail, or prison, and Congress has defined “facilities” to include jails and prisons. 42 U.S.C. §§ 10802(3), (4); 42 C.F.R. § 51.2. In other words, under federal law, protection and advocacy services must have the ability to bring lawsuits on behalf of mentally ill prisoners.
Indiana has chosen to designate IPAS as the entity in Indiana to receive federal funding for protection and advocacy services for the mentally ill under the PAIMI. See Ind. Code § 12-28-1-1, et seq. As a matter of federal law, therefore, IPAS must have the independence and authority required under the PAIMI, including the authority to bring lawsuits on behalf of mentally ill prisoners.
IPAS is controlled by a governing board of thirteen persons. Ind. Code § 1228-1-6. Four of its members are appointed by the Governor. The other nine are appointed by majority vote of the governing board itself. Ind. Code § 12-28-16(a)(1), (2). No board member may be an official or employee of any state agency that delivers services to the population served by IPAS. Ind. Code § 12-28-1-6(b). Under the PAIMI, the IPAS board must “include a significant representation of individuals with mental illness who are, or have been eligible for services, or who have received or are receiving mental health services, and family members,
-4-

guardians, advocates, or authorized representatives of such individuals.” 42 C.F.R. § 51.22(b)(2). The PAIMI also requires that IPAS be guided by an advisory council, “at least 60 percent of the membership of which shall be comprised of individuals who have received or are receiving mental health services or who are family members of such individuals.” 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(6)(B).
Standard for Jurisdictional Challenge
When a defendant moves under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the allegations in the complaint, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1999); United Transp. Union v. Gateway Western Ry. Co., 78 F.3d 1208, 1210 (7th Cir. 1996). The court may consider additional evidence that the parties submit to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. Long, 182 F.3d at 554. Here, IPAS submitted the affidavit of Thomas Gallagher, the executive director of IPAS.
Discussion
I. Standing
The standing requirements under Article III of the Constitution are well settled: “injury in fact, a causal connection between the injury and the
-5-

defendant’s conduct, and likely redressability through a favorable decision.” Winkler v. Gates, 481 F.3d 977, 979 (7th Cir. 2007), citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). “Ordinarily . . . the allegation [of a reasonable probability of suffering tangible harm] is enough.” MainStreet Org. of Realtors v. Calumet City, 505 F.3d 742, 745 (7th Cir. 2007). The components of standing ensure that plaintiffs possess “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962).
Without referring in its opening brief to the applicable statutes or cases involving protection and advocacy agencies, IDOC argues that IPAS lacks standing because it has not alleged that IPAS itself has been injured and has not identified specifically any of its constituents who have been injured. IPAS does not argue that it has suffered injury or that, as an agency, it will benefit from a favorable decision. IPAS contends that it has associational standing to bring suit on behalf of its “client-constituents.” Pl. Response 9. As the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction, IPAS has the burden of establishing that it meets the requirements of standing. DH2, Inc. v. S.E.C., 422 F.3d 591, 596 (7th Cir. 2005).
As described above, by Congressional design, IPAS and the protection and advocacy agencies of other states are intermediary entities. They can be governmental agencies (like IPAS) or quasi-governmental entities that are
-6-

responsible for enforcing federal and state law on behalf of individuals with disabilities who otherwise would face perhaps insurmountable obstacles to seeing their rights enforced and their interests protected. The protection and advocacy system is not unique in this regard. In many fields, Congress has empowered other third parties, including state and federal agencies, to protect the rights of individuals disadvantaged for other reasons. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(a)(1) (authorizing fair housing organizations to “obtain enforcement of the rights granted by title VIII [of the Fair Housing Act] . . . through such appropriate judicial or administrative proceedings . . . as are available”); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (authorizing the Attorney General to initiate civil actions against private employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and § 2000e-4(g)(6) (authorizing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to “intervene in a civil action brought . . . by an aggrieved party”); 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) (granting Secretary power to initiate various civil actions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act); 15 U.S.C. § 15c (authorizing state attorneys general to bring a federal action on behalf of the state’s citizens under federal antitrust law).
These other entities certainly have standing to carry out Congress’s mandate in the federal courts because, as the Supreme Court has commented, while agencies normally do not have standing in their own right, Congress has the ability to grant that standing “by say[ing] so.” Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U.S. 122, 129-30 (1995) (holding that without clear statutory authority to do so,
-7-

government agency did not have standing to appeal arguably inadequate award of compensation to injured longshoreman, and collecting statutes that do provide clear authority for government agencies to act on behalf of individuals in similar matters). As part of the PAIMI, as with these other statutes, Congress has said so. As a condition of Indiana’s receipt of certain federal funding, IPAS must have standing to sue on behalf of mentally ill constituents. Congress cannot waive the constitutional requirements of Article III, but once those constitutional requirements are met, Congress has clearly vested IPAS and other protection and advocacy organizations with “the authority to . . . pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care or treatment in the State.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 10805(a)(1)(B).
In fact, courts around the country have rejected similar standing challenges to protection and advocacy services. See, e.g., Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1109-11 (9th Cir. 2003); Doe v. Stincer, 175 F.3d 879, 885-86 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that 42 U.S.C. § 10805 confers standing to bring suit on behalf of individuals with mental illness); New Jersey Protection & Advocacy, Inc. v. Davy, 2005 WL 2416962, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2005); University Legal Servs., Inc. v. Saint Elizabeths Hosp., 2005 WL 3275915, at *4-5 (D.D.C. July 22, 2005) (“By providing [P&As] the authority to sue on behalf of their constituents, Congress has cleared away any non-constitutional impediments for ULS . . . in situations stated in § 1085.”); Aiken v. Nixon, 236 F. Supp. 2d 211, 224 (N.D.N.Y.
-8-

2002) (finding that “in light of the fact that the Court has concluded that [the individual plaintiff] has standing to bring his individual claim, there are also sufficient allegations to find that [the P&A plaintiff] has associational standing to bring the same claims on behalf of its constituents.”); Risinger v. Concannon, 117 F. Supp. 2d 61, 68-70 (D. Me. 2000); Advocacy Center v. Stalder, 128 F. Supp. 2d 358, 365-66 (M.D. La. 1999); Brown v. Stone, 66 F. Supp. 2d 412, 425 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (“standing appears warranted” under 42 U.S.C. § 10805); Rubenstein v. Benedictine Hospital, 790 F. Supp. 396, 408-09 (N.D.N.Y. 1992) (finding standing under 42 U.S.C. § 10801, given its “broad remedial purposes” and “the statutory language apparently conferring a right upon entities such as DAI to pursue legal remedies”); Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Babin, 799 F. Supp. 695, 702 n.12 (E.D. Mich. 1992) (finding in reference to the PAIMI that “[i]t was clearly the intention of Congress that the MPAS and other similar advocacy groups represent and, if necessary, litigate on behalf of individuals suffering from developmental disabilities”), aff’d on other grounds, 18 F.3d 337 (6th Cir.1994); Protection and Advocacy, Inc. v. Murphy, 1992 WL 59100, *10 (N.D. Ill. 1992) ( “Federal courts have uniformly found that protection and advocacy systems have standing to sue in their own name to protect the rights of injured developmentally disabled or mentally ill individuals.”); Goldstein v. Coughlin, 83 F.R.D. 613, 614 (W.D.N.Y. 1979) (reasoning that “given the Congressional purpose to provide retarded persons with legal representation, as revealed in § 6012,” state’s designated advocacy group “need show no injury to itself in order to have standing in this action”); but see Missouri Protection and
-9-

Advocacy Services., Inc. v. Carnahan, 499 F.3d 803, 809-10 (8th Cir. 2007) (denying associational standing without discussion of protection and advocacy statutes or Congressional intent); Association for Retarded Citizens of Dallas v. Dallas County Mental Health & Mental Retardation Board of Trustees, 19 F.3d 241, 244 (5th Cir. 1994) (same).
Statutory standing is clear. In fact, this case presents the unusual drama of a state challenging the constitutionality of federal statutes under which the state receives federal funds. IDOC is challenging whether the federal statutory grant of standing to IPAS – a key condition of federal funding to Indiana – violates Article III of the United States Constitution. Constitutional standing requirements cannot be waived, of course, but the statutory grant of standing to protection and advocacy groups means that the so-called “prudential” elements of standing doctrine, including the limits on asserting the rights of others, do not apply. See, e.g., Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 322 F.3d at 1109-10 (explaining statutory effects on standing for protection and advocacy organizations); Risinger v. Concannon, 117 F. Supp. 2d at 68-70 (same).
As for the constitutional elements, courts usually structure the analysis of associational standing and the organization’s ability to bring suit on behalf of its members under the test articulated by the Supreme Court for private organizations in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977). Under the Hunt test, the protection and advocacy organization must show
-10-

that (1) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, (2) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose, and (3) neither the claims asserted, nor the relief requested, requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343. The third Hunt requirement does not derive from the Constitution. Instead, it is a judicially imposed limitation, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 556-57 (1996), which may be overridden by Congress. Family & Children’s Ctr., Inc. v. School City of Mishawaka, 13 F.3d 1052, 1059 (7th Cir.1994). It has been overridden by Congress in the realm of protection and advocacy organizations. E.g., Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 322 F.3d at 110911.
IPAS easily satisfies these constitutional criteria. Its mentally ill constituents clearly would have standing to sue on their own behalf for violations of federal and state law in the conditions of their custody. See Disability Rights Wisconsin, Inc. v. Walworth County Board of Supervisors, 522 F.3d 796, 802 (7th Cir. 2008) (applying Hunt test and recognizing that protection and advocacy organization would have standing if any individual whose rights it was supposed to protect would have standing). The interests that IPAS seeks to protect are not merely germane to the agency’s purpose, they are its reason for existence.
In this case, IPAS alleges generally in its complaint that “a significant number of prisoners committed to the care and custody of [IDOC] have serious
-11-

mental illnesses that significantly impede their ability to function within the prison environment,” and that IDOC “provides insufficient programs and placements to treat these prisoners and many are confined in segregation or excessively isolated and harsh conditions which exacerbate their illnesses and conditions where they fail to receive adequate mental health care.” Complaint ¶ 1; see also ¶ 72 (conditions in the segregation units maintained by IDOC create “a substantial risk of serious harm to the mentally ill prisoners who are confined there, including IPAS’ clients and constituents, and in fact cause them ongoing and severe harm”); ¶ 56 (confinement in isolation exacerbates the illnesses of prisoners who are mentally ill and is “extremely deleterious” to their mental health).
More specifically, IPAS alleges that mentally ill prisoners in the Residential Treatment and Chronic Care Units located at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City have “infrequent individual contact with mental health professionals.” Complaint ¶¶ 38, 40, 42-43. IPAS alleges that prisoners held in the Secure Mental Health Treatment Unit at the New Castle Correctional Facility are held in cells with solid cell doors and must interact with mental health professionals:
in short discussions at cell fronts which require the prisoner and professional to yell at each other through the solid cell door. This is an unsatisfactory and inappropriate mental health intervention inasmuch as there is absolutely no privacy. Because of the lack of confidentiality, it is extremely difficult to accurately assess the prisoner’s mental health functioning, and prisoners do not disclose necessary information concerning their mental conditions.
-12-

Complaint ¶ 54; see also ¶¶ 44, 46, 48, 54. IPAS alleges that the ACT program (a behavior modification program for prisoners in the SMHTU and other IDOC facilities) is not adequate or effective at treating mental illness. Complaint ¶ 55. IPAS alleges that mentally ill prisoners held in the Custody and Control Unit in the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility are often violently removed from their cells by armored correctional officers when those prisoners refuse to comply with officer orders because of their mental illnesses. Complaint ¶¶ 60, 64-65. These allegations of injury are sufficient to show that IPAS brings its suit on behalf of members of its constituency who, if IPAS’s allegations are taken as true, are suffering actual injury under IDOC’s policies. IPAS has standing to bring this lawsuit.
IDOC argues that while IPAS complains generally about IDOC procedures and policies allegedly harming mentally ill prisoners, it has not identified any specific individuals whose rights actually have been violated and thus has not met its constitutional standing requirements. Def. Reply 3. The court disagrees. The pleading requirement is not heightened for organizations to show standing, even under Hunt. To meet the first prong of that test, protection and advocacy organizations such as IPAS need only allege injury to their members or constituents. Disability Rights Wisconsin, 522 F.3d at 802. Contrary to IDOC’s contention, the Seventh Circuit does not require that the member or members suffering injury be named – actually, the court stated the opposite. Disability Rights Wisconsin, 522 F.3d at 802 (the first Hunt prong “still allows for the
-13-

member on whose behalf the suit is filed to remain unnamed by the organization”). IDOC has not pointed to any provision in the PAIMI or the Indiana statutes creating IPAS that could reasonably be read to require that IPAS name a specific individual in bringing suit to redress violations of the rights of individuals with mental illness.
IPAS has alleged that its constituents, mentally ill prisoners, are being housed in specific separation units within IDOC’s system and have suffered injury as a result of their isolation and limited access to mental health treatment. Congress granted IPAS standing by statute, and IPAS has sufficiently pled actual injury to its constituents so as to meet the constitutional requirements of Article III standing under Hunt and Disability Rights Wisconsin. IDOC’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing must be denied.
II. Disputes Between State Agencies
IDOC also moves to dismiss IPAS’s complaint on the ground that it presents only an “intramural” dispute between two state agencies. Def. Br. 6-7; Def. Reply 8-10. The Seventh Circuit has advised in dicta that “federal courts should not get involved unnecessarily in what may be intramural struggles of state government even if invited to do so by one of the contenders.” Mazanec v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corp., 763 F.2d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 1985). And it is difficult to see how a case or controversy exists within the meaning of Article III of the
-14-

Constitution if, for example, one state agency sues another and the heads of both agencies serve at the pleasure of the governor. In that scenario, it would be as if the governor were suing himself.
But IPAS is not a traditional state agency, and it is independent of the governor. IPAS is funded by the federal government under the PAIMI. It receives no state funding and has authority independent of the state to “pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care or treatment in the State.” 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(1)(B); see also Ind. Code § 12-28-1-12(3) (IPAS has legal authority to “provide legal and other advocacy services throughout Indiana to individuals or organizations on matters related to the protection of the legal and human rights of individuals with a developmental disability, individuals with a mental illness, and individuals who are seeking or receiving vocational rehabilitation services”).
The Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction serves at the pleasure of the Governor. IPAS is independent from the Governor. As Congress has mandated in the PAIMI, IPAS is governed by a multi-member governing board consisting of thirteen individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 10805(c)(1); Ind. Code § 12-28-1-6. Of those thirteen people, a minority (four) are appointed by Indiana’s Governor and the other nine are appointed by majority vote of the board itself. Ind. Code § 12-28-1-6(a). IPAS, then, by both funding and organizational structure, is
-15-

effectively insulated from direct control by the state’s executive. Unlike traditional state agencies, IPAS is, by Congressional design and mandate, independent from policy dictates of the state government. This is not a case in which one state agency seeks a larger slice of a limited state budget at the expense of a sister agency. Nor is it a case in which a rogue state agency is attempting to circumvent state policy, nor a case in which one agency reporting to the state’s highest executive is suing another state agency reporting to the state’s highest executive. IPAS has raised an actionable case or controversy against IDOC.

Defendant IDOC’s motion to dismiss is denied.

So ordered.

Date: July 21, 2009

___ DAVID F. HAMILTON, CHIEF JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Copies to:

David A. Arthur INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL David.Arthur@atg.in.gov, Michelle.Waire@atg.in.gov, Brenda.Mahana@atg.in.gov

Eric James Beaver INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL eric.beaver@atg.in.gov, michelle.waire@atg.in.gov

Karen T. Davis INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES ktdavis@ipas.in.gov

-16-

Debra Jean Dial INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES djdial@ipas.IN.gov Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA kfalk@aclu-in.org, kkendall@aclu-in.org Gary W. Ricks INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES gricks@ipas.IN.gov Gavin Minor Rose ACLU OF INDIANA grose@aclu-in.org David R. Smith INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES drsmith@ipas.in.gov
-17-

 
 Multiple Documents
Part Description 1 21 pages 2 Exhibit One - Offender Grievance Response Report (Joshua Harrison) 3 Exhibit Two - Offender Grievance Response Report (Greggory Sims) 4 Exhibit Three - Offender Grievance Program Formal Grievance (James D, Panozzo)
© 2012 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6L1EDE2O2?documentName=81.xml

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 413

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, on behalf of its clients and constituents; JOSHUA HARRISON, GREGGORY SIMS, JAMES PANOZZO, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:08-cv-1317-RLY-JMS

)

)

)

) CLASS ACTION-COMPLAINT

)

Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Introduction

1. A significant number of prisoners committed to the care and custody of the

Indiana Department of Correction have serious mental illnesses that significantly impede

their ability to function within the prison environment. The Indiana Department of

Correction provides insufficient programs and placements to treat these prisoners and

many are confined in segregation or excessively isolated and harsh conditions which

exacerbate their illnesses and conditions where they fail to receive adequate mental health

care. The failure of the Indiana Department of Correction and its agents to adequately

treat the prisoners in non-segregated and therapeutic environments violates the Eighth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the Americans with Disabilities

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. This action for

injunctive and declaratory relief is brought by Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 414
Commission (“IPAS”) which is empowered and charged by federal law to protect the rights of mentally ill and developmentally disabled individuals in Indiana and has standing to bring this action on behalf of its numerous clients and constituents who are mentally ill prisoners affected by defendant’s unlawful actions and inactions. It is also brought by three prisoners who suffer from mental illness who bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated. Jurisdiction, venue, cause of action 2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 3. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 4. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, as well as being brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act, 20 U.S.C. § 794. Parties 6. Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services (IPAS) is an agency, created under State law (Indiana Code § 12-28-1-1, et. seq.) pursuant to Federal mandate, which agency is funded through eight separate federal programs to advocate for and protect the rights and interests of developmentally disabled individuals, individuals with mental illness, and other persons with disabilities. 7. Joshua Harrison is an adult person who is committed to the Indiana Department of Correction and who is currently confined in the Indiana State Prison.
2

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 415
8. Greggory Sims is an adult person who is committed to the Indiana Department of Correction and who is currently confined in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, Indiana. 9. James Panozzo is an adult person who is committed to the Indiana Department of Correction and is currently confined in the New Castle Psychiatric Unit in the New Castle Correctional Facility in New Castle, Indiana. 10. Defendant Commissioner is the duly appointed head of the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”), a state agency which receives federal financial assistance and is a public entity as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B). Class action allegations 11. Plaintiff Harrison, Sims and Panozzo bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 12. The class is defined as:
all current and future mentally ill prisoners who are committed to the Indiana Department of Correction and who are housed in settings in Department of Correction institutions or in the New Castle Correctional Facility that feature extended periods of time in cells, including, but not limited to, prisoners in disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation, or in the New Castle Psychiatric Unit. 13. As defined, the class meets all the requirement of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, a The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The exact size will be determined through discovery. However, it is believed to be in the hundreds. b. There are questions of law or fact common to the class − whether their treatment by the Department of Correction violates the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
3

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 416
c. The claims of the representative parties are typical of those of the class. d. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 14. The further requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met in this cause in that the defendant, at all times, has acted and has refused to act in a manner generally applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. 15. Counsel for plaintiffs are appropriate and adequate attorneys to represent the class and should be appointed as attorneys for the class pursuant to Rule 23(g), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Factual allegations Facts concerning IPAS 17. The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801, et seq., provides for the establishment and funding of systems within each state which are designed to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with mental illness as well as to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of those with mental illness. 18. The federal funding is to be given to independent agencies or organizations which have the capacity to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with mental illness. 42 U.S.C. §§ 10804, 10805. 19. The system established by each State to protect and advocate the rights of mentally ill individuals must have the authority to “pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care or treatment in the State.” 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(1)(B).
4

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 417
20. Pursuant to Indiana law, Indiana Code § 12-28-1-1, et seq., IPAS has been designated as the protection and advocacy agency under both the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act and the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act. 21. IPAS receives absolutely no State funding. 22. IPAS has the legal authority to “[p]rovide legal and other advocacy services throughout Indiana to individuals or organizations on matters related to the protection of the legal and human rights of individuals with a developmental disability . . . [and] individuals with a mental illness.” IND. CODE §12-28-1-12(3). 23. IPAS has the legal authority to “sue and be sued” in its own name. IND. CODE § 12-28-1-12(4). 24. IPAS has the legal authority to enter into contractual relationships in its own name. Id. 25. IPAS has the legal authority to “apply for, solicit, and accept contributions or grants of money, property, or services made by gift, devise, bequest, grant or other means from any source.” IND. CODE § 12-28-1-12(5). 26. One of IPAS’ primary legal responsibilities is to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect involving individuals with mental illness and to advocate for appropriate treatment and programs for such individuals. IPAS’ legal role is to ensure that their legal and civil rights are provided for and protected; that they are treated with dignity and respect; and that they receive appropriate services to address their needs. 27. IPAS brings this action on behalf of prisoners within the DOC, who are currently clients and constituents of IPAS, and who are mentally ill and are confined in segregation
5

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 418
or other isolated confinement or seclusion settings, and who are not receiving adequate treatment programs. 28. The prisoner clients and constituents of IPAS in this action, confined within the DOC, are confined to “facilities” rendering care and treatment for the mentally ill as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 10802(3).
Facts concerning the levels of confinement within the DOC 29. Prisoners who are committed to the Indiana Department of Correction may be placed in, among other places, an array of state institutions which range from minimally restrictive to high security institutions. 30. These state institutions are owned, managed and operated by the State of Indiana with the exception of the New Castle Correctional Facility which, although owned by the State of Indiana, is operated and managed by the GEO Corporation, a private, for-profit, company, through a contract with the DOC and the DOC is ultimately in control of the care and custody of its prisoners confined there. 31. The lower security institutions feature dormitory-style housing and tend to house prisoners with less violent crimes and shorter criminal histories than those in the higher security-level prisons. 32. The higher security prisons, including Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, Indiana State Prison (also known as Michigan City), and Pendleton Correctional Facility, house many prisoners in cells and have prisoners who, because of their committing offense and criminal history, require closer supervision and restrictive security measures.
6

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 419
33. The higher security prisons contain segregation units where prisoners may be placed either for disciplinary reasons for a specific period of time or for indeterminate periods of time if the prisoners are on administrative segregation. 34. The DOC also maintains, at the Westville Correctional Facility and the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, secure confinement units which are long-term segregation units. 35. The DOC has specific policies and administrative procedures that govern both administrative and disciplinary segregation of prisoners. 36. By policy and procedure, prisoners who are in segregation will be placed in solitary cells generally for 23 hours each day. 37. They are released from their cells for a minimum of three solitary showers a week and for one hour of daily recreation. Some segregated prisoners receive recreation only 5 days a week. 38. The recreation may be solitary although outdoor recreation may take place in contiguous cages housing other prisoners engaged in outdoor recreation.
General facts concerning the treatment of mentally ill prisoners within the DOC system 39. All medical care, including mental health care, within the DOC, has been contracted to a private, for-profit, company, Correctional Medical Services. 40. Subsequent to the filing of the original complaint in this cause the DOC made changes in its housing and treatment of some, but not all, of its seriously mentally ill prisoners.
7

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 420
41. At the current time the DOC maintains a unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility called the Special Needs Unit or SNU that has 134 beds. The purpose of this unit is to provide transition into placement back into general population. 42. The DOC also maintains a crisis mental health stabilization unit at the New Castle Correctional Facility for seriously mentally ill prisoner in need of short term care and treatment. This unit has 32 single cells. 43. Also at the New Castle Correctional Facility there is now a 32 cell Chronic Care Unit for seriously mentally ill prisoners who are deemed to be so seriously mentally ill that they cannot live independently and successfully perform activities of daily living. 44. The New Castle Correctional Facility also contains 64 single cells reserved for seriously mentally ill prisoners who are deemed to be a substantial danger to themselves or others. This is now called the Behavioral Achievement Range. (“BAR”). 45. The units housing mentally ill prisoners at the New Castle Correctional Facility are known as the New Castle Psychiatric Unit. 46. Prisoners in the BAR report that they have infrequent contact with mental health staff. A number may have group therapy once a week and may see a therapist for individual discussions intermittently. 47. The prisoners in the BAR are housed behind solid doors which increase their feeling of isolation. 48. They are afforded individual recreation daily for one hour in either an indoor small cage or in an outdoor cage. 49. They are allowed three showers a week that are supposed to be for 15 minutes. However, at times prisoners are locked into the showers for much longer periods of time.
8

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 421
50. The doors to the cells in the BAR are solid doors with a small window and a cuff port that is locked from the outside except when it is opened to slide in meals or for the prisoner to extend his wrists so he can be cuffed from behind before he leaves the cell. 51. The prisoners are fed in their cells. 52. When prisoners are removed from their cells they wear leg chains and their hands are cuffed. 53. The large majority of interactions between the mentally ill prisoners and mental health professionals on the BAR take place in short discussions at cell fronts which require the prisoner and professional to yell at each other through the solid cell door. This is an unsatisfactory and inappropriate mental health intervention inasmuch as there is absolutely no privacy. Because of the lack of confidentiality, it is extremely difficult to accurately assess the prisoner’s mental health functioning, and prisoners do not disclose necessary information concerning their mental conditions. 54. Confinement in virtual isolation exacerbates the illnesses of those who are mentally ill and is extremely deleterious to the mental health of mentally ill prisoners. 55. There has recently been at least one suicide and another patient death in the BAR.
The continued segregation of mentally ill prisoners 56. There are a significant number of seriously mentally ill prisoners within the DOC who are confined in segregation units in various DOC institutions. 57. In these units they are subjected to severe isolation and lack of environmental stimulation. This isolation is extremely detrimental and harmful to the mental health of mentally ill persons.
9

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 422
58. In these units the primary, if not sole, contact the prisoners will have with mental health staff will be brief conversations at their cell doors which, for the reasons indicated above, is wholly inadequate. 59. An example of the segregation units to which mentally ill persons are being confined is the Custody and Control Unit which is located at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. 60. There are a significant number of prisoners on this unit who are mentally ill. 61. As in all segregation units, those imprisoned in this unit are held in isolation for 23 hours a day. They are released for solitary recreation and showers. 62. The prisoners are held behind solid doors which only increases their isolation and the mental health problems flowing from the isolation. 63. Mentally ill prisoners on this segregation unit report that they are frequently and violently extracted from their cells by armored correctional officers. 64. These violent encounters are often caused by the prisoners’ mental illness when, for example, they engage in such irrational behavior as refusing to “cuff up” so they can leave their cells. 65. The Westville Control Unit at the Westville Correctional Facility also contains a large number of seriously mentally ill persons. 66. Mentally ill prisoners confined in other segregation units throughout the DOC do not see mental health staff with any frequency. The named plaintiffs
Joshua Harrison 67. Joshua Harrison is an adult resident of Indiana.
10

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 423
68. He is currently confined in the Indiana State Prison, although he was in Westville Control Unit from November of 2008 until October of 2009 for disciplinary segregation. 69. He is diagnosed as having an Axis I diagnosis of, among other things, Impulse Control disorder, unspecified. 70. While at the Westville Control Unit he was released from his cell for five one hour solitary recreation periods and five short showers a week. The rest of the time he was confined to his cell. 71. While at the Westville Control Unit he was in the ACT Program, but was removed from it after he received a disciplinary write-up. However, all that occurred in the ACT program was that he completed worksheets in his cell and handed them in to the correctional counselor. He never received any sort of therapy or treatment. 72. While at the Westville Control Unit, approximately every two weeks or so, someone from the mental health department would come to his cell front to ask if he was doing OK. He was never taken out of the cell to talk to a mental health counselor. It was not possible to have meaningful and therapeutic conversations about his mental health issues through his cell door because all other prisoners and staff nearby would be able to hear the conversations. 73. While at the Westville Control Unit he was prescribed medications for his mental illness and approximately every 90 days he was seen by a psychiatrist to review his medications. He refused his medications because they did not do any good and he was not being allowed to receive the medications that have assisted him in the past. 74 He has a history of suicidal behavior.
11

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 424
75. The persistent isolation of the Westville Control Unit made his mental health conditions worse. He had visual and auditory hallucinations. He sat in his cell and stressed all day. 76. While at the Westville Control Unit he was placed in a strip cell for 24 hours at a time for punishment. A prisoner placed in this cell is stripped to his shorts. When he was in the strip cell he was not examined by anyone from the institution’s mental health department. He was fed sack food of bologna sandwiches for all his meals. 77. The Westville Control Unit was an inappropriate placement for him and all other persons who are seriously mentally ill. He is aware that there are many other mentally ill prisoners also confined in the isolated environment of the Westville Control Unit. 78. His disciplinary segregation is now over and he has been moved to the Indiana State Prison and reclassified for Administrative Segregation. 79. He has been in administrative segregation in Michigan City previously and is aware that in Administrative Segregation he will continue to be isolated in a solitary cell. 80. He understands that there is no mental health programming or treatmentin administrative segregation. Approximately once a month a mental health professional will walk the range and will talk to prisoners at their cell front to assess their situation and condition. It is not possible to have a meaningful conversation with a therapist in this environment. 81. The only time he will be out of his cell regularly is for recreation five days a week for approximately one hour and a 15 minute shower 7 days a week. 82. The continued isolation and lack of treatment will make his mental condition worsen.
12

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 425
83. He desires to have group therapy and other mental health treatment in a prison setting that does not feature prolonged isolation. 84. He has fully exhausted his grievances to challenge the failure to provide him in an adequate setting and with adequate treatment as is shown by the attached. (Exhibit 1).
Greggory Sims 85. Greggory Sims is an adult resident of Indiana. 86. He is diagnosed as having an Axis I diagnosis of unspecified psychosis. 85. He has recently been moved to the Indiana State Prison. Prior to that he was confined in the Westville Control Unit at the Westville Correctional Facility for disciplinary segregation and in other segregated settings within the DOC, including the secure confinement unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility which was the subject of the private settlement agreement referred to earlier in this amended complaint. 87. While at the Westville Control Unit he was released from his cell for five one hour solitary recreation periods and five short showers a week. The rest of the time he was confined to his cell. 88. While at the Westville Control Unit he was, for a period of time, in the ACT Program, but was removed from it after he received a disciplinary write-up. However, all that occurred in the ACT program was that he completed worksheets in his cell and handed them in to the correctional counselor. He never received any sort of therapy or treatment. 89 While at the Westville Control Unit periodically, approximately every thirty days or so, someone from the mental health department will come to his cell front to ask if he wass doing OK. He was never taken out of the cell to talk to a mental health counselor.
13

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 426
It was not possible to have meaningful and therapeutic conversations about his mental health issues through his cell door because all other prisoners and staff nearby would be able to hear the conversations. 90. He is prescribed medications for his mental illness and approximately every 90 days he is seen by a psychiatrist to review his medications. 91. The persistent isolation of the segregation units he has been in makes him paranoid and makes his mental health conditions worse. 92. The Westville Control Unit was an inappropriate placement for him and all other persons who are seriously mentally ill. He is aware that there are many other mentally ill prisoners also confined in the isolated environment of the Westville Control Unit. 93. He was recently transferred to the Indiana State Prison and has been classified to be placed in administrative segregation.. 94. He has been placed into administrative segregation in Michigan City previously and is aware of the conditions there. 95. In administrative segregation prisoners are in solitary cells 96. He will be allowed out for recreation and a shower five days a week for 75 minutes and for another two days will be allowed out for a short period of time during which he can take a shower.. 97. On administrative segregation he and the other prisoners are not afforded any regular mental health treatment. Approximately every 30 days someone from the mental health department will come to prisoners’ cell fronts and inquire as to their mental status. These are brief conversations only and, as indicated above, it is not possible to have
14

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 427
meaningful and therapeutic conversations about his mental health issues through his cell door because all other prisoners and staff nearby will be able to hear the conversations. 98. He desires to have group therapy and other mental health treatment in a prison setting that does not feature prolonged isolation. 99. In 2007, shortly after he was placed into the Westville Control Unit, he filed a grievance challenging his placement and requesting that he be moved to a place where he can obtain treatment. The grievance was denied and is fully exhausted. The grievance is attached. (Exhibit 2). He has exhausted all available grievances.
James Panozzo 100. James Panozzo is an adult resident of Indiana. 101. He is currently confined in the BAR in the New Castle Psychiatric Unit at the New Castle Correctional Facility. 102. He has been diagnosed in the past as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia as well as schizo-affective disorder. He is currently diagnosed as having antisocial personality disorder as well as borderline personality disorder. 103. He has been confined in the New Castle Psychiatric Unit since October of 2008. 104. He was confined to the secure housing unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility for many years. 105. Although he has previously been on anti-psychotic medications, the have been discontinued by the psychiatrist at New Castle. 106. He has frequent auditory hallucinations and sometimes has visual hallucinations. 107. He has a history of injuring himself and has suicidal thoughts. 108. He is very depressed and often does not eat for days.
15

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 428
109. Although he is supposed to be in a setting that treats his serious mental illness, he receives little treatment at New Castle. 110. He is supposed to be in group therapy once a week with two other prisoners. However, the sessions are often cancelled. 111. He is also taken out of his cell to speak individually to a mental health professional. This does not occur frequently. He last met with someone in early September. 112. He is confined to a small solitary cell except for an hour of recreation each day and three showers a week. The showers are only supposed to be for 15 minutes. However, sometimes the guards leave prisoners in the showers for hours. 113. The persistent isolation makes his mental condition worsen. 114. As discipline prisoners may be served nutraloaf instead of regular food. This is a food substance made by cooking vegetables together so they form a block. All the prisoners receive for their meals is a portion of nutraloaf and two pieces of bread. He was fed nutraloaf as punishment for two weeks. 115. Mr. Panozzo attempted to file a grievance concerning his placement. His grievance and the response is attached. (Exhibit 3). He attempted to appeal this but was informed by the staff person who is responsible for grievances, David Ittenbach, that he was not going to assign Mr. Panozzo an appeal number because it was a waste of time. He was therefore not able to appeal the matter further. 116 He has exhausted all grievance remedies that are available to him. 117. The New Castle Correctional Facility is an inappropriate placement for him and all other persons who are seriously mentally ill.
16

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 429
118. He desires to have mental health treatment in a prison setting that does not feature prolonged isolation.
General factual allegations 119. IPAS represents as clients and constituents severely mentally ill prisoners who are placed in segregation throughout the DOC as well as in the BAR. 120. The segregation units as well as the BAR into which the DOC has placed the seriously mentally prisoners, feature severe social isolation, lack of environmental stimulation, and lack of frequent contact with mental health staff and cause psychological deterioration of the prisoners confined there. 121. These conditions create a substantial risk of serious harm to the mentally ill prisoners who are confined there, including plaintiffs, the putative class, and IPAS’ clients and constituents, and in fact cause them ongoing and severe harm. 122. These conditions deprive mentally ill prisoners, including plaintiffs, the putative class, and IPAS’ clients and constituents, of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. 123. The psychological and mental health needs of these prisoners, including plaintiffs, the putative class, and IPAS’ clients and constituents, represent a serious medical need and the exacerbation of their illnesses and conditions due to the conditions of their confinement also constitutes a serious medical need. 124. Despite prior litigation which highlighted the danger of confining mentally ill prisoners in 23 hour-a-day isolation, the defendant continues to do so and has failed to provide adequate mental health care for persons so confined, including plaintiffs, the putative class, and IPAS’ clients and constituents.
17

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 430
125. The defendant is aware of the risk of harm caused by this form of confinement and is deliberately indifferent to it. 126. The prolonged isolated confinement of mentally ill persons, including plaintiffs, the putative class, and IPAS’ clients and constituents, causes severe harm and defendant, at all times, has been aware of this fact. 127. The defendant has not reasonably accommodated the mentally ill prisoners in segregated and isolated conditions, including plaintiffs, the putative class, and IPAS’ clients and constituents, by providing appropriate treatment in non-segregated and nonisolated environments. 128. Providing such an accommodation would not be a fundamental alteration in the services provided by the DOC. 129. The continued confinement of mentally ill prisoners, including plaintiffs, the putative class, and IPAS’ clients and constituents, in the segregated and isolated conditions noted above, and without appropriate treatment, is causing them irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 130. The mentally ill prisoners confined within the DOC, including plaintiffs, the putative class, and IPAS’ clients and constituents, are qualified individuals with a disability as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(2), 12131(2), and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Specifically, they have mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of the major life activities, as well as having records of having such impairments and further are regarded as having such impairments.
18

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 431
131. As qualified individuals with disabilities, the mentally ill prisoners within the DOC, including plaintiffs, the putative class, and IPAS’ clients and constituents, meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in activities provided by defendant. 132. At all times defendant has acted under color of state law. Legal claims 133. The continued confinement of mentally ill prisoners, including plaintiffs, the putative class, and IPAS’ clients and constituents, in the segregated and isolated conditions noted above, and without adequate and appropriate mental health care and treatment, violates the rights of the prisoners to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution as made applicable to the State of Indiana by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 134. Defendant has discriminated against the mentally ill prisoners, including plaintiffs, the putative class, and IPAS’ clients and constituents, in segregated and isolated confinement throughout the DOC by failing to provide non-segregated and nonisolated housing and increased treatment as a reasonable accommodation to prevent confinement conditions which exacerbate the prisoners’ mental illnesses. This represents discrimination against these prisoners in violation of both the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Request for relief
WHEREFORE, the individual plaintiffs and IPAS, on behalf of the mentally ill prisoners who are its clients and constituents, request that this Court:
19

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 432
a. Accept jurisdiction of this case and set it for hearing at the earliest opportunity.
b. Certify this case as a class action as defined above with the class defined as indicated above.
c. Declare that the actions and inactions of defendant are unlawful and unconstitutional for the reasons specified above.
d. Enter a preliminary injunction, later to be made permanent, enjoining defendant from continuing to violate the constitutional and statutory rights of the mentally ill prisoners noted above and enjoining it to provide adequate treatment to the prisoners in appropriate and therapeutic settings.
e. Award plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , 42 U.S.C. § 12205, and 29 U.S.C. § 794.
f. Award all other proper relief.
/s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk No. 6777-49 Gavin M. Rose No. 26565-53 ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org grose@aclu-in.org
/s/ David R. Smith David R. Smith No. 14658-49 Karen T. Davis No. 4825-49 Debra J. Dial No. 19779-49 Gary W. Ricks No. 18246-49 Indiana Protection and
20

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81 Filed 12/02/09 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 433

Advocacy Services 4701 N. Keystone Ave. Suite 222 Indianapolis, IN 46205 317/722-5555 fax: 317/722-5564 drsmith@ipas.IN.gov ktdavis@ipas.IN.gov djdial@ipas.IN.gov gricks@ipas.IN.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that this 12th day of November, 2009, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of this Court. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system and the parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

David A. Arthur Deputy Attorney General david.arthur@atg.in.gov

Eric Beaver Deputy Attorney General eric.beaver@atg.in.gov

/s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk Attorney at Law

21

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81-1 Filed 12/02/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 434

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81-1 Filed 12/02/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 435

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81-2 Filed 12/02/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 436

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81-2 Filed 12/02/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 437

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81-3 Filed 12/02/09 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 438

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81-3 Filed 12/02/09 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 439

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 81-3 Filed 12/02/09 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 440

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION et al v. COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Docket No. 1:08-cv-01317 (S.D. Ind. Oct 01, 2008), Court Docket
General Information

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

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION et al v. COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
1:08-cv-01317
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Prisoner Petitions: Habeas Corpus - Prison Condition
642 F. Supp. 2d 872 2010 BL 98421

© 2012 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6L1EDE2O2?documentName=81.xml

 
 Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

2010 WL 1737821 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.
INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, Defendant.
No. 1:08-cv-01317-RLY-JMS. | April 27, 2010.
Attorneys and Law Firms
David R. Smith, Debra Jean Dial, Gary W. Ricks, Karen T. Davis, Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services, Gavin Minor Rose, Kenneth J. Falk, ACLU of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs.
David A. Arthur, Eric James Beaver, Indiana Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant.
Opinion

ORDER

JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, Magistrate Judge.
*1 Presently before the Court is the Motion to Certify Class that Plaintiffs Joshua Harrison, James Panozzo, and Greggory Sims (the “Individual Plaintiffs” ) have filed. [Dkt. 85.]1 Defendant, the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (in his official capacity only) (the “Commissioner” ), filed no response to the Motion to Certify Class. As a result of that failure to respond, that motion is, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b), subject to summary ruling, as the Individual Plaintiffs argue in their Motion for Summary Ruling to Grant Class Certification Motion, [dkt. 101].

1

According to the docket, Mr. Sims spells his first name

with three g’s. Further, although not seeking to be a

class representative, the Court notes that the Seventh

Circuit has recently confirmed the ability of Plaintiff

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services to litigate in

federal court without violating the Eleventh Amendment. See Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services, 2010 U.S.App. LEXIS 8380 (7th Cir.2010) (en banc).

The Individual Plaintiffs in this action are prisoners who claim that they are receiving inadequate mental health care while in segregation or isolation status and also claim that their segregation or isolation status exacerbates their mental disorders, all in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C § 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. The Individual Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class for the purposes of this action:

all current and future mentally ill

prisoners who are committed to the

Indiana Department of Correction

and who are housed in settings in

Department of Correction

institutions or in the New Castle

Correctional Facility that feature

extended periods of time in cells,

including, but not limited to,

prisoners

in

disciplinary

segregation,

administrative

segregation, or in the New Castle

Psychiatric Unit.

[Dkt. 86 at 1.]

To qualify for class-action status, an action must meet the four prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), which are commonly called “numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.” In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litig., 261 F.R.D. 154, 166 (S.D.Ind.2009). Additionally, it must satisfy one of three provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b).

A. Numerosity A class must be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(a)(1). The Court finds this prerequisite satisfied here because the Individual Plaintiffs estimate, and the Commissioner hasn’t disputed, that the proposed class encompasses “hundreds” of members, [dkt. 86 at 3], well above the forty typically necessary to establish numerosity, McCabe
1

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

v. Crawford & Co., 210 F.R.D. 631, 644 (N.D.Ill.2002) (collecting cases). Further, both the transient nature of the inmate population and the request for injunctive relief that will also inure to the benefit of future, currently unknowable, class members likewise support a finding that joinder is impracticable. See Andre H. v. Ambach, 104 F.R.D. 606, 611 (S.D.N.Y.1985); Rosario v. Cook County, 101 F.R.D. 659, 661 (N.D.Ill.1983).
B. Commonality Next, a class action must implicate “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(a)(2). “A certifiable class claim must arise out of the same legal or remedial theory,” Patterson v. General Motors Corp., 631 F.2d 476, 481 (7th Cir.1980) (citation omitted), which in this Circuit is usually satisfied if the class members’ claims share “[a] common nucleus of operative fact,” that is, some “common question ... at the heart of the case,” Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir.1992) (citation omitted). Several such common questions exist here, including about the nature and extent of the mental health treatment that the Commissioner provides and the effects that isolation or segregation status have on mental disorders. Accordingly, the commonality prerequisite is satisfied.
C. Typicality *2 For the third prerequisite to class certification, “claims ... of the representative parties [must be] typical of the claims ... of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(a)(3). A proposed class representative can satisfy this prerequisite if his or her “claim ... arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and his or her claims are based on the same legal theory. The typicality requirement may be satisfied even if there are factual distinctions between the claims of the named plaintiffs and those of other class members.” De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225, 232 (7th Cir.1983) (quotation and citation omitted). Because the Individual Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same mental health treatment options, or lack thereof, as that of the proposed class and because all the claims are premised upon the same legal theories, the Court finds that the Individual Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the proposed class.

D. Adequacy To satisfy the fourth prerequisite for class-action status, the Court must find that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(a)(4). This is a two-pronged inquiry, “one relates to the adequacy of the named plaintiffs’ representation of the class and requires that there be no conflict between the interests of the representative and those of the class in general; the other relates to the adequacy of class counsel’s representation.” In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litig., 261 F.R.D. at 168 (citation omitted). Because the Individual Plaintiffs seek the same injunctive and declaratory relief for themselves as they do for the proposed class, no conflict of interest exists. Further, based upon the Court’s experience with the Individual Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case, and in others, the Court is confident that counsel will zealously and effectively advocate for the class. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Individual Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives and that their counsel should be appointed to represent the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
E. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) Where, as here, a proposed class satisfies all the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), class certification is appropriate if the class qualifies as one of the types listed under subsection b. The Individual Plaintiffs argue, and the Court agrees, that the proposed class fits within subsection b(2), in that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole,” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b)(2). Because this action seeks injunctive relief to prevent future allegedly illegal deprivations of civil rights, it is a “prime example[ ]” of a proper class under Rule 23(b)(2). Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997) (citation omitted); see also Doe v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 145 F.R.D. 466, 477 (N.D.Ill.1992) (“[T]he primary limitation on the use of Rule 23(b)(2) is the requirement that injunctive or declaratory relief be the predominant remedy requested for the class members.”).
CONCLUSION
2

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

*3 The Motion for Summary Ruling to Grant Class Certification Motion, [dkt. 101], is GRANTED.
The Court finds that this action qualifies for class-action treatment because all the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and the requirements of 23(b)(2) are satisfied. The Motion to Certify Class, [dkt. 85], is thus GRANTED.
The Court now CERTIFIES the following class:
all current and future mentally ill prisoners who are committed to the Indiana Department of Correction and who are housed in settings in Department of Correction institutions or in the New Castle Correctional Facility that feature extended periods of time in cells, including, but not limited to,

prisoners

in

disciplinary

segregation,

administrative

segregation, or in the New Castle

Psychiatric Unit.

Plaintiffs Joshua Harrison, James Panozzo, and Greggory Sims are appointed as representative plaintiffs of the class so certified. Their current counsel are appointed as counsel for the class.

The parties shall meet and confer about whether notice should issue to the proposed class and, if so, about the method that the notice should take. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(c)(2)(A). Within fourteen days, the parties shall submit a joint report (and, if necessary, competing proposals) regarding the results of their meet-and-confer.

	  

3

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 120 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 599

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY )

SERVICES COMMISSION, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 1:08-CV-1317 RLY-JMS

Qualified Protective Order Pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Indiana Statutes

Come now the parties, having filed their Joint Stipulation to Enter Qualif ied Protective

Order Pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and State law, and the

Court having read the stipulation, and being duly advised, finds that good cause exists to grant it,

and,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the pl aintiffs’ counsel and their agents and

employees may review the protected health reco rds of past and current prisoners within the

Indiana Department of Correction (including th e New Castle Corre ctional Facility) who have

been, are, or will be mem bers of the certif ied class in th is case as well as all past and present

prisoners with mental health diagnoses or who are in is olated or segregated environments within

the Indiana Department of Correction (including the New Castle Correctional Facility) subject to

the following Qualified Protective Order which is hereby entered in this cause.

a. The plaintiffs are prohibited from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other th an the litigation or proceeding for which the information has been, and will be, requested.

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 120 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 600

b. At the conclusion of this action, plainti ffs shall return to the Indiana Departm ent of Correction, or shall destroy, the prot ected health inform ation, including all copies made.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that the actu al health records may not be disclosed to the patient/prisoner without class counsel first notifying defendant’s couns el in writing or by electronic mail of the intent to do so and allowing a reasonable tim e to object to disclosure. If defendant’s counsel objects, the health records may not be disclosed to the patient/prisoner until the objection is resolved, either between counsel or by the Court. If defendant’s counsel does not agree to allowing disclosure of the specific health record to the patient prisoner, the dispute over disclosure may be subm itted to the Cour t in an appropriate discovery motion. Plaintiffs may seek judicial m odification of this portion of the agreement if their co unsel believe that it is interfering with their ability to prepare this case for trial or to otherwise represent their clients.

_0_6_/_0_1_/2_0_1_0 Date

________________________________________

Judge,

United State_s_D__i_s_tr_i_c_t______________________

Jane Magnus-Stinson

cc:

United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana

Kenneth J. Falk ACLU of Indiana kfalk@aclu-in.org

Gavin M. Rose ALCU of Indiana grose@aclu-in.org

David R. Smith Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission drsmith@ipas.in.gov

Karen T. Davis Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission ktdavis@ipas.gov

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 120 Filed 06/01/10 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 601
Debra J. Dial Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission djdial@ipas.in.gov
Gary W. Ricks Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission gricks@ipas.in.gov
David A. Arthur Deputy Attorney General david.arthur@atg.in.gov
Eric Beaver Deputy Attorney General eric.beaver@atg.in.gov

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 153 Filed 11/22/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 707

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY )

SERVICES COMMISSION, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 1:08-CV-1317 TWP-DML

ORDER
This case is before the court on the p arties' Joint Motion Allowing Disclosu re of Identities
of Interviewees and Providing for a Protective Order. Having considered the motion, the court
determines it should be GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
a. Plaintiffs shall disclose to defendant, through his counsel, the identity of prisoners referred by anonymous identifiers in the reports of plaintiffs’ experts.
b. The parties shall k eep the identity of the prisoners confidential subject to further agreement of the parties, Order of the Court, or waiver of confidentiality by the prisoner.

_1_1_/2_2_/_2_0_1_0_ Date
cc:

_______________________________________________

Judge,

U__n_i_t_e_d__S_t_a_te_s__D__is_t_r_ic_t__C_o_u__rt__________

Debra McVicker Lynch

United States Magistrate Judge

Southern District of Indiana

Kenneth J. Falk ACLU of Indiana kfalk@aclu-in.org

Gavin M. Rose

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 153 Filed 11/22/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 708
ACLU of Indiana grose@aclu-in.org
David R. Smith Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services drsmith@ipas.in.gov
Karen T. Davis Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services ktdavis@ipas.in.gov
David A. Arthur Deputy Attorney General david.arthur@atg.in.gov

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 170 Filed 03/28/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 846

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY )

SERVICES COMMISSION,

)

JOSHUA HARRISON,

)

GREGGORY SIMS,

)

JAMES PANOZZO,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

) No. 1:08-cv-1317-TWP-MJD

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

CA #11-1504

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

E N T R Y
This matter is before the Court on John E. Thomas’ Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis. (Dkt. No. 169). Fo r the reasons stated below, the Motion in Denied.
Mr. Thomas, a non-party to this matter isa state prisoner who filed a Motion to have a 3-judge panel convened to adjudicate his claims (Dkt. No. 165). His Motion was denied because Thomas is not a party to t he case and the circumstances warranting a 3-judge panel were not presented. Mr. Thomas has ifled an appeal from this ruling. The appeal has been docketed as No. 11-1504 and the short re cord on appeal has been prepared and transmitted.
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies t hat the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). "Good faith within the meaning of § 1915 mustbe judged by an objective, not a subjective, standard. Id. There is no objectively reasonable argument which Mr. Thomas could present to argue that r esolution of his motion for a 3-judge panel was erroneous. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a prisoner is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis based on his prior civliiltigation history in filing actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. The order in question is not

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 170 Filed 03/28/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 847

appealable at this time and Mr. Thomas has “struck out” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)1. This latter factor renders Mr. Thomas ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis. In pursuing an appeal, therefore, Mr. Thomas “is acting in bad faith . . . [because] to sue in bad faith means merely to sue on the basis of a frivolous claim, which is to say a claim that no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.”Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000).
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Thomas’ request for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 169) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 03/28/2011
Distribution:
Kenneth J. Falk kfalk@aclu-in.org
David Ross Smith drsmith@ipas.in.gov
Gavin Minor Rose grose@aclu-in.org
Karen T. Davis ktdavis@ipas.in.gov
David A. Arthur David.Arthur@atg.in.gov
John Eric Thomas 137153 Wabash Valley Correctional Facility 6908 S. Old US Highway 41 Carlisle, IN 47838.

________________________ Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

1In Evans v. Illinois Department of Corrections,150 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 1998), it was noted that a prisoner-litigant in these circumstances is entitled to know the cases the court relies on when making the 3-strikes determination. For Mr. Thomas’ reference, the cases on which the court relies in finding three or more “strikes” consist of the following:
Thomas v. Gant, No. IP 98-1334-C-T/K (S.D.Ind. May 23, 2002)(denying in forma pauperis on appeal); No. 02-2484 (7th Cir. April 2, 2003)(same)
Thomas v. Marsh, TH 02-177-C-T/F (S.D. Ind. July 2, 2002)(action dismissed for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g))
Thomas v. Marsh, TH 02-177-C-T/F (S.D.Ind. July 2, 2002)(denying in forma pauperis on appeal).

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANA PROTECTION AND

)

ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 1:08-CV-1317-TWP-MJD

Entry Discussing Motion filed by Leroy Jeffers The motion to commute sentence of Indiana inmate Leroy Jeffers filed on September 30, 2011, has been considered. Mr. Jeffers may or may not be a member of the plaintiff-class. Assuming for the present that he is, however, his motion to commute his sentence from an Indiana state court does not establish that he is entitled t o relief. More specifically, he alleges in his motion that the particular circumstances of his confinement violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment and that Indiana is unable to care for his myriad physical and mental health needs. It would be exc eptional for a federal cour t to determine that release of a state inmate is compelled by the circumstances of his confinement. It has occurred recently , as the parties are aware, in Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1930-31 (2011)(confirming that injunctive relief may be instituted only as “nec essary to correct a current and ongoing violation” (citing 18 U. S.C. § 3626), but the court has not concluded that there is a constitutional violation associated with the plaintiffs’ claims and has not ordered any

particular relief, much less that specific inm ates or that inmates with particular profile s be released. Such an order, moreover, w ould not negate or modify an inmate’s sentence.
For the reasons explained above, therefore, Mr. Jeffers is not entitled to the relief sought in his motion to commute sentence, and that motion [Dkt. 249] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: __1_0_/_31_/_2_0_1_1_________

________________________ Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
David A. Arthur David.Arthur@atg.in.gov
Thomas D. Quigley tquigley@idoc.in.gov
Wade J. Hornbacher wade.hornbacher@atg.in.gov
Karen T. Davis ktdavis@ipas.in.gov
Kenneth J. Falk kfalk@aclu-in.org

Gavin Minor Rose grose@aclu-in.org
Jan P. Mensz jmensz@aclu-in.org
David Ross Smith drsmith@ipas.in.gov
Leroy R Jeffers DOC #28668 New Castle Correctional Facility - Box E 1000 Van Nuys Road PO Box E New Castle, IN 47362

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 273 Filed 04/06/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3844

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANA PROTECTION AND

)

ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, )

JOSHUA HARRISON, GREGGORY SIMS, )

JAMES PANOZZO,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 1:08-CV-1317-TWP-MJD

Entry Discussing Motion filed by Leroy Jeffers The motion for relief/writ filed by Indiana inmate Leroy Jeffers on October 14, 2011, has been considered. Mr. Jeffers may or may not be a member of the plaintiff-class. Assuming for the present that he is, however, his motion for relief/writ [Dkt. 253] is denied. The reason for this ruling is that Mr. Jeffers’ request to be released on parole and/or for the restoration of forfeited good time is not connected with the identified issues in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 04/06/2012

________________________ Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 273 Filed 04/06/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3845
Distribution:
All Electronically Registered Counsel Leroy R. Jeffers DOC #28668 Westville Correctional Facility Inmate Mail/Parcels 5501 South 1100 West Westville, IN 46391

 
 Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

2012 WL 6738517 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.
INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, on behalf of its clients
and constituents, Joshua Harrison, Greggory Sims, and James Panozzo, on their own behalf and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant.
No. 1:08–cv–01317–TWP–MJD. | Dec. 31, 2012.
Attorneys and Law Firms
David Ross Smith, Thomas E. Crishon, Indiana Protection & Advocacy Svcs, Gavin Minor Rose, Kenneth J. Falk, ACLU of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs.
David A. Arthur, Wade J. Hornbacher, Thomas D. Quigley, Indiana Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant.
Opinion
ENTRY FOLLOWING BENCH TRIAL
TANYA WALTON PRATT, District Judge.
*1 A bench trial commenced in this case on July 25, 2011 and concluded on July 29, 2011. Plaintiffs, Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission (“IPAS”), Joshua Harrison, Greggory Sims, and James Panozzo (collectively the “Plaintiffs”), filed an action against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) claiming that the continual confinement of seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregation violates their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The parties were present by their counsel of record. Evidence was submitted and thereafter, the parties submitted supplemental records as part of the evidence, and the Court, accompanied by counsel, toured portions

of two of the prisons discussed during the trial. Given the volume of evidence, 29 volumes and a five volume transcript, post-trial briefs were then filed. This Entry shall constitute the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52.1 The Court hereby renders its final decision regarding the matters presented at trial and finds Plaintiffs have prevailed as to their Eighth Amendment claim.

1

Any finding of fact that is more properly considered a

conclusion of law is adopted as such and vice versa. In

addition, the Court recognizes that there was conflicting

testimony on some of the issues presented at trial and

discussed herein. The Court has considered all of the

evidence presented by the parties and the credibility of

all of the witnesses in arriving at its findings of fact.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT2

2

Certain issues of fact cannot be resolved in this case

without making a determination of which version of the

pivotal events was more credible. In making this and

other determinations as to contested issues, the Court

has considered the customary factors associated with

credibility—e.g., demeanor, detail, consistency,

opportunity to observe or perceive the events testified

to. It has not relied solely on the number of witnesses

who related a particular event or on any other single

factor. The Court must weigh a number of issues when

making a credibility determination of a witness,

including the witness’s interest in the outcome of the

case, his or her candor, and the extent to which he or

she has been supported or contradicted by other

credible evidence. Courts have also weighed such

factors as a witness’s state of mind, strength of

memory, and demeanor and manner on the witness

stand. Valdez v. Church’s Fried Chicken, Inc., 683

F.Supp. 596, 606 (W.D.Texas 1988) (citing Heelan v.

Johns–Manville Corp., 451 F.Supp. 1382, 1385

(D.Colo.1978)).

A. The Parties The Plaintiffs. In 1986, upon finding that “individuals with mental illness are vulnerable to abuse and serious injury,” Congress enacted the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, the Protection and Advocacy for Developmental Disabilities Act, and the
1

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

Protection and Advocacy for Individual Rights Act (collectively, the “PAIMI Act”). The purpose of the PAIMI Act is to “ensure that the rights of individuals with mental illness are protected” and to “assist States to establish and operate a protection and advocacy system for individuals with mental illness which will ... protect and advocate the rights of such individuals through activities to ensure the enforcement of the Constitution and Federal and State statutes....” 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2)(A).

The PAIMI Act provides funding for a state on the condition that the state designates a “protection and advocacy system” to accomplish these goals. 42 U.S.C. § 10803(2)(A). IPAS is Indiana’s designated protection and advocacy system under the PAIMI Act. The PAIMI Act gives a designated protection and advocacy system such as IPAS the authority to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of individuals with mental illness and to pursue administrative, legal, and other remedies on behalf of those individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(1). Accordingly, IPAS proceeds here on behalf of the plaintiff class pursuant to the PAIMI Act. The Court earlier found that the proposed class was properly certified pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ind. Prot. and Advocacy Servs. Comm’n v. Comm’r, Ind. Dept. of Corr., No. 1:08–cv–01317–RLY–JMS, 2010 WL 1737821 (S.D.Ind. Apr.27, 2010). The plaintiff class is defined as:

*2 all current and future mentally

ill prisoners who are committed to

the Indiana Department of

Correction and who are housed in a

setting in Department of Correction

institutions or in the New Castle

Correctional Facility that features

extended periods of time in cells,

including, but not limited to,

prisoners

in

disciplinary

segregation,

administrative

segregation, or in the New Castle

Psychiatric Unit.

IPAS is the designated entity proceeding on behalf of the class.

The Defendant. The defendant is IDOC Commissioner Bruce Lemmon who is being sued in his official capacity only.

B. Overview of the IDOC As of April 1, 2011, the IDOC housed approximately 26,800 adult offenders in a number of facilities throughout Indiana. Medical and mental health care services are provided to IDOC prisoners by employees of, and contractors with, a private company that has contracted with the IDOC. Until very recently, this company was known as Correctional Medical Services (“CMS”), however, CMS merged with another entity and is now known as Corizon.
A number of the IDOC facilities have segregated housing units. Broadly speaking, there are two types of segregation—disciplinary segregation and administrative segregation. A prisoner may be placed in disciplinary segregation for violating prison or IDOC rules. According to The Use and Operation of Adult Disciplinary Segregation manual, prisoners may be placed into these units for a definite time period pursuant to disciplinary segregation, as set out in Administrative Procedure 02–01–112. In contrast, a prisoner may be placed in administrative segregation if the prisoner is considered a threat to the safety and security of the facility or its operations; even though they have committed no disciplinary offense. For example, a prisoner may be placed in administrative segregation for actions that may pose a risk of escape, other risk, having a history of extensive misbehavior, or being affiliated with a gang. Prisoners may be placed in these units for an indefinite time period, subject to periodic administrative review, as set out in Administrative Procedure 02–01–111.
Housing for prisoners within IDOC facilities is either in the prison’s general population, one of the segregation units, or another specially designated unit. The New Castle Psychiatric Unit is included in the definition of the plaintiff class because of its similarity to conditions of IDOC segregation units and because the New Castle Psychiatric Unit provides the highest and most intense level of mental health care available to prisoners within the IDOC.
C. IDOC Facilities There are only two prisons which house adult female offenders within the IDOC, the Indiana Women’s Prison (“IWP”) and the Rockville Correctional Facility (“Rockville”). With respect to adult males, there are a number of facilities which house them. One facility, the
2

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

New Castle Correctional Facility, is operated by a private company, the GEO Corporation, under contract with the State of Indiana, but the prisoners housed there are considered to be IDOC prisoners. The following facilities are those which house adult males only:
*3 Branchville Correctional Facility (“Branchville”)
Correctional Industrial Facility (“CIF”)
Indiana State Prison (“ISP”)
Miami Correctional Facility (“Miami”)
New Castle Correctional Facility (“New Castle”)
Pendleton Correctional Facility (“Pendleton”)

Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Custody Control Unit (“CCU”)
Wabash Valley Special Confinement Unit (“SCU”)
Westville Correctional Facility (“Westville”)
Westville Control Unit (“Westville WCU”)
Moreover, a number of the IDOC facilities have segregation units. The adult female facilities which have segregation units are (1) IWP—25 beds (administrative and disciplinary segregation); and (2) Rockville—24 beds (administrative and disciplinary segregation).
With respect to adult males, the following facilities have segregation units as specified in the table below:

Plainfield Correctional Facility (“Plainfield”)

Putnamville Correctional Facility (“Putnamville”)

	  

FACILITY	  

NATURE	  OF	  SEGREGATION	  UNIT	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Branchville	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

CIF	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

ISP	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Miami	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

New	  Castle	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Pendleton	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Plainfield	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

Putnamville	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

NUMBER	  OF	  BEDS	   	  	   	   30	   	  	   	   22	   	  	   	  
424	   	  	   	  
100	   	  	   	   52	   	  	   	  
224	   	  	   	   72	   	  	   	   50	  

3

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

CCU	  (Wabash	  Valley)	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

72	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

SCU	  (Wabash	  Valley)	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

288	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

Westville	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

55	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

(Westville)WCU	  

Administrative	  and	  Disciplinary	  

165	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

Thus, there are a total of 1,554 segregation beds for males and 49 for females. The special confinement unit (“SCU”) at Wabash Valley is not part of the claims here. A private settlement agreement filed on January 30, 2007, in Mast v. Donahue, No. 2:05–cv–37 (S.D.Ind.), provides that prisoners with Axis I mental diagnoses not be placed in the SCU at Wabash Valley. Because of this settlement, this litigation does not concern prisoners confined in the Wabash Valley SCU.
D. Conditions in Segregation Units Subject to variations at the individual facilities, the conditions in each segregation unit within IDOC facilities are basically the same:
• All segregation prisoners spend the great majority of their day locked in their cells, up to 22 hours and 45 minutes per day and, for some prisoners, all day.
• All segregation units feature individual cells. The one exception to this is the overflow segregation area at Plainfield, which contains 14 additional cells with double-bunks that are used for administrative segregation purposes when the other beds are full.
• The cells all contain a bed and a sink/toilet unit. The bed may be concrete or metal and is attached to either the floor or the wall. Some cells also have a

metal table or desk attached to the wall. Some have a metal stool secured to the cell floor. Some have a shelf.
*4 • The cells are small. As an example, a segregation cell at the WCU is approximately 13′ by 6′. The cells at the CCU and in the segregation units at Pendleton are approximately 8′ by 10′.
• The cells generally have a small window to the outside world. Some institutions have cells without windows, but the outside of the cells face a wall with windows. This latter configuration predominates at Pendleton, whereas the former configuration predominates at New Castle.
• The doors on the cells vary. Most of the segregation units have solid doors with a small window in the door and a cuff-port that opens up for the purpose of serving meals or securing a prisoner’s arms before he or she is removed. The segregation units at CIF, IWP, Miami, New Castle, Rockville, WCU, and CCU all have solid doors. The cell doors at ISP have bars, although five of them have a permanent lexan covering on them. The cell doors within the segregation units at Pendleton are one-half mesh, with a slot for food trays. At Plainfield, the majority of doors have bars, although some have solid doors. At Putnamville, one-half of the cell doors are solid, while the others are barred.
• Prisoners in segregation receive meals in their cells.
4

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

• IDOC policy provides that prisoners in administrative segregation are offered one hour of recreation five days a week. Prisoners who are in disciplinary segregation are offered recreation seven days a week, although on two of the days the recreation offered will be for only 30 minutes.
• Every segregation unit has outdoor and indoor recreation areas where prisoners can recreate by themselves. The exception to this is at ISP, which does not provide outdoor recreation to prisoners located in disciplinary segregation (“IDU”). Additionally, there is no indoor recreation at Pendleton. ISP allows prisoners to recreate together as does Plainfield, although most prisoners at Plainfield recreate by themselves. Even though prisoners, with the exception of those at ISP or possibly Plainfield, recreate by themselves, in a number of facilities the outdoor recreation takes place in cages that are contiguous to each other so that more than one prisoner can be out, though separated, at the same time. These outdoor recreation cages are used at CIF, Miami, New Castle, Pendleton, and the CCU at Wabash Valley. Other facilities, such as Putnamville, Rockville and the WCU have solitary recreation pads for individual prisoners. The outdoor recreation area may have a basketball goal, although some have none. The indoor recreation takes place in small rooms which, depending on the facility, may have nothing in them or may have a telephone to make calls, a chin-up bar or an exercise bicycle.
• Prisoners are not required to go to recreation and prisoners frequently refuse to leave their cells for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, the early hours that recreation is offered, the fact that prisoners may be asleep and not hear the correctional officer offering recreation, and the fact that prisoners do not want to be chained up to be led to a recreation area.
*5 • At times, recreation may be suspended for long periods of time for institutional reasons.
• Showers are offered at least three times a week for 10–15 minutes. Prisoners are locked into the showers and remain there for long periods of time if correctional staff does not remove them. The showers are quite small and it can be distressing to be locked in them for long periods of time.

• When prisoners are released from their cells, even within the unit, to go to recreation or to the showers, the prisoners are secured. Depending on the facility, the prisoners are placed in at least hand restraints and may be placed in leg restraints as well. They are escorted by one or two officers.
• Hand restraints are secured when the prisoner, locked in his or her cell, puts his or her hands through the cuff-port to be secured. The cell is then opened and leg restraints, if used, are placed on the prisoner. The prisoner may be cuffed behind his or her back or may be cuffed in the front with a “black box,” which is a security cover placed over the handcuffs.
• Subject to losing the privilege because of disciplinary infractions, generally prisoners in administrative and disciplinary segregation may purchase radios. In some facilities prisoners in administrative segregation may immediately purchase a television and those in disciplinary segregation may purchase televisions after 90 days of clear conduct (six months at PCF). However, in many segregation units, including the following, there are no televisions available: CIF (except for one cell), IWP, New Castle, Plainfield, Putnamville, Rockville, and Wabash Valley CCU.
• Although the IDOC recognizes a distinction between long-term and short-term segregation for male prisoners, many of the “short-term” units house prisoners longer than six months. Therefore, at ISP prisoners may be housed in disciplinary segregation (IDU) for up to one year and prisoners may be in administrative segregation for up to four years. At Miami, prisoners may be confined up to one year before being transferred to one of the long-term segregation units. It is possible for segregation prisoners to stay for more than six months at New Castle, although the average stay is less than three months. At Pendleton, which contains both short-term and long-term segregation prisoners, there are prisoners who are still formally classified as short-term prisoners who are being held for longer than six months in both administrative and disciplinary segregation. Although the average length of stay is less than six months, there are some prisoners in segregation at Plainfield who are there for up to a year. There are some prisoners in the CCU at Wabash Valley who may be there for more than one year. In March 2011, there were some
5

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

prisoners who had been there for two years. Transfers had been submitted to move these prisoners to long-term segregation, but the transfers had not been processed or had been rejected.
*6 • There are no separate long-term and short-term segregation units for female prisoners in the IDOC. Some prisoners in segregation at IWP have been confined for more than one year. At Rockville, disciplinary segregation prisoners do not normally stay for more than two months and the maximum stay on administrative segregation is approximately six months.
• The average length of stay in long-term administrative segregation at WCU is approximately three years. For long-term disciplinary segregation, it is between one and two years.
• Some of the segregation units are air conditioned. However, some, including those at Pendleton, ISP, and CCU, are not.
Additionally, the following correctional staffing patterns prevail on the segregation units at the various prisons. Correctional officers work 12 hour shifts.
• Indiana State Prison—Three officers are assigned to D–East on each shift and three officers are assigned to IDU on each shift. There is a day shift and night shift. There is a sergeant and lieutenant assigned to each day shift (although the lieutenant on D–East is only present Sunday through Thursday).
• Indiana Women’s Prison—There are two officers on each shift. Additionally, there is a lieutenant assigned to the unit for an 8–hour shift on weekdays. There is a sergeant who is responsible for this unit as well as others.
• Miami Correctional Facility—There are six officers and a sergeant on the day shift and four officers and one sergeant on the night shift. One lieutenant is assigned on the weekdays.
• New Castle Correctional Facility—There are four officers and one sergeant on the day shift and three officers and a sergeant on the night shift. There is a lieutenant who has responsibility for this area, as well as others, on both shifts.
• Pendleton Correctional Facility—There are 5–7 officers and a sergeant and lieutenant during the day

shift in the segregation units, with the exception of protective custody. During the evening the lieutenant is not there. There are three officers in protective custody.
• Plainfield Correctional Facility—When staffing is not full, there are two officers assigned to the segregation unit as well as a sergeant.
• Putnamville Correctional Facility—There are three officers assigned to the Maximum Security Unit (MSU) each shift as well as a sergeant and a lieutenant who are assigned to this and another unit five days a week.
• Rockville Correctional Facility—When fully staffed there are three officers assigned to the segregation unit on each shift and a lieutenant is assigned to this unit, and the other housing units, on each shift.
• Wabash Valley Correctional Facility—Five correctional officers are present on the day shift and four on the night shift. There is a sergeant present as well.
• Westville Control Unit—There are three officers assigned to each pod for each twelve-hour shift. There are supervisors on each shift as well.
*7 • In addition to correctional officers, the units have one or more correctional counselors and case managers. Correctional counselors serve as the liaison between the prisoners and other departments, and process transfers and bed moves and address other prisoner day-to-day needs; whereas the case manager is involved in planning for the prisoners’ re-entry.
The following correctional programming is available for segregation prisoners:
• Although prisoners in segregation may leave their cells for recreation, showers, visits and medical and mental health appointments, they are generally otherwise confined in their single cells.
• There is generally no correctional programming available for segregation prisoners, even in their cells, although prisoners may receive chaplain visits and library materials in their cells.
• There are two correctional programs at the
6

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

Westville Correctional Unit. Neither are mental health programs. One is the ACT program (for Actions, Consequences, and Treatment). This is a program developed by the non-mental health staff person in charge of the WCU and features videos and workbooks that prisoners watch and complete in their cells. The workbooks are reviewed by a correctional counselor.
• The ACT program features four phases, each lasting at least three months. If the prisoner completes Phase 4 he will be recommended for discharge from segregation and placed at ISP, Pendleton, or Wabash Valley. This allows the prisoner to leave segregation sooner. Additionally, as the prisoner moves through the phases he will receive more commissary opportunities.
E. Mental Health The plaintiffs produced evidence from two expert witnesses, Kathryn A. Burns, M.D., M.P.A. (“Dr.Burns”) and Robert Walsh, Ph.D. (“Dr.Walsh”). The Commissioner did not offer evidence from an expert. Dr. Burns, a psychiatrist, testified that a mental illness is a biologically based brain disorder that has a behavioral manifestation, some functional manifestation, and some psychological manifestations. Courts have used the term “mental disorder” to characterize “organic functional psychoses, neuroses, personality disorders, alcoholism, drug dependence, behavior disorders, and mental retardation.” Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265, 1332 n. 140 (S.D.Tex.1980), aff’d in part & rev’d in part, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.1982). This definition is consistent with the evidence in this case and is adopted in this decision.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition (“DSM–IV”) is published by the American Psychiatric Association and is an attempt to establish standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. The DSM–IV organizes each mental health diagnosis into five dimensions as follows:
Axis I clinical disorders, including the major mental disorders (such as schizophrenia, bipolar, depression and anxiety disorders)
Axis II personality disorders and intellectual disabilities
*8 Axis III physical disorders which may or may not

impact on psychological conditions
Axis IV psychosocial and environmental factors that contribute to the disorder or impact on functioning
Axis V the global assessment of functioning or GAF score
To annotate on this in a limited fashion, Axis II includes a variety of personality disorders which are mental disorders that can cause severe personal and social disruption. The GAF is a numeric score from 0–100 that mental health professionals use as a measure of the patient’s symptom severity and level of social, occupational and psychological functioning, with 0 being the lowest and 100 being the highest.
A mental illness is properly characterized as “serious” based on two features of the diagnosis—one being the duration that the person has the illness and the second being the degree of disability or functional impairment that it causes. In the context of this case, the term “seriously mentally ill” includes prisoners with a current diagnosis or recent significant history of a DSM–IV Axis I diagnosis of: schizophrenia, delusional disorder, psychotic disorder, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform disorder, major depression, bipolar disorder who are actively suicidal. And, the term includes prisoners who have engaged in a recent serious suicide attempt, regardless of diagnosis, who because of their mental illness have a recent history of hallucinations, or who have organic brain syndrome, mental retardation, or severe anxiety disorder, leading to significant functional impairment or self-harm behaviors or who have personality disorders manifesting in frequent episodes of psychosis or depression. A psychosis is a break with reality.
F. Mental Health Units There are two mental health units within the IDOC. These units are the New Castle Psychiatric Facility and the Special Needs Unit (“SNU”) at Wabash Valley. The Court will address each of these units in turn:
New Castle Psychiatric Facility. The New Castle Psychiatric Facility, located at the New Castle Correctional Facility, has 128 beds and is a unit that is designed to provide specialized mental health services. The New Castle Psychiatric Facility is a unit that is admittedly for those seriously mentally ill prisoners who
7

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

need the most intensive treatment. It is not classified as a segregation unit by the IDOC. Prisoners placed into the New Castle Psychiatric Facility are those who the mental health staffs at New Castle and the sending institution, in conjunction with Dr. Wiles, the Regional Mental Health Director for CMS, determine cannot function in a standard prison environment. The following highlights features of the New Castle Psychiatric Facility for purposes of this litigation:
• The facility has eight ranges, 100–800, with 16 beds on each range.
• Included within the ranges are Stabilization and Assessment Unit (“SAU”), a Behavioral Adjustment Unit (“BAU”), and a Chronic Care Unit (“CCU”).
*9 • The 800 range is primarily the SAU. Prisoners are housed there for a short period of time, generally a week. They are then generally moved into either the CCU or BAU. On rare occasions the prisoners are stabilized and are returned to their sending prison.
• The 200, 400, and 600 ranges, and part of the 100 range are the CCU, which houses primarily prisoners with Axis I diagnoses.
• The 300, 500, and 700 ranges are for Axis II prisoners.
• The expectation is that prisoners within the New Castle Psychiatric Unit will be discharged to the SNU at Wabash, which is a step-down or less restrictive unit.
• Prisoners within the New Castle Psychiatric Unit are housed in single cells with a solid door containing a small window and a cuff-port that is used as a food slot.
• There are three phases of programming—
Prisoners in Phase 1 are not allowed a television and have daily recreation in indoor or outdoor individual recreation cages.
Prisoners in Phase 2, if they are not considered to be a danger to themselves, may have a television. They also have recreation in indoor or outdoor individual recreation cages.
Phase 1 and 2 prisoners are cuffed behind their back

and escorted when they are out of their cells.
Phase 3 prisoners may recreate with others.
• All prisoners eat by themselves in their cells, although prisoners who have progressed through the program and are ready to leave are able to eat outside of their cells.
• All prisoners are supposed to have at least one group therapy meeting a week. These are conducted in a room and the prisoners in Phase 1 and 2 are cuffed.
• The groups are primarily based on Dialectical Behavior Therapy (“DBT”), a form of therapy designed for persons with personality disorders. At the WCU, there is also an effort for psychotherapy treatment to be based on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (“CBT”).
• In addition to at least one group session a week, prisoners are to have individual therapy as well. This takes place in the same room that group therapy takes place or with the prisoner in a caged area in the day room that is in each unit.
• Individual prisoners may not be offered group every week and individual therapy may be as infrequent as two times, or less, a month.
• All medical records within the IDOC are electronic and all therapeutic and other important events are to be recorded.
• The mental health staff at the New Castle Psychiatric Facility consists of two psychologists, two master’s level mental health professionals, and two psychiatric technicians with bachelor degrees. Additionally, there is a psychiatrist who is there for 8–10 hours each week and who is responsible for medication management.
• Twice a day, a mental health staff person conducts rounds. These are typically very cursory, involving walking by the cell front, looking into the cell and moving on. They may not involve any conversation with the prisoner.
*10 • Phase 3 prisoners may be allowed out of their cells into the day room on each range for an hour of “free time.” However, all other prisoners are generally confined to their cells other than for
8

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

therapy, showers, recreation, or visits, except for 3–4 prisoners who are in an educational program where they are placed in recreation cages inside a gymnasium and meet with teachers. Additionally, some prisoners are brought out and put into the cages to attend religious services. Six prisoners are allowed to attend religious services in the day room.
The New Castle Psychiatric Unit, although not classified as a segregation unit, features similar isolation due to the great deal of time prisoners spend in their cells during Phases 1 and 2 and the infrequency of treatment. The correctional staffs at the New Castle Psychiatric Unit work in two daily shifts, a day shift and night shift. During the day shift there are 17 officers, plus a sergeant and a lieutenant on duty. During the evening shift, from 5:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., there are 8 officers, plus a sergeant on duty.
Dr. Burns’ description of her site-visit to the New Castle Psychiatric Unit is informative and offers her insight into the adequacy of mental health care being provided there:
Inmates in all phases of treatment displayed remarkably high levels of psychiatric symptoms; some were frankly psychotic with disorganized and delusional thinking; some displayed mood symptoms—manic as well as depressive symptoms. This degree of pathology was not unexpected given that the MHU is identified as the place providing the highest or most intensive level of care. However, what was surprising was the lack of intensive treatment provided: treatment plans are not adjusted or revised to address on-going or worsening symptoms; medication adjustments are infrequent and some inmates who had inappropriately been taken off of medications by one psychiatrist hadn’t yet been seen by the new doctor even though they had been identified as priority cases; some inmates were receiving no treatment whatsoever; some were held in the program with no improvement or access to property, recreation or out-of-cell time for

extended periods of time (years in some instances) without treatment.
The psychiatric shortfalls noted by Dr. Burns are significant in their impact on mentally ill prisoners at the New Castle Psychiatric Unit, although it is not known whether her description represented a chronic or simply an acute condition of that Unit.
SNU at Wabash Valley. The SNU at Wabash Valley can house up to 134 prisoners and is a step-down unit for mentally ill prisoners to progress through and into general population. It also is not classified as a segregation unit by the IDOC. The SNU, like the New Castle Psychiatric Unit, houses prisoners who are unable to function in the general population because of their mental illness. The majority of the prisoners at the SNU have Axis I diagnoses, meaning a major mental disorder such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression or anxiety disorders. The following features of the SNU at Wabash Valley are relevant for purposes of this litigation:
*11 • Most prisoners enter the SNU from the New Castle Psychiatric Unit. When a prisoner enters the SNU, he is placed into a brief assessment and orientation phase.
This may only last 24 hours.
• The prisoner is then placed into a transitional phase that could last more than a month, although ideally it should be two weeks or less.
• After that, the prisoner is moved into Phase 3, which corresponds to the Phase 3 at New Castle Psychiatric Facility.
• The program is designed for the prisoner to progress through Phases 3, 4, and 5 and then into general population.
• Prisoners in the transitional phase are individually celled but are released for an hour of recreation each day and are released for meals that are taken in a common area.
• Prisoners in the transitional phase and in Phases 3, 4 and 5 receive a group session once a week that is a DBT-informed, skills training group. Prisoners in Phase 5 receive an additional transition group meeting each week.
9

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

• Every prisoner receives at least one individual therapy session a month. The individual therapy lasts for 20–60 minutes and takes place in the common area if there is a perceived need for greater security and, if not, in an office with the door open.

placed in “phase modification,” which means they are restricted to their cells for up to 45 days at a time. During this time period they receive individual therapy and recreation by themselves. They do not participate in group therapy.

• During the transitional phase prisoners are held in cells on the right side of the unit. Once transition is over they are moved to the left side in double cells, although some prisoners continue to be housed individually.
• Once the prisoners are in Phase 3, they receive more recreation, including recreation in a gymnasium and in the common area at night.
• Prisoners in the transitional phase cannot have televisions. Those in the other phases may have a television.
• In Phase 4, prisoners are allowed to go to the main chow hall for meals as a group and are able to attend programming in the Offender Services Building, such as chapel and educational services. They can travel to the law library and institution library without an escort. Phase 5 prisoners have recreation and eat with a specific general population unit.

• During both shifts there are generally three correctional officers on the unit and a sergeant.
G. Mentally Ill Prisoners in Segregation A survey done by the IDOC in early January 2010 disclosed that of the 26,753 IDOC prisoners at that time, 5,458 had an Axis I diagnosis, 1,758 had an Axis II diagnosis, and there were 1,349 prisoners who had both an Axis I and II diagnosis. This means that 5,867 prisoners were diagnosed as mentally ill, which is 22% of the total IDOC prisoner population. Dr. Burns found the prevalence of persons with Axis I and Axis II disorders in segregation to be around 33%. Thus, there is a disproportionately high number of mentally ill prisoners within the segregation units within the IDOC.
*12 The tally of mentally ill prisoners in segregation is listed in the chart below:

• If prisoners in the SNU break rules they may be

	  

SEGREGATION	  MENTAL	  HEALTH	  ROSTERS	  TALLIES	  

	  	  

	  

PRISON	  

TOTA PRISONERS	  WITH	  AXIS	  I	   PRISONERS	  WITH	  AXIS	  II	  

	  	  

L	   (including	  those	  with	  Axis	   ONLY	  

	  

	  	  

II	  as	  well)	  

	  	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	  

WESTVILLE	  

11	   11	  

0	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

WCU	  

81	   58	  

23	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

WVCF–CCU	  

40	   37	  

3	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

PLAINFIELD	  

29	   29	  

0	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

PENDLETON	  

153	   115	  

38	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

INDIANA	  WOMEN’S	  

4	   3	  

1	  

PRISONERS	  with	  both	  AXIS	   I	  &	  II	   	  	   	  
4	   	  	   	   31	   	  	   	   11	   	  	   	   23	   	  	   	   43	   	  	   	   1	  

10

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

ROCKVILLE	  

4	   4	  

0	  

2	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

BRANCHVILLE	  

1	   0	  

1	  

0	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

PUTNAMVILLE	  

31	   31	  

0	  

2	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

CORRECTIONAL	  

11	   10	  

1	  

6	  

INDUSTRIAL	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

NEW	  CASTLE	  

17	   15	  

2	  

4	  

(non-­‐psychiatric)	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

MIAMI	  

13	   13	  

0	  

9	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

INDIANA	  STATE	  PRISON	   38	   32	  

6	  

1	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

TOTAL	  

433	   358	  

75	  

137	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

The IDOC, through Corizon, has mental health staff in IDOC institutions. IDOC policies are set forth in the Health Care Service Directives (“HCSD”). Each policy has a title and a corresponding numerical designation, i.e.:
Mental Health Services Plan, HCSD 4.03
Health Evaluation of Offenders in Segregation, HCSD 2.25
The mental health evaluation sequence is as follows:
• If a prisoner with a mental health diagnosis is assigned to a segregation unit a health record review is to be completed within 24 hours. This is to include a suicide risk screening and observation by nursing staff.
• If the prisoner has a mental health diagnosis or if there are reasons to believe he has mental health needs, the lead psychologist or his or her designee will review the records to determine if there are reasons that the prisoner should not be admitted.

• Thereafter, the psychologist will review the chart of the prisoner and meet with him or her within a short period of time.
• A treatment plan will be drawn up for the prisoner.
In practice, however, mental health treatment is principally limited to issuance of medication, prisoner conversations with the mental health staff, and mental health staff’s response to incidents of actual and attempted self-harm. There is no group therapy for mentally ill prisoners in segregation.
There is a difference, however, between monitoring—referred to within the CCU, for example, as a “mental status check”—and treatment. The pervasive function of mental health staff within the IDOC has become a mixture of responding to crises and responding to prisoner requests to be seen. The 30–day reviews are ineffectual because of insufficient mental health staff and because of the circumstances on the unit, meaning the inability of custody staff to regularly place the prisoner in
11

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

a setting where reasonable privacy in communication can be attained. Although the loss of privacy is a condition of imprisonment, the loss of privacy in communication with medical staff restricts the prisoners ability to be candid when providing information. Information in a prison is, as Dr. Walsh explained, a commodity. The obtainment of Information within a prison can be used to make a mentally ill prisoner more vulnerable in their relations with both custody staff and other inmates.
*13 The mental health staff available in the segregation units, with the exception of psychiatrists, is as follows:
a. At Branchville, there is a mental health professional that spends 1–4 hours a week on the segregation unit.
b. At the CIF, there is a master’s level mental health professional that spends approximately 2.5 hours a week in the segregation unit.
c. At ISP, there is a psychologist and three master’s level clinicians who provide services for the segregation units. One clinician is assigned to the IDU and one is assigned to the D unit.
d. At ISP, there is no specific staff assigned to the segregation unit, although a psychologist and a master’s level mental health professional will provide services as necessary.
e. At Miami, mental health staffs are on the segregation unit approximately 25 hours a week.
f. The segregation unit at New Castle is serviced, as needed, by a psychologist and a master’s level clinician.
g. In the segregation units at Pendleton, services are provided primarily by three mental health practitioners. Two of them spend two afternoons a week in the units and one is there full-time. There is only one psychologist in the institution and his contact with the segregation unit is limited to crisis management.
h. At Plainfield, the psychologist is in the segregation unit for 1–2 hours every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and a master’s level mental health professional is on the unit 1–2 hours each Tuesday and Thursday.
i. At Putnamville, a psychologist is on the unit 10

hours a week as is a mental health professional. A mental health staff member is also on call for the unit, as needed.
j. At Rockville, mental health reviews are completed between 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and 12:00 p.m.–4:30 p.m. on Fridays.
k. At Westville, there is one master’s level practitioner in the segregation unit and a psychologist present 2–3 days a week.
l. At the CCU at Wabash Valley, one psychologist is present part-time two days a week and a second psychologist is present part-time two days a week. There are also times when there is a master’s level mental health professional as well. Additionally, a mental health professional provides services to the eight prisoners in CCU who are under 18 years old.
In addition, each segregation unit receives part-time services from a psychiatrist or, at New Castle, a nurse practitioner. These services are primarily limited to the prescription and management of medications designed to control mental health symptoms. A large majority of the prisoners with mental illnesses in segregation in the IDOC receive such medication. IDOC’s mental health services plan provides that:
All offenders in segregation, even if no mental illness is present, must be evaluated by a qualified MHP (mental health professional) after no more than 30 days in segregation and every 30 days thereafter.... Mental health evaluations of offenders with a(n) identified mental health need(s) must be done in a location which affords the offender confidentiality; the evaluation may not be done at the offender’s cell front.
*14 Although a lack of privacy is the default in a prison setting, it is nonetheless essential that the mental health practitioner meet privately with the prisoner in a setting where other prisoners and correctional staff are not present. Otherwise, an accurate mental health assessment cannot occur.
A number of facilities, including Pendleton, Putnamville, and the WCU, do not interview prisoners with Axis II diagnoses outside of their cells. Prisoners, even those with Axis I diagnoses, frequently are not removed for an out-of-cell evaluation every 30 days but have them at their cell-fronts even though the prisoner has not refused to leave his or her cell. At times, prisoners are not
12

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

removed for the out-of-cell evaluation because there are insufficient correctional staff to move the prisoners or because of other scheduling difficulties that are no fault of the prisoner.
And, prisoners often refuse to leave their cells. This occurs because the conversation with the therapist, even in private, may be only a few minutes and the prisoner believes it is not useful and it is not worth the shackling. Also, given the infrequency of potential contact with the mental health staff, the prisoner may refuse because he justifiably does not perceive it as useful. Further, an evaluation every 30 days is not frequent enough to disclose mental health problems, symptoms or deterioration. The evaluations, when they occur, are generally very cursory. The electronic medical records contain a template that allows the therapist to note objective symptoms as well as subjective ones. Frequently, this template is completed in a manner such that the objective symptoms do not match the subjective ones, indicating that the records have been completed with little individual attention. The template allows the mental health staff person to check one box marked “normal” and then all the objective symptoms are completed as normal.
Treatment plans are completed for each segregation prisoner with a mental health diagnosis and are to be reviewed periodically. These are also generated through a template in the electronic medical records, are usually very general, and are completed without input from the prisoner. Prisoners are able to request individual visits from mental health professionals in addition to the periodic reviews and may be seen more frequently without such a request. However, in the segregation units, with some exceptions, prisoners who are not on a suicide or self-harm watch are generally seen only monthly by the mental health professionals, not including psychiatrist visits.
Mentally ill prisoners who are on psychiatric medications are seen by a psychiatrist (or nurse practitioner at New Castle) at least every 90 days to review medication. The role of the psychiatrist with regard to the care of mentally ill prisoners in segregation is to deal with medication issues. Additionally, HCSD 2.25 requires that a member of the nursing staff, either an RN or LPN, make rounds on each segregation unit once a day. This may include the time when medication is given to the prisoner in his or her cell. If no medication is delivered, the nurse is to look into the cell and attempt to ascertain if the prisoner’s condition is satisfactory. However, this may just be a visual check

without any conversation with the prisoner. The prisoner may not even know that the check is being done, either because the prisoner is asleep or not otherwise attentive to the presence of the nurse.
*15 The goal of mental health care in the correctional setting is to prevent harm from occurring to prisoners and to prevent prisoners from causing harm as a consequence of a mental condition that significantly influences their behavior. The consensus of opinion in a professional body of literature on the subject presented in this case is that segregation is detrimental for people with serious mental illness because it makes their symptoms worse or because, at best, they do not get any better.
H. Segregation Harms Mentally Ill Prisoners Based on the extensive evidence presented in this case the Court finds that there are three ways in which segregation is harmful to prisoners with serious mental illness. The first is the lack of social interaction, such that the isolation itself creates problems. The second is that the isolation involves significant sensory deprivation. The third is the enforced idleness, permitting no activities or distractions. These factors can exacerbate the prisoners’ symptoms of serious mental illness. This condition is known as decompensation, an exacerbation or worsening of symptoms and illness.
Decompensation can be manifested by a prisoner experiencing auditory or visual hallucinations, sleep disturbance, memory problems, anxiety, paranoia, depression, eating problems, or engaging in self-injury or suicide. These symptoms can produce behavior which constitutes a threat to the safety of staff or to that of the prisoner himself. It can also produce behavior which makes the assessment process more difficult, such as when a prisoner’s paranoia induces him to refuse to leave his cell. Decompensation will not invariably occur when a seriously mentally ill prisoner is placed and kept in segregation, but may commence as soon as 10 days to two weeks after such placement.
Moreover, these pernicious effects of segregation on prisoners with serious mental illness are known to the IDOC. In a Mental Health Services Plan dated July 1, 2008, the IDOC stated that the primary goal of the mental health professional in one of the units at the New Castle Correctional Facility “is to prevent decompensation secondary to confinement in segregation housing.” These effects are also known by the mental health providers who
13

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

see, assess, and treat prisoners in segregation.
Additionally, these effects are known by the IDOC through the private settlement agreement to an earlier lawsuit, Mast v. Donahue, No. 2:05–cv–37 (S.D.Ind.), wherein the IDOC agreed that prisoners with Axis I diagnoses would not be placed in the Special Confinement Unit and to which the Commissioner of the IDOC stated:
These offenders may have been diagnosed with a mental disorder that is worsened by confinement in a Secure Confinement Unit [SCU]. In these cases, it is in the best interests of the Department to attempt to obtain mental health treatment for these offenders rather than simply placing them in a long-term disciplinary segregation or Department-wide administrative segregation unit.
*16 IDOC policy also recognizes that it is important that non-seriously mentally ill prisoners who are now confined in the Special Confinement Unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility be seen by a licensed mental health professional at least weekly and that the visits “take place in a setting where an accurate evaluation of the offender’s mental health status can occur.” Thus, the IDOC is aware that some mentally ill prisoners have mental disorders that are worsened by segregated confinement and that segregation can cause or accelerate and intensify decompensation. The deterioration and injury caused to mentally ill prisoners by segregation is documented by the IDOC in prisoner medical records, suicide and self-harm reports, and reports of use of force incidents. As Dr. Walsh’s report explains:
The fact is that mentally ill people often have difficulty conforming to prison rules and regulations, and are more likely than other prisoners to be cited for disciplinary infractions. In the isolation of these segregation units, there is a very high risk that mentally ill prisoners will decompensate and become more dysfunctional and harder to manage.

The evidence in this trial overwhelmingly shows that decompensation is psychologically painful to a mentally ill prisoner. “Psychological pain” includes pain and suffering associated with feeling depressed, anxious, having nightmares, memory problems, worries, and anxieties. This pain is also experienced as feelings of confusion, of being lost, and of being misunderstood. This pain produces suffering, and a delay in treating the condition complicates the condition, can accelerate or intensify decompensation, and can reduce the chances of a mentally ill prisoner achieving or re-establishing an optimal level of functioning. Decompensation is influenced by environmental circumstances, particularly isolation. The psychological pain associated with decompensation can produce in a mentally ill prisoner the desire to commit self-harm. This could occur through what is termed a “command hallucination.” It can also occur because the prisoner seeks to relieve tension, to get attention, or to replace the psychological pain with physical pain.
Decompensation lengthens the time needed for a mentally ill prisoner’s cognitive and psychological functioning to be restored and in some instances there will be no full restoration. Indeed, in some instances life hangs in the balance. Tragically, a disproportionately high percentage of suicides are committed by prisoners in segregation compared with those in the general population of a prison system. This is true both within the IDOC and in correctional settings across the country. Within the IDOC, since the beginning of 2007, 11 of 23 suicides were committed by mentally ill offenders in a segregated setting. Thus, nearly one-half of the prisoner suicides during this period of time were committed by 22% of the total IDOC prisoner population. Stated otherwise, the rate of prisoner suicides in segregation was nearly three times that of prisoner suicides in other housing units.
*17 Further, decompensation multiplies and complicates symptoms of a mentally ill prisoner and is likely to require more intense intervention by mental health providers and custody staff alike. There have been instances in which decompensation of a mentally ill prisoner in segregation has resulted in his transfer from segregation to the New Castle Psychiatric Facility. When a prisoner is known to have threatened or attempted to commit suicide, he may be removed from segregation and placed on suicide watch in a cell with fewer amenities where he can be observed more closely by staff. The result, in the short term, is an environment where the prisoner experiences greater deprivations and less privacy. This also results, in the short term, in a decreased
14

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

risk of repeated efforts of self-harm. The prisoner’s symptoms, however, will likely intensify unless this is accompanied by appropriate therapy. Unfortunately, it is not.
To reiterate, the severe conditions in the segregation units cause a predictable deterioration of the mental health of seriously mentally ill prisoners and the IDOC has explicitly observed, diagnosed and noted patient decompensation. Records from a prisoner who recently committed suicide disclose that there was only one correctional staff member for the entire area and the staff person was unable to visually supervise the prisoner. Records of another prisoner who committed suicide in late 2010 note that on one occasion shortly before his death he could not be brought to a mental health appointment because “custody unable to escort.” He was not seen for a week. He was scheduled to be seen again shortly before his suicide, but his medical records note that he “did not appear” for the appointment. He committed suicide within days of the missed appointment.
As indicated above, lack of correctional staff prevents prisoners from having private conversations with mental health staff which is immediately harmful to the prisoners by delaying and/or preventing treatment which is necessary. Accordingly, there is a difference between mental health monitoring and mental health treatment. The IDOC is performing the former in its segregation units, but very little of the latter. The Plaintiffs’ thesis that the effect of segregation on mentally ill prisoners in Indiana is toxic to their welfare is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Without appropriate treatment and appropriate relief, the toxic effects of segregation will continue to cause serious injury to mentally ill prisoners.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Court makes the following conclusions of law:
A. Class Action Relief As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether this action may proceed as a class action. As a result of the Commissioner’s failure to respond to the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the motion was granted

subject to a thorough summary ruling. As mentioned earlier, the Court found that this action qualifies for class-action treatment because all of the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and the requirements of 23(b)(2) are satisfied (See Dkt. 109). Although the Commissioner does not specifically ask the Court to decertify the class, in his post-trial brief he argues that “no class-wide relief is possible in this class action.”
*18 The Commissioner relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011), in seeking decertification of the class. Insofar as is pertinent here, it was held in Wal–Mart that class certification of a putative class of 1.5 million current and former female employees of Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., was inappropriate because (1) the plaintiffs had failed to show that there was a common question of law or fact as Rule 23(a) requires and (2) the plaintiffs’ claims for back pay could not be properly certified under Rule 23(b)(2). Id. at 2556–57, 2561. The Commissioner asserts that commonality is missing in this case. The Court is not persuaded. The mentally ill prisoners here, have demonstrated through a wealth of evidence, that the class is united by the common question of whether the lack of treatment and isolated living conditions in IDOC facilities violate the Eighth Amendment.
Although Rule 23 permits the court to modify a ruling concerning a previously certified class: “An order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(C). After a certification order is entered, “the judge remains free to modify it in the light of subsequent developments in the litigation.” Gen. Tel. Co. of SW v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982). That includes the ability to decertify a class should circumstances so dictate. Eggleston v. Chic. Journeymen Plumbers’ Local Union No. 130, 657 F.2d 890, 896 (7th Cir.1981). In this case however, the Court found that the proposed class fit within Rule 23(b)(2) in that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). Because this action seeks injunctive relief to prevent future allegedly illegal deprivations of civil rights, it is a ‘prime example[ ]’ of a proper class under Rule 23(b)(2).” Ind. Prot. & Advocacy Servs. Comm’n, 2010 WL 1737821, at *2.
15

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

The only manner in which the class certification should be changed at this point is to expand the basis on which certification is warranted to include Rule 23(b)(3). Jacks v. DirectSat USA, LLC, No. 10 CV 1707, 2012 WL 2374444 (S.D.Ill. June 19, 2012) (citing McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 672 F.3d 482, 490 (7th Cir.2012)); Olson v. Brown, 284 F.R.D. 398 (N.D.Ind. July 25, 2012). In Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court specifically noted that it did not consider whether the class could properly be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) as opposed to Rule 23(b)(2). 131 S.Ct. at 2548–49 n. 2. Nothing in Wal–Mart itself makes the Rule 23(b)(2) class certified in this case improper.
That said, even if the Court concluded otherwise, IPAS itself is, as the designated entity pursuant to the PAIMI Act, entitled to proceed on behalf of the plaintiff class members. The Commissioner’s request that the plaintiff class be decertified based on Wal–Mart is DENIED.
B. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 *19 The action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “the ubiquitous tort remedy for deprivations of rights secured by federal law (primarily the Fourteenth Amendment) by persons acting under color of state law.” Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1201 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1049, 104 S.Ct. 1325, 79 L.Ed.2d 720 (1984). To state a claim for relief under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the deprivation was visited upon him by a person or persons acting under color of state law. Kramer v. Village of North Fond du Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir.2004). To sue under Section 1983, a plaintiff must first allege a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right—not merely a violation of a federal law. See Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997). “The purpose of § 1983 is to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails.” Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161, 112 S.Ct. 1827, 118 L.Ed.2d 504 (1992).
This Court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties to this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because Section 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under Section 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver,

510 U.S. 266, 271, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994).
For convicted prisoners, the “constitutional source of a deliberate indifference claim is the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.” Cotts v. Osafo, 692 F.3d 564, 567 (7th Cir.2012); see Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (“It is undisputed that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment”). To incarcerate, society takes from prisoners the means to provide for their own needs. Prisoners are dependent on the State for food, clothing, and necessary medical care. A prison’s failure to provide sustenance for inmates “may actually produce physical ‘torture or a lingering death.’ ” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (quoting In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447, 10 S.Ct. 930, 34 L.Ed. 519 (1890)).
That said, the Eighth Amendment applies to states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 491 (7th Cir.2006) (citing Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962)). The Eighth Amendment “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958). “Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons. Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man.” Brown v. Plata, ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1910, 1928, 179 L.Ed.2d 969 (2011) (citations omitted); see Estelle, 429 U.S. at 102 (concluding that the Eighth Amendment “embodies broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency ... against which we must evaluate penal measures” (citations omitted)).
*20 Central to the present dispute, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment imposes upon jail officials the duty to “provide humane conditions of confinement” for prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). This duty includes the obligation to “ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, protection, and medical care.” “[W]hile ‘the Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments; it does not require the most
16

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

intelligent, progressive, humane, or efficacious prison administration.’ “ Thomas v. Ramos, 130 F.3d 754, 763 (7th Cir.1997) (quoting Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 524 (7th Cir.1995)); see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. “After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain ... constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.” Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 147 (7th Cir.1995) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986), cert. denied sub. nom., Johnson v. Sheahan, 519 U.S. 1006, 117 S.Ct. 506, 136 L.Ed.2d 397 (1996)).
In the context of medical care, the constitutional standard is:
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. This is true whether the indifference is manifested by ... prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104–05. “The Eighth Amendment safeguards the prisoner against a lack of medical care that may result in pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose and prison officials violate the Constitution if they are deliberately indifferent to prisoners’ serious medical needs.” Kress v. CCA of Tenn., LLC., 694 F.3d 890, 892 (7th Cir.2012) (internal quotation and citations omitted). Another phrasing of the proper standard is a useful reminder:
There is more to a subhuman-conditions case than subhuman conditions. “Punishment,” for purposes of determining tort liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments, has both an objective and a subjective component. The objective component is the nature of the acts or practices alleged to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Are they such acts or practices as would be deemed cruel and unusual if prescribed in a state or federal statute as the lawful punishment for a particular offense?
....

The subjective component of unconstitutional “punishment” is the intent with which the acts or practices constituting the alleged punishment are inflicted. The minimum intent required is “actual knowledge of impending harm easily preventable.” Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d 645, 653 (7th Cir.1985) (emphasis added); see Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991); McGill v. Duckworth, 944 F.2d 344 (7th Cir.1991). A failure of prison officials to act in such circumstances suggests that the officials actually want the prisoner to suffer the harm. If the harm is remote rather than immediate, or the officials don’t know about it or can’t do anything about it, the subjective component is not established and the suit fails. See e.g., Wilson v. Seiter, supra, 111 S.Ct. at 2326.
*21 Jackson v. Duckworth, 955 F.2d 21, 22 (7th Cir.1992).
These factors notwithstanding, one who makes a claim under the cruel and unusual punishments clause must show that the state has created risk or inflicted pain pointlessly. “A medical need is considered sufficiently serious if the inmate’s condition has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or is so obvious that even a lay person would perceive the need for a doctor’s attention.” Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 857 (7th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks and punctuation omitted). The medical condition need not be life-threatening; “it could be a condition that would result in further significant injury or unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain if not treated.” Id. (quoting Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir.2010)). Similarly, the fact that a prisoner received some treatment does not foreclose his deliberate indifference claim; deliberate indifference to a serious medical need may be manifested by “woefully inadequate action” as well as no action at all. Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 854 (7th Cir.1999).
C. Deliberate Indifference. Deliberate indifference is proven by demonstrating that a prison official knows of a substantial risk of harm to an inmate and “either acts or fails to act in disregard of that risk.” Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir.2011). Delaying treatment may constitute deliberate indifference if such delay “exacerbated the injury or unnecessarily prolonged an inmate’s pain.” McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir.2010) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104–05). “Even a few days’ delay in
17

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

addressing a severely painful but readily treatable condition suffices to state a claim of deliberate indifference.” Smith v. Knox Cnty. Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir.2012). Mere disagreements between providers are not proof of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 110 (8th Cir.1990). Deliberate indifference requires a showing of more than mere or gross negligence, but less than purposeful infliction of harm. Matos v. O’Sullivan, 335 F.3d 553, 557 (7th Cir.2003). See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir.2009) (prisoner complaining of severe pain from his IV was not treated for four days); Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 830 (7th Cir.2007) (prisoner who dislocated his finger was not treated for two days); Cooper v. Casey, 97 F.3d 914, 916–17 (7th Cir.1996) (prisoners beaten and maced by prison guards were not treated until the following day).
Likewise, a claim of denial of psychiatric care can, under certain circumstances, amount to deliberate indifference. Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268 (5th Cir.1981). This is one important path which has emerged in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence in recent years. See, e.g., O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 573, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975) (court stated that there was “no reason now to decide whether mentally ill persons dangerous to themselves or to others have a right to treatment upon compulsory confinement by the State”); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir.2001) (recognizing that “the need for a mental illness to be treated could certainly be considered a serious medical need”). The awareness of a serious mental illness triggers a duty to provide adequate care. See Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d 616, 621–22 (7th Cir.2003); Hall v. Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 405–06 (7th Cir.1992). Moreover, the Seventh Circuit has recently recognized that not all cruel and unusual punishments in a prison setting involve the exertion of force against the body. Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 615 (7th Cir.2012) (citing Washington v. Hively, 695 F.3d 641, 643–44 (7th Cir.2012)). Psychological pain exists. It is real and it results from many of the symptoms which are associated with the mentally ill. “Severe depression is not the blues. It is a mental illness; and health professionals, in particular psychiatrists, not lawyers or judges, are the experts on it.” Wilder v. Chater, 64 F.3d 335, 337 (7th Cir.1995) (emphasis in original).
*22 Bridging into the realm where prisoner suicide has occurred or is attempted, the Seventh Circuit has held that “prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they are

cognizant of the significant likelihood that an inmate may imminently seek to take his own life and then fail to take reasonable steps to prevent the inmate from performing this act.” Sanville, 266 F.3d at 737 (internal quotation marks omitted).
From a practical standpoint, deliberate indifference is “proven by demonstrating that a prison official knows of a substantial risk of harm to an inmate and ‘either acts or fails to act in disregard of that risk.’ ” Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir.2012) (internal quotation omitted). Gomez, a case in which there are parallels to both the evidence and the legal standards to be employed here, contains the following analysis:
Here, the record demonstrates that the conditions of extreme social isolation and reduced environmental stimulation found in the Pelican Bay SHU will likely inflict some degree of psychological trauma upon most inmates confined there for more than brief periods. Clearly, this impact is not to be trivialized; however, for many inmates, it does not appear that the degree of mental injury suffered significantly exceeds the kind of generalized psychological pain that courts have found compatible with Eighth Amendment standards. While a risk of a more serious injury is not non-existent, we are not persuaded, on the present record and given all the circumstances, that the risk of developing an injury to mental health of sufficiently serious magnitude due to current conditions in the SHU is high enough for the SHU population as a whole, to find that current conditions in the SHU are per se violative of the Eighth Amendment with respect to all potential inmates.
We can not, however, say the same for certain categories of inmates: those who the record demonstrates are at a particularly high risk for suffering very serious or severe injury to their mental health, including overt paranoia, psychotic breaks with reality, or massive exacerbations of existing mental illness as a result of the conditions in the SHU. Such inmates consist of the already mentally ill, as well as persons with borderline personality disorders, brain damage or mental retardation, impulse-ridden personalities, or a history of prior psychiatric problems or chronic depression. For these inmates, placing them in the SHU is the mental equivalent of putting an asthmatic in a place with little air to breathe. The risk is high enough, and the consequences serious enough, that we have no hesitancy in finding that the risk is plainly “unreasonable.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 37, 113 S.Ct. at 2481. Such inmates are not required to endure the
18

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

horrific suffering of a serious mental illness or major exacerbation of an existing mental illness before obtaining relief. Id. at ––––—––––, 113 S.Ct. at 2480–81.
*23 We are acutely aware that defendants are entitled to substantial deference with respect to their management of the SHU. However, subjecting individuals to conditions that are “very likely” to render them psychotic or otherwise inflict a serious mental illness or seriously exacerbate an existing mental illness can not be squared with evolving standards of humanity or decency, especially when certain aspects of those conditions appear to bear little relation to security concerns. A risk this grave—this shocking and indecent—simply has no place in civilized society. It is surely not one “today’s society [would] choose[ ] to tolerate.” Id. at ––––, 113 S.Ct. at 2482. Indeed, it is inconceivable that any representative portion of our society would put its imprimatur on a plan to subject the mentally ill and other inmates described above to the SHU, knowing that severe psychological consequences will most probably befall those inmates. Thus, with respect to this limited population of the inmate class, plaintiffs have established that continued confinement in the SHU, as it is currently constituted, deprives inmates of a minimal civilized level of one of life’s necessities.
Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F.Supp. 1146, 1265–66 (N.D.Cal.1995) (footnote omitted).
Applying the standard just described, the Court finds that mentally ill prisoners within the IDOC segregation units are not receiving minimally adequate mental health care in terms of scope, intensity, and duration and the IDOC has been deliberately indifferent. Based on the facts and law set forth in this Entry, therefore, it is the Court’s conclusion that the treatment of mentally ill prisoners housed in IDOC segregation units and the New Castle Psychiatric Unit, and the failure to provide adequate treatment for such prisoners, violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. The Plaintiffs have met their burden in that respect and are entitled to prevail.
D. Remedy Once a constitutional violation is found, a federal court is required to tailor “the scope of the remedy” to fit “the nature and extent of the constitutional violation.” Dayton

Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 420, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977). A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society. Brown v. Plata, ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1910, 1928, 179 L.Ed.2d 969 (2011).
If government fails to fulfill this obligation, the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting Eighth Amendment violation. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687, n. 9, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978). Courts must be sensitive to the State’s interest in punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as the need for deference to experienced and expert prison administrators faced with the difficult and dangerous task of housing large numbers of convicted criminals. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547–548, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Courts nevertheless must not shrink from their obligation to “enforce the constitutional rights of all ‘persons,’ including prisoners.” Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 321, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972) (per curiam ). Courts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.
*24 Id. at 1928–29.
Having determined that a constitutional violation exists, the Court must now turn to the remedy it should impose. The Plaintiffs seek equitable relief. The standards for a permanent injunction are essentially the same as for a preliminary injunction, except that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits, not a likelihood of success, to obtain a permanent injunction. See Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 392, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). A party seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy the following four factors before the district court may grant a permanent injunction: 1) The existence of irreparable injury (including a continuing and imminent threat of harm); 2) remedies at law are inadequate to compensate for that threat of harm; 3) whether the balance of hardships between plaintiff and defendant tips in favor of a remedy in equity; and 4) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, –––U.S. ––––, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2743, 2748, 177 L.Ed.2d 461 (2010) (citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchanges, L.L. C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006)).
19

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in...

The relief to which the Plaintiffs are entitled is the delivery of mental health care which is within the bounds of the Eighth Amendment. The remedy may be as complex as the evidence of the violation, and Plata is again instructive, just as it was in addressing the merits of the Eighth Amendment claim. The overlay of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) on possible remedial measures was addressed by Judge McKinney of this Court in Kress v. CCA of Tennessee, No. 1:08–cv–00431–LJM–DML, 2011 WL 3154804, *2 (S.D.Ind. July 26, 2011), aff’d., 694 F.3d 890 (7th Cir.2012):
In Plata, it was undisputed that constitutional violations still existed in the prisons at issue even though some remedial measures had been taken. 131 S.Ct. at 1935–36. In addition, the Plata trial court took into account “current prison conditions” in issuing its injunction requiring the State of California to remedy the overcrowding, and the Supreme Court approved of this approach. Id. at 1935 (“The ... court properly admitted evidence of current conditions as relevant to the issues before it.”); see also id. at 1936 (“[T]he record and opinion make clear that the decision ... was based on current evidence pertaining to ongoing constitutional violations.”). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, Plata does not stand for the proposition that courts only may take into account conditions existing at the time a lawsuit is filed in determining whether injunctive relief is appropriate. Indeed, Plata confirms the PLRA’s requirement that injunctive relief be instituted only as “necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation.” Id. at 1930–31 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3626).
A federal court possesses broad powers to remedy constitutional violations, but these powers are not boundless. The federal court must find that a constitutional violation exists. “[I]t is important to remember that judicial powers may be exercised only on the basis of a constitutional violation.” Swann v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 16, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). When there is no continuing violation of federal law, injunctive relief is not part of a federal court’s remedial powers. See Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 71, 106 S.Ct. 423, 88 L.Ed.2d 371

(1985).
*25 Accordingly, within 45 days, the Court will schedule a conference with counsel for the parties to discuss and establish the appropriate development of a remedy. The parties may consult Westhefer v. Snyder, Nos. 00–162–GPM, 00–708–GPM, 2012 WL 4904522 (S.D.Ill. Oct.15, 2012), and the antecedent decisions in that case for ideas in formulating a remedial plan.
III. CONCLUSION
“Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84–85, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). Nonetheless, “prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution.” Id. at 84.
In the midst of a complex and tumultuous environment such as a prison, “[f]ederal courts must take cognizance of the valid constitutional claims of prison inmates.” Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267, 275 (7th Cir.1996) (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 84). That is precisely what the Plaintiffs established at trial because “[a] prison that deprives prisoners of ... adequate medical care ... is incompatible with the concept of human dignity ....” Brown v. Plata, ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1910, 1928, 179 L.Ed.2d 969 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Plaintiffs have prevailed as to their Eighth Amendment claim. Appropriate further proceedings will be conducted as to the relief to which the Plaintiffs are entitled and as to any ancillary matters.
For now, no partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim resolved in this Entry.
SO ORDERED.
	  

	  

20

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com’n v...., Not Reported in... 21

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 8852

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY )

SERVICES COMMISSION, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 1:08-cv-01317 TWP-MJD

Stipulation to Enter Into Private Settlement Agreement Following Notice to the Class and Fairness Hearing
The parties, in person and by their counsel, stipulate and agree as follows: I. The history of the case 1. This action was filed in 2008 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). 2. The action alleged that the DOC violated both the Eighth Amendment and certain federal statutes by housing seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregated or excessively isolated and harsh conditions where they failed to receive adequate mental health care. 3. At all times the DOC denied, and continues to deny, all of plaintiffs’ material allegations. 4. The operative complaint in this case is the Amended Complaint of December 2, 2009 (Dkt. 75-1, 75-2, 80), in which the plaintiffs are the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission and three prisoners, Joshua Harrison, Greggory Sims, and James Panozzo. 5. On April 27, 2010, the Court certified this case as a class action with the class represented by the three prisoners and defined as:

Page | 1

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 8853
all current and future mentally ill prisoners who are committed to the Indiana Department of Correction and who are housed in settings in Department of Correction Institutions or in the New Castle Correctional Facility that feature extended periods of time in cells, including, but not limited to, prisoners in disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation, or in the New Castle Psychiatric Unit. (Dkt. 109). 6. The DOC no longer refers to “segregation,” and instead utilizes the term “restrictive status housing” and the parties therefore agree that the class includes those who are placed in what is now known as disciplinary restrictive status housing, administrative restrictive status housing, or protective custody, as well as the New Castle Psychiatric Unit. The term “segregation/restrictive housing” will be used in this agreement to reflect the change in terminology. 7. In an earlier decision, on July 21, 2009, the Court denied DOC’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission, holding that Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission had standing to sue on behalf of seriously mentally ill DOC prisoners. (Dkt. 58). 8. The Court conducted a bench trial in this case from July 25, 2011 through July 29, 2011. 9. The plaintiffs did not pursue their federal statutory claims, instead arguing only that the DOC was violating the Eighth Amendment rights of the prisoners included in the class. 10. On December 31, 2012, the Court issued its Entry Following Bench Trial (Dkt. 279), and concluded that “Plaintiffs have prevailed as to their Eighth Amendment claim.” (Id. at 36). The Court did not, however, enter any final judgment at that time or at any time since. 11. Since the Court’s Entry the parties, as set out in more detail below, have been working to address concerns expressed by the Court and to modify the conditions of confinement for the class.
Page | 2

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 8854
12. The DOC continues to deny that it has at any time violated the Eighth Amendment rights of the class and denies the various claims made by plaintiffs to support their Eighth Amendment argument. However, the parties are desirous of attempting to reach a settlement of this matter and therefore they enter into this Stipulation. Plaintiffs stipulate that defendant’s entry into this Private Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is not an admission of any kind and imposes no liability on defendant or any of its agents, employees, officers or other persons for any violation of law, constitutional or otherwise. 13. Insofar as the plaintiffs have sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the United States Constitution and federal law, this litigation is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626, et seq. This Act imposes certain requirements on judicially sanctioned agreements made in litigation such as this, but provides that the parties may enter into private agreements which are exempted from the requirements of the Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c). However, such agreements are not subject to enforcement under federal law other than through potential reinstatement of the proceedings, although they are enforceable under state law as breaches of contract. Id. 14. Inasmuch as this case is a certified class action the Court must determine, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that this Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of this matter. The Court cannot ascertain this until after reasonable notice is given to the class. Accordingly, even though this Private Settlement Agreement has been agreed to by the DOC and all named plaintiffs and Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services, it will not go into effect until after notice is given to the class and the Court conducts the hearing required by Rule 23(e). Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services and the named plaintiffs specifically agree that their approval of this Agreement is contingent on the Court finding that the Agreement
Page | 3

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 8855
is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the event that the Court does not find that the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, this Agreement will immediately be deemed null and void. The plaintiffs will file, along with this Agreement, a motion seeking approval of the form and manner of notice to the class of this Agreement. 15. Accordingly, to the extent that the parties agree to the terms and conditions as set forth below, this is deemed to be a private settlement agreement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 16. This Agreement is supported by good and valuable consideration. This includes, but is not limited to, the following. Plaintiffs agree that they will not seek a final judgment in this cause. The DOC agrees that it will not seek to appeal this Court’s Entry of December 31, 2012, whether as an interlocutory matter or after final judgment, and will not challenge any of the Court’s other rulings in this cause, unless this case is reinstated as set out below. II. The definition and enumeration of seriously mentally ill prisoners 17. In the Court’s Entry of December 31, 2012, the Court defined seriously mentally ill prisoners as follows:
prisoners with a current diagnosis or recent significant history of a DSM-IV Axis I diagnosis of: schizophrenia, delusional disorder, psychotic disorder, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform disorder, major depression, bipolar disorder who are actively suicidal. And, the term includes prisoners who have engaged in a recent serious suicide attempt, regardless of diagnosis, who because of their mental illness have a recent history of hallucinations, or who have organic brain syndrome, mental retardation, or severe anxiety disorder, leading to significant functional impairment or self-harm behaviors or who have personality disorders manifesting in frequent episodes of psychosis or depression. (Dkt. 279 at 11). 18. The parties have agreed on the following definition of seriously mentally ill prisoners, which includes and expands upon the group of offenders covered by the Court’s definition:
Page | 4

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 8856
a. Prisoners determined to have a current diagnosis or recent significant history of schizophrenia, delusional disorder, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, brief psychotic disorder, substance-induced psychotic disorder (excluding intoxication and withdrawal), undifferentiated psychotic disorder, bipolar I or II disorders;
b. Prisoners diagnosed with any other validated mental illness that is clinically severe, based on evidence-based standards, and that results in significant functional impairment; and
c. Prisoners diagnosed with an intellectual or developmental disability or other cognitive disorder that results in a significant functional impairment.
d. As used above:
(i) “Recent significant history” refers to a diagnosis made at any time in the last 12 months.
(ii) “Significant functional impairment” includes one of the following as determined by qualified mental health staff:
Within the previous 6 months, the prisoner haseither made a suicide attempt that mental health staff considers serious, inflicted self-injury that mental health staff considers serious, or both;
The prisoner has demonstrated difficulty in his/her ability to engage in activities of daily living including:
o Eating o Grooming and/or personal hygiene o Maintenance of housing area o Participation in recreation o Ambulation
The prisoner has demonstrated a pervasive pattern of dysfunctional or disruptive social interactions, bizarre or disruptive behavior, etc., as a result of mental illness.
(iii) A misdiagnosis does not qualify as a diagnosis or determination of mental illness for purposes of this settlement, once the error has been determined by a qualified mental health professional.
Page | 5

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 8857
19. Inasmuch as the Court’s definition is subsumed within the definition noted in paragraph 18, for the purpose of this Agreement the term “seriously mentally ill” is defined as noted in paragraph 18. 20. In May of 2013, a Request for Proposals created by the DOC estimated that that there were approximately 664 prisoners to whom the Court’s December 31, 2012 Entry applies, including 402 mentally ill prisoners in segregation/restrictive housing beds and 128 such prisoners at the New Castle Psychiatric Facility and 134 prisoners at the Wabash Valley Special Needs Unit. III. The development of mental health programming by the DOC following the Court’s
Entry of December 31, 2012 21. Following the Court’s December 31, 2012, Entry the parties met and the DOC committed to a course of action that would allow seriously mentally ill prisoners in the certified class to be placed in a setting where they could receive at least 10 hours a week of therapeutic programming, not including the time out of cell for recreation, showers, or other purposes permitted generally to offenders not in the certified class. The parties agreed, and continue to agree, that the term “therapeutic programming” can include formal group therapy, individual therapy, therapeutic milieu activity, and other activity as determined by mental health professionals as part of an individualized treatment plan. The parties also agree, as set out further below, that under certain circumstances seriously mentally ill prisoners may be allowed to remain in segregated/restrictive housing for up to 30 days where they will not receive therapeutic programming and that receipt of the therapeutic programming is subject to waiver and exceptional or extraordinary circumstances as described below.
Page | 6

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 8858
22. To this end the DOC determined to continue to utilize existing facilities and programs and develop new facilities and programs for seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregation/restrictive housing or similar housing in the DOC. 23. At the current time the following specialized mental health programs and facilities are in place for male prisoners.
a. New Castle Psychiatric Facility – This facility is located within the New Castle Correctional Facility that is operated by the GEO Group. It has 128 beds in 8 separate cell blocks. At the current time prisoners are offered a minimum of 10 hours of out-ofcell therapeutic programming each week. Depending on their functioning level they are provided a decreasing amount of individual therapy from at least weekly to at least monthly. They are also provided at least one hour of recreation a day and three showers a week. Prisoners are provided additional out-of-cell unstructured time as warranted. Treatment plans are maintained for all prisoners and are regularly reviewed by treatment teams made up of both treatment and correctional staff. Prisoners who are on psychiatric medication are regularly seen by either psychiatrists or advance practice nurses, or both, for medication reviews and monitoring. b. Wabash Valley Correctional Facility – The Special Needs Unit (“SNU”) continues to house up to 134 mentally ill prisoners who can benefit from a transitional program in anticipation of returning to general population. The prisoners are offered, at a minimum, 10 hours of out-of-cell therapeutic programming each week. Treatment plans are maintained for all prisoners and are regularly reviewed by treatment teams made up of both treatment and correctional staff. Prisoners who are on psychiatric medication are
Page | 7

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 8859
regularly seen by psychiatrists or advance practice nurses, or both, for medication reviews and monitoring. c. Pendleton Correctional Facility – Subsequent to the Court’s December 31, 2012, Decree the DOC opened a new unit and treatment facility known as the Pendleton Treatment Unit/INSIGHT (Intent on Shaping Individual Growth with Holistic Treatment) Unit. As currently envisioned, when fully occupied the unit will have the capacity to house up to 250 seriously mentally ill prisoners, many of whom were formerly in segregation/restrictive housing. Prisoners are being, or will be, housed in single cells or double cells, depending on their needs. A structure at Pendleton Correctional Facility has been rehabilitated into a treatment center, complete with rooms for group therapy, individual therapy, and offices. By agreement of the parties the treatment unit has been populated slowly, approximately five new prisoners each week. Prisoners in this unit receive at least 10 hours of out-of-cell therapeutic programming each week. They are also allowed, in addition to recreation and showers, significant time each day out of their cells for communal activities on their cell blocks and outside when weather permits. Individualized treatment plans are maintained for all prisoners and are regularly reviewed by treatment teams made up of both treatment and correctional staff. Prisoners who are on psychiatric medication are regularly seen by either psychiatrists or advance practice nurses, or both, for medication reviews and monitoring. These occur at least every 90 days. 24. The number of seriously mentally ill female prisoners is significantly less than the number of male prisoners. Generally there have been no more than 10 seriously mentally ill female prisoners in segregation/restricted confinement at any one time. These prisoners are
Page | 8

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 8860
housed in the segregation/restrictive housing unit at the Indiana Women’s Prison. However, unlike non-seriously mentally ill prisoners housed in that unit, these prisoners receive at least 10 hours of out-of-cell therapeutic programming each week. Individual therapy is also provided as needed. One hour of recreation is offered daily. Seriously mentally ill prisoners are transitioned as quickly as possible from the segregation/restrictive housing unit to the special needs unit at Indiana Women’s Prison where prisoners are out of their cells, aside from count periods, from approximately 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 25. The parties agree that there are also seriously mentally ill prisoners who are placed in settings in the DOC other than the specialized units noted above. IV. Substantive Agreement
Staffing 26. The plaintiffs acknowledge that the DOC has made extraordinary efforts since the Court’s Decree of December 31, 2012, to address the issues noted by the plaintiffs and the Court. 27. To meet the terms of the Private Settlement Agreement set out below the DOC, either directly or through its contract providers, has already, as appropriate, increased both correctional staffing and mental health staffing for seriously mentally ill prisoners. The DOC agrees that it will maintain sufficient staff to manage the mental health units noted below and to identify seriously mentally ill prisoners and divert them from placement in segregated/restrictive housing in keeping with considerations of safety and security. At the current time the DOC has no plans to decrease existing staffing levels. 28. This agreement uses the term “mental health professional.” This term includes the following professionals: psychiatrists, psychologists, masters-prepared therapists, and psychiatric nurse practitioners.
Page | 9

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 8861
The removal of seriously mentally ill from segregation/restrictive housing 29. While not agreeing with the conclusions of the Court in its December 31, 2012 Entry or that the following is mandated by the United States Constitution, and subject to the 30-day provision, waiver and “exceptional circumstances” as defined in paragraphs 30, 32, and 33, the DOC agrees that:
a. no seriously mentally ill prisoners shall be placed in segregation/restrictive housing (including protective custody) if they are known to be seriously mentally ill prior to such placement. b. if a prisoner in segregation/restrictive housing (including protective custody) is found to be, or becomes, seriously mentally ill subsequent to such placement the prisoner shall be removed at the earliest opportunity and placed into an appropriate placement where his or her mental illness can be addressed. 30. This private settlement agreement is subject to the following qualification that has previously been referenced as “the 30-day provision.” The parties recognize that if a seriously mentally ill prisoner is scheduled to be in segregation/restrictive housing for 30 days or less that it may be more disruptive to his or her mental health to move the prisoner to a mental health unit. Therefore, a seriously mentally ill prisoner may be placed into segregation/restrictive housing for as many as 30 continuous days if, and only if, mental health professionals determine that the prisoner may be safely housed in the segregated/restrictive housing for that period and that placing the person in such housing is preferable to a short-term move to a mental health or other unit. 31. If a seriously mentally ill prisoner continues to be housed in segregated/restrictive housing because the prisoner is scheduled to be in segregation/restricted housing for 30 days or less the prisoner will, at a minimum, have face-to-face contact with a mental health professional multiple times a week, with no more than 3 non-contact days between contacts and with such contact being recorded in the prisoner’s file and with the prisoner being offered out-of-cell
Page | 10

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 8862
evaluation and counseling by a mental health professional at least once every two weeks, but more often if specified in the prisoner’s individualized treatment plan. The prisoner will be removed from the housing in the event that mental health staff determines that his or her mental health has decompensated such that staying in segregation/restricted housing, even for the remaining period of time, would cause problems that outweigh the disruption to the prisoner’s mental health caused by the removal. 32. The parties acknowledge that there may be exceptional circumstances where barring or removing a seriously mentally ill prisoner from segregation/restrictive housing would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety and security of one or more prisoners and/or the staff. If such a situation arises the need for confinement in segregation/restrictive housing must be approved by the Superintendent of the facility where the prisoner is located, or his or her designee, following consultation with an appropriate mental health professional. The opinions of the mental health staff concerning the mental health needs of the prisoners will be honored unless there are real and substantial security or safety concerns noted. The decision shall be recorded in the prisoner’s permanent record. The DOC shall attempt to resolve any such exceptional circumstances so that the prisoner may be removed from segregation/restrictive housing at the earliest possible opportunity. If a determination of exceptional circumstances is made it shall be reviewed at least every 14 calendar days by the Superintendent, or his or her designee, the mental health treatment team in the facility, and the head of mental health services for either the DOC or any contract provider responsible for the provision of mental health services to DOC prisoners. Such review, and the decisions made as the result of the review, will be documented in writing in the prisoner’s permanent record. When the term “exceptional circumstances” is used in this Agreement with reference to retention of prisoners in segregation/restrictive housing it shall refer
Page | 11

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 8863
to the circumstances noted in this paragraph. In the event that a seriously mentally ill prisoner is required by exceptional circumstances to remain in segregated/restrictive housing a specific written plan of mental health care will be created for the prisoner that will set out the frequency of contact of the prisoner with mental health staff with the frequency to be at least that specified in paragraph 31 above. Defendants will maintain a list of seriously mentally ill prisoners who remain in segregation because of exceptional circumstances, and share that list with plaintiffs’ counsel no less often than once per calendar quarter on the request of plaintiffs’ counsel. 33. The parties acknowledge that some seriously mentally ill prisoners may refuse to leave segregated/restrictive housing to go to an appropriate permanent placement where their mental illness may be best addressed. The DOC has the authority to involuntarily transfer a prisoner, and reserves the right to do so in appropriate circumstances as noted below. The parties agree that under the following circumstances a prisoner may waive the DOC recommendation that he or she leave segregated/restrictive housing. If a prisoner indicates that he or she wishes to refuse to be transferred the refusal will be documented in the prisoner’s medical file. All reasonable efforts will be made to counsel the prisoner to voluntarily leave segregation/restrictive housing. In the event that a determination is made that the harm that will occur if the prisoner is allowed to remain in segregation/restricted housing outweighs the harm that the prisoner will suffer if the prisoner is moved to a placement where the prisoner is able to receive appropriate treatment for his or her mental illness, the prisoner will be transferred even though the prisoner objects. If the prisoner is allowed to remain in segregation/restrictive housing, the prisoner will continue to be monitored with the frequency noted in paragraphs 34-35 below and will, at least monthly, be offered the opportunity to be transferred if the prisoner’s mental health needs continue to warrant such a transfer. The DOC is not, however, required to provide the minimum adequate treatment
Page | 12

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 8864
set out in paragraph 42 below, and the provisions of this paragraph supersede the documentation and counseling requirements set forth in paragraph 43 below.
The monitoring of prisoners in segregation/restricted housing 34. The DOC agrees that the mental health status and needs of prisoners in segregated/restricted housing will be monitored frequently by mental health personnel to, among other things, assure that if they are seriously mentally ill, or become seriously mentally ill, steps will be taken to remove them from the segregation/restrictive housing, subject to the exceptional circumstances and waiver situations noted in paragraphs 32 and 33. 35. This monitoring shall consist of daily at-cell-front monitoring by correctional and medical staff during each shift. Additionally, prisoners with a mental health diagnosis shall be visited at least once a week, at their cell front, by mental health personnel and shall be offered monthly out-of-cell monitoring by a mental health professional. Absent a significant change in circumstances the weekly visit need not be recorded in the prisoner’s medical records although some general log or record will be kept that demonstrates that the visit occurred. Unless correctional necessity dictates otherwise, out-of-cell monitoring will occur outside of the audible range of correctional staff. 36. In the event that a female prisoner in segregated/restrictive housing is found to be seriously mentally ill she shall be placed in the segregated/restrictive housing unit at the Indiana Women’s Prison, absent waiver or exceptional circumstances, and subject to the 30-day period noted in paragraph 30 above, and offered minimum adequate treatment, as set out below.
The reclassification of mentally ill prisoners 37. The plaintiffs acknowledge that due to an original misdiagnosis or other circumstances, a patient previously classified as seriously mentally ill may properly no longer be so classified.
Page | 13

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 8865
38. In the situation described in paragraph 37, a mental health professional may revise the prisoner’s prior diagnosis. Plaintiffs acknowledge that this rediagnosis may allow the DOC to continue to house the prisoner in segregation/restrictive housing. The DOC acknowledges that if a prisoner is diagnosed with any of the mental illnesses noted in paragraph 18(a), the fact that the condition is in remission is not, by itself, justification for a rediagnosis of the prisoner. 39. The DOC or its designee will notify the plaintiffs’ lead counsel, who is currently Kenneth J. Falk, either before or, at the option of DOC, within 30 days after, the occurrence of either of the following events:
a. A prisoner who was reclassified from seriously mentally ill to not seriously mentally ill is placed in restrictive/segregated housing within 6 months of the reclassification; b. A prisoner who is in restrictive/segregated housing is reclassified from seriously mentally ill to not seriously mentally ill and is retained in restrictive/segregated housing. 40. In the event of an occurrence described in Paragraph 39a or 39b, and regardless whether notice has been given as provided in Paragraph 39, the plaintiffs’ counsel may review the prisoner’s medical records upon submission of a written request. The defendant’s counsel will be notified in writing if the identity of the plaintiffs’ lead counsel changes. The provision of minimum adequate treatment to seriously mentally ill prisoners in the DOC’s mental health units 41. As indicated above, the DOC is maintaining a number of correctional placements specifically for prisoners who are seriously mentally ill. These placements, referred to below as “mental health units” are: a. For male prisoners – New Castle Psychiatric Facility, Special Needs Unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, and the Pendleton Treatment Unit.
Page | 14

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 8866
b. For female prisoners – The segregation/restrictive housing unit at the Indiana Women’s Prison and the Special Needs Unit at the Indiana Women’s Prison. The DOC has no current plans to change the location of these specialized units for the housing of seriously mentally ill prisoners. 42. The DOC agrees that absent extraordinary circumstances, as set out below in paragraphs 4647, every seriously mentally ill prisoner who is housed at the New Castle Psychiatric Facility, the Special Needs Unit at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, the Pendleton Treatment Unit, or the segregation/restrictive housing unit at the Indiana Women’s Prison shall receive the following treatment, at a minimum, while confined in the respective unit. This is referred to in this Agreement as “minimum adequate treatment.” a. An individualized treatment plan created by a treatment team consisting of mental health professionals and correctional staff who are familiar with the prisoner. The individualized treatment plan will be specific to the prisoner and will be reviewed at least every 90 days. b. At least 10 hours of therapeutic programming each week, which can include formal group therapy, individual therapy, therapeutic milieu activity, and other activity determined by a mental health professional to be therapeutic, as individually tailored to the prisoner by mental health professionals. Normal recreation is excluded from therapeutic programming hours. Prisoners will be allowed to attend group therapy sessions without restraints, except to the extent restraints are deemed necessary for security reasons. Prisoners will receive individual therapy at least once a month and more as needed. The individual therapy will be provided by a mental health professional. Prisoners will be allowed to attend individual therapy without restraints, except to the
Page | 15

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 8867
extent restraints are deemed necessary on a case-by-case basis for security reasons. Unless unsafe to do so for security reasons, as determined on a case-by-case basis, the patient and the therapist will be provided aural privacy. Individual therapy does not include medication reviews of prisoners receiving psychiatric medication that will occur by a psychiatrist or other medical doctor or advanced practice nurse consistent with existing DOC policy. c. Recreation and showers will be offered consistent with general DOC policy. d. As noted, the 10 hours a week of therapeutic programming is a minimum amount and additional hours may be provided. e. Where possible and appropriate the prisoners will be provided additional out-ofcell time that may, or may not, involve therapeutic programming. 43. The minimum adequate treatment referred to in this Agreement represents out-of-cell opportunities offered to prisoners. The parties recognize that prisoners may, at times, refuse the offer of out-of-cell opportunities either because of their mental illnesses or for other reasons. In the event that a prisoner refuses to attend either individual or group therapy, the refusal will be documented in the prisoner’s medical records. On any day on which the prisoner refuses to attend therapy, the prisoner will be visited at least once by a member of the mental health staff, who will endeavor to counsel and work with the prisoner so that he or she will attend future meetings. This will also be documented in the prisoner’s medical records. The DOC may withhold privileges, such as access to a television, in order to facilitate the prisoner’s therapeutic involvement. 44. Seriously mentally ill prisoners will not be discharged from the New Castle Psychiatric Unit or the mental health program at the Indiana Women’s Prison because of their refusal to
Page | 16

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: 8868
participate in minimum adequate treatment unless the treatment team is in agreement that the offender is competent to refuse to participate and that discharge from the unit does not pose an excessive risk to the offender’s mental health. If the prisoner is discharged into segregation/restrictive housing his or her mental health will be monitored as noted above in paragraphs 34-36. If the prisoner is discharged into a unit that is not segregation or restricted housing the prisoner will also receive appropriate monitoring. The purpose of the monitoring is to ascertain, and attempt to prevent, any deterioration in the prisoner’s mental health. If placement back into the New Castle Psychiatric Unit or the mental health program at the Indiana Women’s Prison remains appropriate the prisoner will be returned if a determination is made that he or she will participate. 45. A seriously mentally ill prisoner may be removed involuntarily from the Pendleton Treatment Unit or the SNU only under the following circumstances:
a. The prisoner requires a higher degree of care than is provided in that unit. b. The prisoner does not require the care provided in that unit. c. The prisoner’s continued presence in that unit endangers his own safety and security or that of others, as in the case of prisoners in separatee status. d. The prisoner needs health care other than mental health care that cannot be provided adequately in the unit. 46. The requirements of the paragraphs above, concerning the provision of treatment to prisoners in the mental health units maintained by the DOC, are subject to prisoner-specific emergency circumstances where a particular prisoner is not offered minimum adequate treatment. These emergency circumstances exist where removing the prisoner, or allowing the prisoner to exit his or her cell, to attend the specified treatment would pose an unacceptable risk
Page | 17

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 18 of 27 PageID #: 8869
to the safety and security of prisoners and/or the staff. It is anticipated that if such a situation arises it will last only until the prisoner’s condition has been stabilized and the prisoner can safely leave his or her cell. In such a situation the need to remove the prisoner from the minimum adequate treatment must be documented in the prisoner’s medical record and the prisoner must be visited at least daily by a mental health professional to ascertain the prisoner’s condition and to assist the prisoner in reaching the stabilized condition that will allow him or her to resume receiving the minimum adequate treatment. These daily visits will allow for a daily review as to whether the prisoner may resume minimum adequate treatment. These visits should take place outside of the prisoner’s cell if possible but if the prisoner’s condition does not safely allow such a visit it may occur at cell-front. 47. Additionally, short-term emergency situations affecting the specific mental health unit may justify the temporary suspension of treatment, however such suspension shall only be for the period of time that an emergency exists. During a facility-wide lockdown, DOC will continue to provide minimum adequate treatment to seriously mentally ill prisoners unless doing so poses an unacceptable risk to the safety and security of the facility, its staff, its prisoners, or the public.
The discharge of prisoners from the mental health units 48. Discharge planning will be considered by the treatment team each time a prisoner’s treatment plan is reviewed. The goal for each prisoner in each of the DOC’s mental health units is to discharge him or her into an appropriate general population setting when it is therapeutically appropriate to do so. 49. While prisoners who, but for this agreement, would be in disciplinary restrictive housing are committed to one of the mental health units described above, their disciplinary time will
Page | 18

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 19 of 27 PageID #: 8870
“run” so that each day in the mental health unit will be treated as one less day of disciplinary confinement. If a seriously mentally ill prisoner has disciplinary restrictive housing time left at the time of his or her discharge from the mental health unit, the prisoner will be returned to segregated/restrictive housing only if exceptional circumstances, as outlined in more detail in paragraph 32, are present such that placing the prisoner outside of segregation/restrictive housing would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety and security of prisoners and/or the staff. If the DOC contemplates returning the prisoner to disciplinary restrictive housing it must comply with all requirements and procedures noted in paragraph 32. If the prisoner’s diagnosis or condition has changed such that he or she is no longer seriously mentally ill, the prisoner will not be returned to disciplinary restrictive housing unless approved by the Executive Director of Mental Health and Special Populations, or his or her designee, following consultation with an appropriate mental health professional. The decision shall be recorded in the prisoner’s permanent record. 50. A seriously mentally ill prisoner who was, prior to admission to a mental health unit, in administrative restrictive housing or protective custody will be returned to such housing only if exceptional circumstances, as outlined in more detail in paragraphs 32 and 33, are present such that placing the prisoner outside of segregation/restrictive housing would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety and security of one or more prisoners and/or the staff. If the DOC contemplates returning the prisoner to administrative restrictive housing or protective custody it must comply with all requirements and procedures noted in paragraph 32 or 33. If the prisoner’s diagnosis or condition has changed such that he or she is no longer seriously mentally ill, the prisoner will not be returned to administrative restrictive housing or protective custody unless approved by the Superintendent of the facility where the prisoner is located, or his or her designee, following
Page | 19

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 20 of 27 PageID #: 8871
consultation with an appropriate mental health professional. The decision shall be recorded in the prisoner’s permanent record. 51. If a prisoner is released out of the DOC directly from a mental health unit, discharge planning will begin at the earliest opportunity, including contact with outside mental health providers to establish continuity of treatment to the greatest extent possible.
Discipline 52. Prisoners within the mental health units noted above are subject to all disciplinary rules and policies of the DOC. However, the DOC acknowledges that it is inappropriate to punish a mentally ill prisoner if the conduct in question is caused or strongly influenced by the prisoner’s mental illness. 53. Accordingly, the DOC’s Disciplinary Code for Adult Offenders (currently Policy and Administrative Procedure - Manual of Policies and Procedures [No. 02-04-101]) currently provides that in the event that discipline is contemplated with a prisoner with a mental illness, the Disciplinary Review Officer will contact the appropriate mental health professional. If it is determined that the incident in question was the result of the prisoner’s mental illness, the prisoner will receive a written reprimand documenting the behavior, but will not receive other discipline. The parties agree that the DOC may change its Disciplinary Code for Adult Offenders without notice to, or consultation with, plaintiffs’ counsel. However, the DOC agrees that prior to imposing discipline upon any prisoner who is seriously mentally ill and resides within a mental health or segregation unit that the appropriate mental health professional with that unit will be contacted and if it is determined that the incident in question was the result of the prisoner’s mental illness, the prisoner will receive a written reprimand documenting the behavior, but will not receive other discipline.
Page | 20

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 21 of 27 PageID #: 8872
54. As a temporary modification of the treatment plan a prisoner may be confined without access to the minimum adequate treatment set out above. However, such confinement will exceed 7 continuous days in duration only under emergent conditions that threaten safety or security. During such time the prisoner will be seen daily by a mental health professional, with the meeting occurring out-of-cell if possible consistent with institutional security and the prisoner’s mental health. The prisoner will be released from such confinement for recreation when doing so is consistent with considerations of safety and security.
Observation of those who threaten suicide or self-harm or engage in self-harm 55. If a prisoner threatens suicide or self-harm, or engages in self-harm, he or she may be placed in a setting consistent with the suicide-safer cell checklists outlined within DOC policy. 56. During the time that the prisoner is confined in such setting the DOC is not required to provide the prisoner with the minimum adequate treatment noted above. In that event, consistent with DOC policy, mental health staff will monitor the prisoner daily and the prisoner will be provided appropriate mental health services and treatment.
Policies and procedures 57. The DOC routinely creates certain documents, including, but not limited to, documents in its Manual of Policies and Administrative Procedures, which set out the procedures to be followed throughout the DOC. 58. Additionally, DOC facilities may create facility or program-specific rules and guidelines. 59. The DOC has provided the plaintiffs’ counsel with hard copies, digital copies, or both of a number of Administrative Policies and Procedures and other DOC-created documents that have been created specifically for use in the mental health units or otherwise deal specially with mentally ill prisoners.
Page | 21

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 22 of 27 PageID #: 8873
60. The DOC is free to create new documents or alter these existing ones. Plaintiffs’ counsel may, every six months, request and receive from defendant’s counsel new and amended Administrative Policies and Procedures and other DOC-created documents that have been created specifically for use in the mental health units or otherwise deal specially with mentally ill prisoners.
Continued right of review by plaintiffs’ counsel 61. The DOC recognizes that during the time that this Agreement is actively in effect, as set out below, plaintiffs’ counsel will have a continued right to information and review of the treatment of seriously mentally ill prisoners as follows:
a. If the DOC alters the location or identity of any of its mental health units it shall immediately notify plaintiffs’ counsel. b. The DOC will transmit to plaintiffs’ counsel any new policies or procedures used in any of the mental health treatment units within 30 days of the time they go into effect. c. Every six months plaintiffs’ counsel, either by themselves or with their retained consultants, may tour each or any of the DOC’s mental health units. d. If plaintiffs’ counsel have specific named prisoners concerning whom they have questions, they may review the medical records of the prisoners upon notice to the defendant’s counsel of record in this cause or the DOC’s Director of Legal Services. e. At least once every six months plaintiffs’ counsel, upon application, will be given access to the medical records of 10 prisoners from each of the DOC’s mental health units as well as the Westville Control Unit and Custody and Control Unit at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.
Page | 22

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 23 of 27 PageID #: 8874
f. The above enumerated records may not be all the records desired by plaintiffs’ counsel in the future. Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledges that the DOC has been extremely accommodating in sharing information since the Court’s Decree of December 31, 2012. The parties fully anticipate that this cooperation will continue and defendant’s counsel will comply with all reasonable requests for documents by plaintiffs’ counsel. g. Unless the Court specifies otherwise, the parties agree to file a status report with the Court at least every six months, with the first report to be filed no later than six months after the date that this Private Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court. 62. Nothing in the preceding paragraph prevents employees of Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services from seeking access to prisoners’ records if such access is necessary for matters that fall within the organization’s statutory and regulatory purview and are unrelated to this litigation. Attorneys’ Fees – Monitoring Activities 63. Defendant shall pay to plaintiffs’ counsel the sum of $585,000 in full satisfaction of any claims in this lawsuit for attorneys’ fees and costs owing as of the date of this Agreement. The payment shall be made within 60 days of the Court finding that this Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 64. As noted above, plaintiffs’ counsel anticipate that they will continue to monitor this agreement during the time that it remains in effect. Absent a final judgment or other order that allows fees to be sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, plaintiffs’ counsel will not seek attorneys’ fees or costs for their monitoring efforts.
Page | 23

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 24 of 27 PageID #: 8875
65. Plaintiffs’ counsel reserve the right to employ consultants to assist in monitoring efforts. If defendant agrees in writing, including via electronic communication, to that retention and to the identity of any consultant so retained, defendant will reimburse one-half of the cost incurred. V. Further proceedings 66. The defendants will not be required to be in full compliance with the terms of this agreement until 90 days have passed from the date the Court finds this agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. 67. In the event that plaintiffs believe that the DOC is not complying with the terms of this Settlement Agreement they will report this to defendant’s counsel in writing and the parties will meet within 30 days, if necessary, to resolve the alleged non-compliance. If plaintiffs believe that the alleged non-compliance is still not resolved they may, no earlier than 14 days after the meeting, move this Court for a status conference to discuss this matter with the Court or the Magistrate Judge. 68. The parties recognize that this Settlement Agreement is in lieu of any further decisions in this matter by the Court. Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek to reinstate the case and seek further formal relief from the Court if the request for the status conference noted above does not resolve the plaintiffs’ concerns. However, if plaintiffs do this then this Settlement Agreement is null and void and both parties retain their right to appeal following a final judgment in this cause, or as otherwise permitted by rules of procedure. 69. Plaintiffs may, if they believe that this Agreement is not being complied with, elect to file a breach of contract action in Indiana state court.
Page | 24

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 25 of 27 PageID #: 8876 VI. Termination of this Agreement 70. It is the parties’ intention that this Agreement will remain actively in effect for 3 years from the date that the Court finds that it is a fair, adequate, and reasonable settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At that point, absent written agreement as noted in paragraph 71 below, the case will automatically be dismissed without prejudice. 71. The period that this Settlement Agreement is actively in effect may be extended by written agreement of the parties entered into before the end of the 3-year period noted above. It may thereafter be further extended by written agreement of the parties. In the event of any extension the case will be automatically dismissed without prejudice at the end of the extended period.
Page | 25

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 26 of 27 PageID #: 8877
For the plaintiffs:
s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk No. 6777-49
s/ Gavin M. Rose Gavin M. Rose No. 26565-53
s/ Jan P. Mensz ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org grose@aclu-in.org
s/ Melissa L. Keyes Melissa L. Keyes No. 30152-49
s/ Thomas E. Crishon Thomas E. Crishon No. 28513-49 Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services 4701 N. Keystone Ave. – Suite 222 Indianapolis, IN 46205 317/722-5555 Fax: 317/722-5564 mkeyes@ipas.IN.gov tcrishon@ipas.IN.gov
Page | 26

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 496 Filed 01/27/16 Page 27 of 27 PageID #: 8878

For the defendant:

s/ David A. Arthur (w/permission) David. A. Arthur No. 2461-48
s/ Thomas D. Quigley (w/permission) Thomas D. Quigley No. 5883-49 Deputy Attorneys General IGCS-5th Floor 302 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 317/232-6286 (Arthur) 317/233-3645 (Quigley) David.Arthur@atg.in.gov Tquigley@idoc.in.gov

Page | 27

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY )

SERVICES COMMISSION, JOSHUA HARRISON,)

GREGGORY SIMS, and JAMES PANOZZO, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Case No. 1:08-cv-01317 TWP-MJD

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

ORDER FINDING PRIVATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO BE FAIR, REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE PURSUANT TO RULE 23(e) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING ACTION
PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(2) INCORPORATING PRIVATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This matter comes before the Court after the filing of the Stipulation to Enter Into Private

Settlement Agreement Following Notice to the Class and Fairness Hearing. (Filing No. 496.) On

March 18, 2016, this Court held a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, to determine whether the proposed settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate

resolution of this matter. The parties appeared by counsel at the hearing. The parties addressed

the Court concerning the history of the litigation and the process and content of the proposed

settlement.

Having considered the Private Settlement Agreement and the reports of class counsel

(Filing Nos. 502 and 505), as well as the presentations of counsel at the fairness hearing and the

record in this matter, the Court finds as follows:

1. This action was filed on October 1, 2008, and alleged that the confinement of

seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregation or segregation-like conditions violated, among other

things, the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2. On April 7, 2010, this Court certified this case as a class action with the class
represented by the three prisoner named plaintiffs and defined as: all current and future mentally ill prisoners who are committed to the Indiana Department of Correction and who are housed in settings in Department of Correction institutions or in the New Castle Correctional Facility that feature extended periods of time in cells, including, but not limited to, prisoners in disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation, or in the New Castle Psychiatric Unit.
(Filing No. 109). 3. On December 31, 2012, after a bench trial on the question of liability, this Court
issued its Entry (Filing No. 279) concluding that “Plaintiffs have prevailed as to their Eighth Amendment claim,” although the Court did not issue final judgment because the appropriate relief had not been determined.
4. No final judgment has been entered in this case since that time. 5. The Private Settlement Agreement is designed to settle all pending matters in this litigation. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over all the parties, including the members of the certified class. 7. The class has been given proper and adequate notice of the proposed resolution of this case through the Private Settlement Agreement. This notice was given as required by the Court’s Order of January 28, 2016. (Filing No. 498.) The notice invited class members to notify class counsel as to any objections to, or comments on, the proposed Private Settlement Agreement. The notice provided valid, due, and sufficient notification of these proceedings and the proposed settlement and included information regarding the procedures for making comments to the Private Settlement Agreement.
2

8. The notice to the class fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements of due process.
9. The Court has reviewed the comments made. 10. Following the standards established by Synfuel Technologies, Inv. v. DHL Express, Inc., 463 F.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2006), the Court finds that the Private Settlement Agreement, and the ultimate dismissal of this action as contemplated by the Private Settlement Agreement, to be fair, reasonable, and adequate for the following reasons:
a. The purpose of this litigation was to prevent the practice of placing seriously mentally ill prisoners into segregation or segregation-like environments and to ensure that these prisoners’ mental health needs are adequately addressed. The Private Settlement Agreement provides generally that all seriously mentally ill prisoners who desire to be removed from segregation or segregation-like environments will no longer be housed there for longer than 30 days and will be provided adequate mental health treatment. The proposed Private Settlement Agreement provides for the mental health care of all members of the class. Thus, it appears to the Court that the proposed Private Settlement Agreement largely accomplishes the litigation goals of the plaintiffs. Given the current status of the case, the Court finds that the comparison of the strength of this case with the settlement presented favors recognizing that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
b. The complexity, length, and expense of continued litigation weigh in favor of finding that the Private Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Given the significant changes made by the Indiana Department of Correction since the 2011 trial in this case, continued litigation would require a new and lengthy evidentiary hearing and extensive trial preparation, including further discovery, and it is unclear to the Court that a
3

better result than that presented in the Private Settlement Agreement could be attained by plaintiffs even if they were to be successful at an evidentiary hearing. Paragraphs 67-68 of the Private Settlement Agreement allow plaintiffs to reinstate this action if the Private Settlement Agreement is not, in plaintiffs’ estimation, successful in remedying the alleged problems that gave rise to this litigation. This additional safeguard further demonstrates, in the Court’s opinion, that the Private Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
c. As indicated, the Court has reviewed the reports filed by plaintiffs’ counsel concerning the comments of prisoners who have responded to the notice of the proposed settlement and has reviewed the comments that have been filed. The Court has no opinion concerning the factual or legal merit of the comments. However, the Court notes that few prisoners actually object to the settlement itself and that by far the largest percentage of relevant comments are from prisoners who believe that they should be in one of the treatment units that have been established. The Court is confident that plaintiffs’ counsel will continue to monitor this and will continue to bring to the attention of defendant’s counsel the cases of prisoners who believe they should not be in restrictive housing because they believe themselves to be seriously mentally ill. In turn, the defendant’s counsel will supply or provide access to pertinent information to address these concerns. In short, the Court does not find the level of opposition to the Private Settlement Agreement to be sufficient for the Court to question that it is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of this matter.
d. There is no evidence of any collusion between the parties entering into the Private Settlement Agreement. The Court is satisfied that the Private Settlement
4

Agreement is the result of arms-length negotiations. e. The class is represented by counsel who are experienced in class action
litigation of this type. f. The stage of the proceedings and amount of discovery weigh in favor of
finding that the Private Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The settlement was arrived at only after lengthy discovery, a trial, and lengthy negotiations. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Private Settlement Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of this matter. The Court has also found that it is appropriate at this time that the approval of the Private Settlement Agreement be issued in the form of Final Judgment. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Private Settlement Agreement will remain actively in effect for three (3) years from the date of this Order. At that time, absent written agreement as noted in paragraph 71 of the Private Settlement Agreement, this case will automatically be dismissed without prejudice. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, inasmuch as all claims have been resolved against all parties, this Entry shall constitute the Final Judgment in this action and through its issuance the action shall be dismissed without prejudice, subject to all the provisions of the Private Settlement Agreement, which is approved and incorporated herein.
SO ORDERED. Date: __0_3_/_2_4_/2_0_1_6____
5

DISTRIBUTION: Gavin Minor Rose ACLU OF INDIANA grose@aclu-in.org Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA kfalk@aclu-in.org Thomas D. Quigley INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL tquigley@idoc.in.gov Thomas E. Crishon INDIANA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICES tcrishon@ipas.in.gov David Ross Smith INDIANA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SVCS drsmith@ipas.in.gov David A. Arthur OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL david.arthur@atg.in.gov
6

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 522 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 9144

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY )

SERVICES COMMISSION, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 1:08-cv-01317 TWP-MJD

First Joint Status Report Following Effective Date of Private Settlement Agreement

The parties, by their counsel, as agreed to in paragraph 61(g) of their Private Settlement

Agreement (“PSA”), file their status report.

1. Consistent with the PSA the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) has instituted

the policy and practice that prisoners identified as seriously mentally ill, as defined by the PSA,

are not housed in restrictive housing for more than 30 consecutive days unless: 1) as allowed by

paragraph 32 of the PSA, the DOC concludes that there are present “exceptional circumstances”

where removing the prisoner from restrictive housing would pose an unacceptable risk to safety

or security, or 2) as noted by paragraph 33 of the PSA, the prisoner refuses to leave restrictive

housing and the DOC determines that it would cause more harm than benefit to the prisoner to

force his or her removal.

2. The DOC produced a document listing the seriously mentally ill prisoners meeting the

above exceptions, effective September 1, 2016. The document shows that as of that date there

were:

~ 1 ~

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 522 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 9145
12 seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregation-like housing because their removal from such housing was believed to pose an unacceptable risk of danger to themselves or to others; 4 seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregation-like housing who had consented in writing to such housing; 21 seriously mentally ill prisoners who were scheduled to remain in segregation-like housing for 30 or fewer days. Prisoners in this group would be removed from segregation-like housing on or before the 31st day unless either they consented in writing to remain there or their removal was believed at that time to pose an unacceptable risk of danger to themselves or to others. 3. The mental health placements identified in the PSA for seriously mentally ill prisoners, the New Castle Psychiatric Facility, the Special Needs Unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, and the Pendleton Treatment Unit at the Pendleton Correctional Facility are all fully operational for male prisoners as described in paragraph 23 of the PSA. 4. In all of the above treatment units the prisoners are offered at least 10 hours a week of therapeutic programming out of cell, not including the time out of cell for recreation, showers, or other purposes permitted generally to prisoners. 5. After concerns were raised by prisoners concerning both the programming and housing at the Pendleton Treatment Unit, plaintiffs’ counsel were allowed to tour the Unit on August 24, 2016. At that time the Unit had a population of 161 prisoners. 6. Plaintiffs’ counsel received information from the DOC showing that the ten-hour weekly therapeutic programming standard is generally being met. 7. Complaints had been raised by prisoners that the therapeutic programming in the Pendleton Treatment Unit, which primarily features group meetings, was repetitive and did not adequately address mental health needs. During the tour staff explained the nature of the groups and discussed planned expansion of the types of therapy offered.
~ 2 ~

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 522 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 9146
8. Complaints had been raised that prisoners in the Treatment Unit may, for disciplinary reasons, be placed into a disciplinary area within the Treatment Unit where they will not receive the 10 hours of programming. However, counsel did tour this area, in C-Building, and were informed that the prisoners are released from their cells and have the opportunity to meet and work with a clinician, in a small group, for at least 12 hours a week, although the prisoners may be cuffed during the sessions. 9. Prisoners in the Treatment Unit had also complained that the non-therapeutic time out of their cells had been greatly reduced since the Unit opened. The DOC has indicated that unstructured out-of-cell time has posed a security concern in the past and this has led to a reduction in out-of-cell free time. The DOC has determined that the best approach, consistent with safety and security, is to increase out-of-cell time for the Treatment Unit prisoners as they progress through the levels of the program. The prisoners progress from being allowed out for 2 hours a day, not including recreation and therapy, in A-Building to prisoners in E-Building, the final level, being allowed out of their cells from 6:30 a.m. to 10 p.m., except during count time or emergencies. The prisoners in C-Building who are on some sort of disciplinary hold are allowed out for daily recreation in separate enclosures and also allowed out twice a day, for 15 minutes, to access a kiosk where they can send and receive e-messages or have an electronic visit. Defendant observes there is no minimum non-therapeutic time out of cell required under the PSA. 10. Plaintiffs’ counsel have not, post-PSA implementation, toured the other mental health units, New Castle Psychiatric Unit and the Special Needs Unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, but the DOC’s attorneys have indicated that the 10-hour minimum weekly therapeutic standard is being met in those areas as well, with rare but occasional exceptions.
~ 3 ~

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 522 Filed 10/18/16 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 9147
11. The DOC is implementing a new program, entitled SNAP (Special Need Acclimation Program), in many of its institutions. This is not specifically a mental health program but is for general population prisoners who need additional support. However, it is serving as a step-down program for some prisoners leaving the mental health units. The defendant observes that this program is not required under the PSA and will not involve prisoners housed in the New Castle Psychiatric Facility, the Special Needs Unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, the Pendleton Treatment Unit at the Pendleton Correctional Facility or female prisoners in restrictive status housing. 12. The above programs are for male prisoners. Consistent with paragraph 42 of the PSA, female seriously mentally ill prisoners remain housed in the restrictive housing unit at the Indiana Women’s Prison, but are released from their cells for at least 10 hours of therapeutic programming each week. 13. Plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as the Court, continue to receive correspondence from prisoners complaining of numerous matters relating specifically to the PSA and more generally to the treatment of mentally ill prisoners within the DOC. When appropriate, counsel will contact attorneys for the DOC to attempt to resolve issues that arise and the parties continue to communicate often. 14. Upon request the DOC has continued to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to review medical records and has responded to inquiries from counsel when inquiries are prompted by the records. 15. The parties believe that both sides are continuing to work to ensure that the terms of the PSA are met.
WHEREFORE, the parties file their Joint Status report. For the plaintiffs:
~ 4 ~

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 522 Filed 10/18/16 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 9148

For the defendant:

s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk No. 6777-49 Gavin M. Rose No. 26565-53 Jan P. Mensz No. 33798-49 ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org grose@aclu-in.org jmensz@aclu-in.org
s/ Melissa L. Keyes (w/ permission) Melissa L. Keyes No. 30152-49 Thomas E. Crishon No. 28513-49 Indiana Disability Rights 4701 N. Keystone Ave. - Suite 222 Indianapolis, IN 46205 317/722-5555 Fax: 317/722-5564 mkeyes@indianadisabilityrights.gov tcrishon@indianadisabilityrights.gov
s/ David A. Arthur (w/ permission) David. A. Arthur No. 2461-48 Thomas D. Quigley No. 5883-49 Deputy Attorneys General
~ 5 ~

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 522 Filed 10/18/16 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 9149 IGCS-5th Floor 302 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 317/232-6286 (Arthur) 317/233-3645 (Quigley) David.Arthur@atg.in.gov Tquigley@idoc.in.gov
~ 6 ~

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 586 Filed 07/05/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 9479

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY )

SERVICES COMMISSION, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 1:08-cv-01317 TWP-MJD

Second Joint Status Report Following Effective Date of Private Settlement Agreement

The parties, by their counsel, as agreed to in paragraph 61(g) of their Private Settlement

Agreement (“PSA”), file their status report.

1. Counsel and representatives of the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) and

Wexford Health Services, the new medical provider for the DOC, met on June 14, 2017, to

discuss the status of the PSA.

2. Although Wexford is the new medical provider it has kept the same mental health

professionals in place in the institutions. Additionally, Wexford has approved the hiring of 23

addiction-recovery specialists who will be used throughout the DOC.

3. Consistent with the PSA the DOC has instituted and continues to follow the policy and

practice that prisoners identified as seriously mentally ill, as defined by the PSA, are not housed

in restrictive housing for more than 30 consecutive days unless: 1) as allowed by paragraph 32 of

the PSA, the DOC concludes that there are present “exceptional circumstances” where removing

the prisoner from restrictive housing would pose an unacceptable risk to safety or security, or 2)

as noted by paragraph 33 of the PSA, the prisoner refuses to leave restrictive housing and the

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 586 Filed 07/05/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 9480
DOC determines that it would cause more harm than benefit to the prisoner to force his or her removal. 4. The DOC produced a document showing that there are 18 prisoners who are seriously mentally ill who remain in restrictive housing past the 30-day limit because removing them from restrictive housing would present an unacceptable risk to safety and security. The DOC indicated that these prisoners are periodically reevaluated to determine if they may safely be moved to a mental health unit. Plaintiffs’ counsel has requested further documentation concerning these prisoners. Plaintiffs’ counsel has requested the names of any seriously mentally ill prisoners who have refused to leave restrictive housing and who have been allowed to remain. 5. Paragraph 39 of the PSA requires the DOC to notify Kenneth Falk of prisoners who have been previously classified as seriously mentally ill and who are reclassified to not being seriously mentally ill and who are then placed in restrictive housing within 6 months of the reclassification and prisoners who while in restrictive housing are reclassified from seriously mentally ill to being not seriously mentally ill. These names have not been provided and plaintiffs’ counsel has formally requested them. 6. Numerous prisoners have complained to plaintiffs’ counsel concerning the limitation or banning of televisions in the mental health units. The DOC believes this is necessary so that prisoners do not remain in their cells and fail to attend programming and other activities and does not plan to change current policy. 7. Prisoners have claimed that the 10 hours of therapeutic programming requirement is not being met at the Treatment Unit at Pendleton Correctional Facility. The DOC indicates that this is being met even for prisoners who commit a disciplinary infraction and are moved to a separate housing unit. Here they are able to attend therapy, even if they are cuffed.

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 586 Filed 07/05/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 9481
8. A number of prisoners raised concerns because they were disciplined and lost good-time credit while they were in segregation. The DOC noted that under the terms of the PSA (¶ 53) a prisoner may not be disciplined unless, and until, the appropriate mental health professionals are contacted so a determination can be made if the incident causing the discipline was a product of the prisoner’s mental illness. The DOC indicates that this course of action is always followed when it is alleged that a seriously mentally ill prisoner in a mental health placement has committed an offense. Even if additional restrictive housing time is assigned as punishment it will generally be suspended when the prisoner completes the mental health programming. 9. Although the goal for most prisoners at the New Castle Psychiatric Unit is to stabilize them so they can safely be moved to another institution, there are approximately 28 persons who the DOC believes cannot be safely released either because of the severity of their illness or because of other limitations. These persons will not be able to make it through the levels at the unit and will remain there indefinitely. 10. A number of prisoners have claimed to plaintiffs’ counsel concerning verbal abuse by correctional staff. No specific incidents were discussed. The DOC reiterated that the regular staff on the mental health units volunteer to serve there and are specially trained, although at times, due to staffing shortages, the mental health units may be staffed by officers who are not regularly on the units. Plaintiffs’ counsel will inform defendant’s counsel of any future claims. 11. Discussion was had about mental health issues and treatment in the new SNAP units that are now in most of the larger male institutions. These are designed as units for vulnerable prisoners, which may include prisoners with mental illness. They are not mental health or restrictive housing units. These units generally have an open setting and are geared towards keeping prisoners out of restrictive housing. The Indiana Women’s Prison has the GRACE Unit,

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 586 Filed 07/05/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 9482
which is also not specifically a mental health or restrictive housing unit, but is designed to be a behavior management unit. 12. The CCU at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility is a restrictive housing unit. Plaintiffs’ counsel have received inquiries from prisoners who are housed there who are seriously mentally ill and who believe they should not be there. However, the DOC indicated that there are no seriously mentally ill prisoners there, although there are prisoners who have mental health diagnoses that fall outside of the definition of serious mental illness. There is group therapy available in the unit. 13. Counsel for the plaintiffs raised the possibility of the parties agreeing to jointly selecting an expert or experts to review the program instituted by the DOC, a possibility contemplated by the PSA (¶ 65). This will be discussed further. 14. Plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as the Court, continue to receive correspondence from prisoners complaining of numerous matters relating specifically to the PSA and more generally to the treatment of mentally ill prisoners within the DOC. When appropriate, plaintiffs’ counsel will contact attorneys for the DOC to attempt to resolve issues that arise and the parties continue to communicate often. 15. Upon request the DOC has continued to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to review medical records and has responded to inquiries from counsel when inquiries are prompted by the records. 16. The parties believe that both sides are continuing to work to ensure that the terms of the PSA are met.
WHEREFORE, the parties file their Joint Status report. For the plaintiffs:

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 586 Filed 07/05/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 9483

For the defendant:

s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk No. 6777-49 Gavin M. Rose No. 26565-53 Jan P. Mensz No. 33798-49 ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org grose@aclu-in.org jmensz@aclu-in.org
s/ Melissa L. Keyes (w/ permission) Melissa L. Keyes No. 30152-49 Thomas E. Crishon No. 28513-49 Indiana Disability Rights 4701 N. Keystone Ave. - Suite 222 Indianapolis, IN 46205 317/722-5555 Fax: 317/722-5564 mkeyes@indianadisabilityrights.gov tcrishon@indianadisabilityrights.gov
s/ David A. Arthur (w/ permission) David. A. Arthur No. 2461-48 Deputy Attorney General IGCS-5th Floor 302 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 317/232-6286 David.Arthur@atg.in.gov

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 586 Filed 07/05/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 9484

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 604 Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 9525

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY )

SERVICES COMMISSION, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 1:08-cv-01317 TWP-MJD

Third Joint Status Report Following Effective Date of Private Settlement Agreement

The parties, by their counsel, as agreed to in paragraph 61(g) of their Private Settlement

Agreement (“PSA”), file their status report.

1. Defendant’s counsel continues to provide relevant reports to plaintiffs’ counsel as

requested. This includes, but is not limited to, medical records.

2. Plaintiffs’ counsel continue to receive complaints from prisoners who believe that they

should be treated as class members and be placed in a mental health unit. As appropriate, plaintiffs’

counsel will make inquiries of defendant’s counsel as to specific prisoners’ concerns and

defendant’s counsel is responsive to these inquiries.

3. Prisoners have continued to raise concerns, at both the mental health unit at New Castle

Correctional Facility and at the Pendleton Treatment Unit, concerning not receiving the ten hours

a week of treatment time provided for in the PSA. Defendant’s counsel has provided institutional

records to plaintiffs’ counsel that concern this issue and at the current time the parties are

discussing this issue,

[1]

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 604 Filed 03/06/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 9526
4. The parties note in the last status report plaintiffs’ counsel suggested the possibility of the
parties jointly selecting an expert or experts to review the program instituted by the DOC, a
possibility contemplated by the PSA. (¶ 65). This is still being discussed by the defendant and its
contract medical provider.
5. The parties believe that both sides are continuing to work to ensure that the terms of the
PSA are met.
WHEREFORE, the parties file their Joint Status report.
For the plaintiffs:
s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk No. 6777-49 Gavin M. Rose No. 26565-53 Jan P. Mensz No. 33798-49 ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org grose@aclu-in.org jmensz@aclu-in.org
s/ Melissa L. Keyes (w/permission) Melissa L. Keyes No. 30152-49 Thomas E. Crishon No. 28513-49 Indiana Disability Rights 4701 N. Keystone Ave. - Suite 222 Indianapolis, IN 46205 317/722-5555 Fax: 317/722-5564 mkeyes@indianadisabilityrights.gov
[2]

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 604 Filed 03/06/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 9527

For the defendant:

tcrishon@indianadisabilityrights.gov
s/ David A. Arthur (w/ permission) David. A. Arthur No. 2461-48 Senior Deputy Attorney General IGCS-5th Floor 302 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 317/232-6286 David.Arthur@atg.in.gov

[3]

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 9552

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY )

SERVICES COMMISSION, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 1:08-cv-01317 TWP-MJD

Fourth Joint Status Report Following Effective Date of Private Settlement Agreement

The parties, by their counsel, as agreed to in paragraph 61(g) of their Private Settlement

Agreement (“PSA”), file their status report.

1. Since the parties’ last status report (Dkt. 604) they jointly retained Joel A. Dvoskin, Ph.D.,

to conduct an independent audit of the defendant’s compliance with the private settlement

agreement in this case.

2. Attached to this report as Exhibit 1 is Dr. Dvoskin’s Curriculum Vitae.

3. From June 26-28, 2018, Dr. Dvoskin toured mental health units at Wabash Valley

Correctional Facility, New Castle Correctional Facility, Pendleton Correctional Facility, and the

Indiana Women’s Prison. He also toured restricted housing units at Wabash Valley Correctional

Facility and the Indiana Women’s Prison.

4. Dr. Dvoskin’s report is attached as Exhibit 2.

5. Dr. Dvoskin concludes that “[s]imply put, the Department and its contractor (Wexford) are

in diligent compliance with all respects of the Settlement Agreement.” (Ex. 2 at 13).

[1]

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613 Filed 09/04/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 9553
5. Dr. Dvoskin does, however, make recommendations concerning the private settlement
agreement and recommendations outside of the settlement agreement. (Id. at 13-16).
6. Plaintiffs’ counsel will be discussing these recommendations with defendant’s counsel.
7. The parties believe that both sides are continuing to work to ensure that the terms of the
private settlement agreement are met.
WHEREFORE, the parties file their Joint Status report.
For the plaintiffs:
s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk No. 6777-49 Gavin M. Rose No. 26565-53 Jan P. Mensz No. 33798-49 ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org grose@aclu-in.org jmensz@aclu-in.org
s/ Melissa L. Keyes (w/permission) Melissa L. Keyes No. 30152-49 Thomas E. Crishon No. 28513-49 Indiana Disability Rights 4701 N. Keystone Ave. - Suite 222 Indianapolis, IN 46205 317/722-5555 Fax: 317/722-5564 mkeyes@indianadisabilityrights.gov tcrishon@indianadisabilityrights.gov
[2]

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613 Filed 09/04/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 9554

For the defendant:

s/ David A. Arthur (w/ permission) David. A. Arthur No. 2461-48 Senior Deputy Attorney General IGCS-5th Floor 302 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 317/232-6286 David.Arthur@atg.in.gov

[3]

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 9555

Curriculum Vitae (January 2017)

Joel A. Dvoskin, Ph.D., A.B.P.P.

Please call or email for new mailing address

Phone: 520-577-3051 Cell: 520-906-0366 Email: joelthed@aol.com or joeldvoskin@gmail.com Web site: JoelDvoskin.com

EDUCATION:

Undergraduate:

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; B.A. 1973; Majors: English and Psychology;
Awards: Order of the Old Well Honorary Society Order of the Grail Honorary Society

Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; Diploma, 1972; Major: Social Science.

Graduate:

University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; M.A. in Clinical Psychology, 1978 Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, 1981;

Dissertation: Battered Women: An Epidemiological Study of Spousal Violence.

Professional:

University of Arizona College of Law, Tucson, Arizona (Doctoral Minor)

HONORS:
Diplomate in Forensic Psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology Fellow, American Psychological Association Fellow, American Psychology-Law Society Peggy Richardson Award, National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System Amicus Award, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Affiliate Member, International Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship Distinguished Visiting Professor of Psychiatry, University of California, Davis School of Medicine
and Napa State Hospital, April 14, 2005 President, Division 18 of the American Psychological Association (APA), Psychologists in Public
Service (2000-2001) President, American Psychology-Law Society, Division 41 of the American Psychological
Association (2006-2007) American Psychological Association, Division 18 Special Achievement Award Served on APA Blue Ribbon Commission on Ethics Process (2016-17) Arizona Psychological Association, Distinguished Contribution to the Science of Psychology Award,
2010 Distinguished Visiting Professor of Psychiatry, University of California, Davis School of Medicine
and Napa State Hospital, March 30, 2011

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 9556
ACADEMIC POSITIONS:
1996 - current Asst. Professor (Clinical) - University of Arizona College of Medicine, Dept. of Psychiatry
1996 - 2001 Asst. Professor (Adjunct) - University of Arizona College of Law
2000 - 2005 (currently inactive) Assistant Clinical Professor - Louisiana State University Medical Center
1986 - 1995 (currently inactive) Assistant Clinical Professor - New York University Medical School, Dept. of Psychiatry
LICENSES:
Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners, License #0931 New Mexico State Board of Psychologist Examiners, License #0904 Certificate of Professional Qualifications in Psychology (CPQ), CPQ #2,439 Interjurisdictional Practice Certificate, ASPPB, #2439
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
January 2014 – April 2016 Chairman, (Nevada) Governor’s Advisory Council on Behavioral Health and Wellness Duties: Provide advice to Governor Brian Sandoval regarding public behavioral health; Chair statewide Advisory Council
September 1995 - Current Full-time private practice of forensic psychology, providing expert testimony on civil and criminal matters, and consultation in the provision of mental health and criminal justice services, and workplace and community violence prevention programs. Duties: Provide expert testimony, consultation, training, and public speaking services to federal, state, and local governmental agencies, corporations and attorneys, including the following areas: • Forensic mental health evaluations • Assessing and preventing the risk of violent behavior • Assessment of suicide risk • Treatment of Serious Mental Illness and Co-occurring Substance Use Disorders • Police misconduct • Conditions of confinement and hospitalization • Architectural design of psychiatric, correctional, and secure psychiatric buildings • Workplace violence prevention and crisis response o Working with labor organizations o Safely managing corporate layoffs • Psychological autopsy – (Psychological investigation of equivocal death or suicide) • Suicide prevention • Mental health services in correctional and criminal justice settings • Mental health services to juvenile correctional facilities • Stalking • Administration of public mental health and criminal justice services • Conditions of confinement in sex offender treatment facilities • Consultation to attorneys on cases involving mental health issues
2

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 9557
November 2007 – May 2011 Federal Court Monitor over the Michigan Department of Corrections Duties: Oversight of settlement agreement in MPAS V. Caruso
September 1995 – Current Senior Psychologist, Threat Assessment Group, Inc., Newport Beach, California. Duties: Provide consultation and training in workplace violence prevention and crisis management to governmental and corporate organizations.
September 1995 - Current Associate, Park Dietz & Associates, Inc., Newport Beach, California. Duties: Forensic psychological services and expert testimony
March 1995 - August 1995 Acting Commissioner, New York State Office of Mental Health. Duties: Under the direct supervision of the Governor, served as C.E.O. of the largest agency of its kind in the United States, with an annual budget of more than $2.4 billion. The agency employed over 24,000 people and directly operated 29 institutions, including adult inpatient and outpatient psychiatric facilities, children's psychiatric hospitals, forensic hospitals and research institutes. The Office of Mental Health also licensed, regulated, financed, and oversaw more than 2,000 locally operated inpatient, emergency, outpatient, and residential programs in collaboration with 57 counties and New York City. Through an intergovernmental agreement, OMH provided psychiatric and mental health services to the NY State Department of Corrections.
November 1984 - March 1995 Director, Bureau of Forensic Services (1984-1988) and Associate Commissioner for Forensic Services (1988-1995), New York State Office of Mental Health. Duties: Line authority for inpatient services at three large forensic hospitals and two regional forensic units, including services to civil, forensic and correctional patients; line authority for all mental health services in New York State prisons (serving more than 60,000 inmates), including 15 prison mental health units across New York; responsibility for innovative community forensic programs including suicide prevention in local jails, police mental health training, and mental health alternatives to incarceration.
December 1984 - July 1985 Acting Executive Director, Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center. Duties: Founding C.E.O. for new maximum security forensic psychiatric hospital in New York City.
July 1984 - November 1984 Acting Director, Office of Mental Health, Virginia Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (held concurrently with permanent position as Director of Forensic Services). Duties: Supervision of budget and certification of all community mental health programs statewide; statewide policy development in all program areas related to mental health; Executive Secretary to Virginia Mental Health Advisory Council.
3

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 9558
July 1983 - November 1984 Director of Forensic Services, Virginia Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. Duties: Design and coordination of statewide delivery system of institutional and community treatment and evaluation of forensic patients; management of the contract for the University of Virginia Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy; departmental liaison to Virginia Dept. of Corrections and other criminal justice agencies; develop statewide plan for delivery of mental health services to D.O.C. inmates; statewide Task Force on Mental Health Services in Local Jails.
August 1982 - July 1983 Psychologist, Arizona Correctional Training Center, Tucson, Arizona. Duties: Supervision of psychology department; direct clinical treatment and evaluation services.
April 1982 - July 1982 Acting Inmate Management Administrator, Arizona State Prison Complex, Florence, Arizona. Duties: Direct supervision of inmate records office; inmate classification and movement; correctional program (counseling) services; psychology department; hiring of all new correctional officers. (NOTE: During this period, I also maintained all duties of my permanent position as Psychologist (below).
October 1981 - July 1982 Psychologist, Arizona State Prison Complex, Florence, Arizona. Duties: Supervision of Psychology Department for complex consisting of five prisons; direct clinical treatment and evaluation services.
November 1980 - October 1981 Psychology Associate, Arizona State Prison Complex, Florence, Arizona. Duties: Direct clinical treatment and evaluation services.
August 1980 - November 1980 Psychological consultant to the Massachusetts Department of Correction. Duties: Consultation to Director of Health Services; direct clinical treatment and evaluation services at Walpole and Norfolk State Prisons.
January 1980 - November 1980 Psychologist (non-licensed) - Tri-Cities Community Mental Health Center, Malden, Massachusetts. Duties: Pre-screened civil commitments for community mental health center.
August 1979 - August 1980 Pre-Doctoral Intern in Clinical Psychology, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts; and Fellow in Clinical and Forensic Psychology, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Bridgewater (Massachusetts) State Hospital
1978-1979 Psychology Extern, Pima County (Arizona) Superior Court Clinic
1977-1978 Psychology Extern, Palo Verde Hospital, Tucson, Arizona
1976-1977 Psychology Extern, Arizona Youth Center (later Catalina Mountain School), Tucson, Arizona
1975-1976 National Institute of Mental Health Trainee
4

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 9559

1973-1975 United States Peace Corps Volunteer, Senegal, West Africa

1970-1995 Coach, Dean Smith's Carolina Basketball School, Chapel Hill, N.C. (1-3 weeks each summer)

SELECTED CONSULTATION CLIENTS:

Federal Government -

National Institute of Mental Health United States Secret Service National Institute of Justice National Institute of Corrections Center for Mental Health Services United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Maricopa County (AZ) Jail Los Angeles County (CA) Jail Harrison County (MS) Adult Detention Center Los Angeles County (CA) Juvenile Hall Taycheeda State Prison for Women (Wisconsin) Huron Valley Women’s Correctional Facility (Michigan) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration Department of Homeland Security – Office of Civil Rights New Orleans Police Department (in collaboration with US Dept. of Justice)

State and Local Governments -

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Dist. of Columbia Florida Georgia
Hawaii

Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri

Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico South Carolina
South Dakota

Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming

5

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 9560
International Clients Province of Ontario Correctional Service of Canada Province of British Columbia England and Wales – National Offender Management Service Expert Advisory Panel
Selected Corporate Clients
Amazon American Express Amgen Boise Cascade Borden Foods Chase Manhattan Bank Corning, Incorporated DaimlerChrysler Corporation General Dynamics Honeywell Johnson and Johnson Kraft Foods The Law Firm of Akin Gump Levi Strauss Macy’s Motorola NBA Players Association National Basketball Assn. National Semiconductor Nationwide Insurance Nordstrom Oracle Corporation Pillsbury Ryman Hospitality (Grand Ol’ Opry) Sony Corporation State Farm Insurance Texas Instruments 3M Corporation United Auto Workers University of Arizona Visa Warner-Lambert Pharmaceuticals Pima (AZ) College
6

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 9561
Professional Organization Clients – American Psychological Association – Task Force on Preventing Gun Violence American Psychological Association – Commission on Ethics Processes American Psychiatric Association - Committee on Correctional Psychiatry American Correctional Association American Bar Association ABA-APA Task Force on Mental Illness and the Death Penalty National Basketball Association and NBA Players Association Rookie Transition Program (teaching life skills to NBA rookies) NBA Players Association – Top 100 High School Basketball Camp National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) – “First Team” Mentoring Program for elite High School Basketball Players
Federal Court Expert and Monitor – Independent Expert to monitor a Federal Court settlement agreement at the Bernalillo County (N.M.) Detention Center in Albuquerque. (Completed) Federal Court Monitor (one of two) of a settlement agreement regarding the Institute of Forensic Psychiatry at the Colorado Mental Health Institute – Pueblo. (Completed) Federal Court Monitor (one of two) of a settlement agreement regarding the Forensic Unit at the Western State Hospital in Tacoma, Washington. (Completed) Federal Court Monitor (one of two) of a statewide settlement agreement between the Michigan Protection and Advocacy Program and the Michigan Department of Corrections. (Completed)
Pro Bono consultation with the New Orleans Police Department and the US Department of Justice – Ethical Policing is Courageous (EPIC) program
Independent Expert to monitor settlement agreement regarding the transfer of incompetent defendants to State Hospital
Independent expert to monitor settlement agreement between Disability Rights Oregon and the Oregon Department of Corrections regarding the treatment of prisoners with serious mental illness
7

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 9562
Architectural Consultations -
Dr. Dvoskin has served as design consultant for major renovations and new construction of a number of state, federal, and territorial psychiatric facilities during his long career. The following is a partial list of these projects:
New York - As part of his duties as Associate Commissioner of Mental Health for the state of New York, Dr. Dvoskin oversaw design of major renovations to MidHudson Psychiatric Center, a 300 bed forensic psychiatric hospital in Middletown, NY. Completion of this project resulted in significant reductions in violent incidents at this facility.
Georgia - As part of a federal class action, plaintiffs and defendants agreed to ask Dr. Dvoskin to assess suicide hazards at six of Georgia's large state prisons, resulting in cost-effective, potentially life saving physical plant changes to rooms in which suicidal inmates were housed.
Louisiana - Again, at the request of plaintiffs and defendants, Dr. Dvoskin performed a comprehensive assessment of suicide hazards in the state's juvenile correctional facilities.
Puerto Rico - Dr. Dvoskin served as design consultant for a new correctional psychiatric center, which cost less than renovation of the existing building, which was the basis for a finding of unconstitutional conditions.
Michigan - Dr. Dvoskin assisted the state of Michigan, which was involved in constitutional litigation regarding its prison mental health system, in creating a MH care system within the Department of Mental Health. He also served as design consultant for new beds added to a state forensic psychiatric facility.
Maryland, Florida, and Maine - Dr. Dvoskin served as consultant to Commissioners of Mental Health, including consultation on the physical plants of forensic and civil psychiatric hospitals.
Delaware - Dr. Dvoskin served as design consultant for the new forensic wing of the state's psychiatric hospital.
Colorado - Dr. Dvoskin served as design consultant for the state's new forensic psychiatric hospital; a design which combines a sense of privacy and dignity among patients without sacrificing the visibility needed in order for staff to maintain safety.
8

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9563

Washington, DC - Dr. Dvoskin served as consultant to two Federal Receivers, then to the Commissioner of Mental Health, in a variety of areas. These included an assessment of the number of beds needed, then to assist in a Capital Plan for the entire DC Mental Health System. Dr. Dvoskin served as design consultant for the creation of a brand new Saint Elizabeths Hospital, to replace the entire civil and forensic hospital campus. The design of this facility, which is now under construction, included an innovative consumer advisory panel, facilitated by Dr. Dvoskin, which had input into every phase of the project's design.
North Carolina – Consultant to architectural renovation of forensic unit at Broughton State Hospital.
North Carolina – Consultant to Disability Rights North Carolina to assess safety and security of new Central Regional Hospital.
Harris County, Texas – Consultant to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office on the construction of a new jail in Houston, Texas.
Miami–Dade County, Florida – Consultant on the capital renovation and program development for a new community forensic facility for Miami and Dade County, Florida.
Oregon Department of Corrections – Consultant to creation of large correctional complex, including mental health unit, in Junction City, Oregon.
Idaho Department of Corrections – Consultant to creation of a 300-bed mental health unit.
Missouri Department of Mental Health – Architectural Design Consultant on 300bed Secure Forensic Hospital to replace existing buildings at the Fulton State Hospital (currently under construction)
Oregon Department of Corrections – Architectural improvements to Secure Mental Health Treatment Unit at Oregon State Penitentiary

BOARD MEMBERSHIPS:

Editorial Boards (former)

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
Journal of Mental Health Administration Behavioral Sciences and the Law Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma (former) Psychological Services (former) Journal of Threat Assessment (former) Law and Human Behavior

Research Advisory United States Secret Service (former) Board

9

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 9564

Advisory Board Member Member Member Member

National Center for State Courts, Institute on Mental Disability and the Law (former)
White House Panel on the Future of African-American Males –1995
American Bar Association Task Force on Capital Punishment and Mental Disability – Completed 2005
American Psychological Association Task Force on Reducing Gun Violence – 2013
American Psychological Association Blue Ribbon Commission on Ethics Processes -- 2016

PUBLICATIONS:
Gilfoyle N & Dvoskin JA (2017) APA’s Amicus Curiae Program: Bringing psychological research to judicial decisions. American Psychologist.
Brodsky, SL, Dvoskin JA, & Neal TMS (2017) Temptations for the Expert Witness. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Vol 45(4): 460-463
Morgan RD, Van Horn SA, and Dvoskin JA (2017) Correctional Settings and Prisoners’ Rights. In: Gold L and Frierson R (Eds.) Textbook of Forensic Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Publishing: Washington DC.
Mucha Z, with Dvoskin J and MacYoung M (2016) Emotional Abuse: A manual for self-defense. Chicago: Zak Mucha
Maloney MP, Metzner JL & Dvoskin JA. (2015) Screening and Assessments, Chapter 3.1. In: Trestman RL, Appelbaum KL, Metzner JL (Eds.), The Oxford Textbook of Correctional Psychiatry, New York: Oxford University Press
Dvoskin, JA. (2014) Report on threat assessment in the workplace. Heilbrun, K. (in press). In K. Heilbrun, D. DeMatteo, S. Brooks Holliday, and C. LaDuke (Eds.), Forensic mental health assessment: A casebook (2nd edition). New York: Oxford.
Dvoskin JA. (2014) "When specialized measures cannot be used." In K. Heilbrun, D. DeMatteo, S. Brooks Holliday, and C. LaDuke (Eds.), Forensic mental health assessment: A casebook (2nd edition). New York: Oxford.
O’Keefe, ML, Klebe, KJ, Metzner J, Dvoskin, JA, Fellner, J, & Stucker A. (2013)

10

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 9565
A Longitudinal Study of Administrative Segregation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Volume 41:49–60, 2013.
Dvoskin, JA, Skeem, JL, Novaco RW, and Douglas KS. (Editors) (2011) Using Social Science To Reduce Violent Offending. New York: Oxford University Press. (Winner of the 2012 Book Award of the American Psychology-Law Society)
Kane, AW & Dvoskin, JA. (2011). Evaluation for Personal Injury Claims. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dvoskin, JA & Morgan RD (2010) Correctional Psychology. In Weiner, I. & Craighead W.E. (Eds.) Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (Vol. 1: pp 417-420). Wiley: New York.
Ruiz A, Dvoskin JA, Scott CL, Metzner JL. (2010) Manual of Forms and Guidelines for Correctional Mental Health. American Psychiatric Publishing: Washington, DC
Heilbrun, K., Dvoskin, J and Heilbrun, A. (2009). “Toward Preventing Future Tragedies: Mass Killings on College Campuses, Public Health, and Threat/Risk Assessment.” Psychological Injury and Law. Vol 2(2), Oct 2008, 93-99.
Dvoskin, JA and Guy, LS (2008) “On Being an Expert Witness: It’s not about you.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. Vol 15(2), Oct 2008, 202-212.
Dvoskin, JA (2008) Commentary on Elger’s “Medical Ethics in Correctional Healthcare.” Journal of Clinical Ethics. Vol. 19, No. 3, 256-259.
Dvoskin. JA. (2008) Book Review: School Violence and Primary Prevention, by Thomas Miller (Ed.). Journal of the American Medical Association.
Dvoskin JA, Bopp J, and Dvoskin JL (2008) Institutionalization and Deinstitutionalization. In Cutler, B (ed.) Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dvoskin, JA; Spiers EM, and Brodsky, S (2007) Correctional Psychology: Law, ethics, and practice. In Goldstein, Alan M. (Ed). Forensic psychology: Emerging topics and expanding roles. (pp. 605-632). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. xix, 819 pp.
McDermott, B.E., Dvoskin, J. and Quanbeck, C. (In press.)
11

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 9566
Psychopathy: Towards a more reasoned understanding of the relationship to aggressive behavior. Forensic Psychiatry Research Trends
Spiers EM, Pitt SE & Dvoskin JD (2006) Psychiatric Intake Screening. In Puisis M. (Ed.) Clinical Practice in Correctional Medicine. Philadelphia: Elsevier.
Dvoskin JA & Metzner JL (2006). Commentary: The Physicians Torture Report. Correctional Mental Health Report. Kingston, NJ. Volume 8, No. 1.
Schlank A & Dvoskin JA (2006). Similar Statutes, Different Treatment Needs -- A Comparison of SVP and Mentally Ill Populations. In Schlank, A. (Ed.) The Sexual Predator, Volume 3: New York, NY: Civic Research Institute.
Metzner JL & Dvoskin JA. (2006) Controversies Concerning Supermax Confinement and Mental Illness. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. Philadelphia: Elsevier. Volume 29, No. 3.
Dvoskin JA (2005) Two Sides to Every Story: The Need for Objectivity and Evidence. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Vol. 33, No. 4, 482-483.
Dvoskin JA, Spiers EM, & Brodsky SL. (In press.) Correctional Psychology: Law, Ethics, and Practice. In Goldstein AM (Ed.), Forensic Psychology: Emerging Topics and Expanding Roles. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons.
Peters RH, Matthews CO & Dvoskin, JA (2005) Treatment in prisons and jails. In Lowinson JH, Ruiz P, Millman RB, & Langrod JG (eds.) Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook – Third Edition. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins Publishers. Pages 707-722.
Metzner JL and Dvoskin JA (2004) Psychiatry in Correctional Settings, in Textbook of Forensic Psychiatry. Robert R. Simon MD and Lisa H. Gold, MD (editors). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.
Dvoskin JA and Spiers EM (2004) On the Role of correctional Officers in Prison Mental Health Care. Psychiatric Quarterly.
Dvoskin JA and Spiers EM (2003) Commentary: In Search of Common Ground, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Vol. 31, No. 2. 184-188.
12

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 9567
Glancy GD, Spiers EM, Pitt SE & Dvoskin JA. (2003) Commentary: Models and Correlates of Firesetting Behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 31(1):053-057.
Dvoskin, Joel A. (2003) Catch ‘em doing something right. NFHS Coaches’ Quarterly. National Federation of State High School Associations. Indianapolis, IN.
Spiers, EM, Dvoskin, JA, and Pitt, SE (2003) Mental health professionals as institutional consultants and problem-solvers. In Fagan, T, and Ax, R (Eds) Correctional Mental Health Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dvoskin, JA, Spiers, EM, Metzner, JL, and Pitt, SE (In press) The structure of correctional mental health services. In Rosner, R. (ed.), Principles
and Practice of Forensic Psychiatry, Second Edition. London: Arnold Publishing.
Dvoskin, J.A. (2002) Knowledge is Not Power – Knowledge is Obligation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Vol. 30, No. 4.
Dvoskin JA, Radomski SJ, Bennett C, Olin JA, Hawkins RL, Dotson LA, Drewnicky IN. (2002) Architectural design of a secure forensic state psychiatric hospital. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Vol. 20, No. 5. Pages 481-493.
Dvoskin, J.A. and Petrila, J. (2002). Commentary: Behavioral Health Professionals in Class Action Litigation -- Some Thoughts on the Lawyer's Perspective. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 30:1
Dvoskin, JA, and Heilbrun, K. (2001) Risk assessment and release decision-making: Toward resolving the great debate. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Vol. 29:6-10
Hafemeister, TL, Hall SR, and Dvoskin, JA (2000) Administrative concerns associated with the care of adult offenders with mental illness within correctional settings. In Ashford JB, Sales BD, and Reid W (Eds.) Treating Adult and Juvenile Offenders with Special Needs. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Dvoskin, JA. (2000) The mentally disordered inmate and the law (book review). Psychiatric Services. 51:397.
13

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 9568
Pitt SE, Spiers EM, Dietz PE, & Dvoskin JA (1999) Preserving the Integrity of the Interview: The value of videotape. Journal of Forensic Sciences. Vol. 44, No. 6, Pp. 1287-1291
Dvoskin, Joel A. and Patterson, Raymond F. (1998) Administration of Treatment Programs for Offenders with Mental Illness. In Wettstein, Robert M. (Editor), Treatment of the Mentally Disordered Offender. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 1-43.
Coggins MH, Pynchon MR, Dvoskin JA (1993) Integrating research and practice in federal law enforcement: Secret Service applications of behavioral science expertise to protect the President. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 51 - 70
Dvoskin, Davidman, Ferster, Miller, Montenegro, and Moody (1997) Should Psychologists Unionize? A Colloquy with Labor and Management Experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Vol. 28, No. 5.
Dvoskin, Joel A. (1997) Sticks and Stones: The Abuse of Psychiatric Diagnosis in Prisons. The Journal of the California Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Vol. 8, No. 1.
Dvoskin, Joel A., Massaro, Jackie, Nerney, Michael, and Harp, Howie T. (1995) Safety Training for Mental Health Workers in the Community. Albany: New York State Office of Mental Health and The Information Exchange.
Dvoskin, Joel A., Petrila, John and Stark-Riemer, Steven (1995) Powell v. Coughlin and the Application of the Professional Judgment Rule to Prison Mental Health. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter. Vol. 19, No. 1
Dvoskin, Joel A., McCormick, C. Terence and Cox, Judith (1994) Services for Parolees with Serious Mental Illness. Topics in Community Corrections. 1994: 14-20
Dvoskin, Joel A. and Horn, Martin F. (1994) Parole Mental Health Evaluations. Community Corrections Report. July/August 1994
Dvoskin, Joel A. and Steadman, Henry J. (1994) Using Intensive Case Management to Reduce Violence by Mentally Ill Persons in the Community. Hospital and Community Psychiatry. Vol. 45, No. 7. Pp. 679-684.
Condelli, Ward S., Dvoskin, Joel A., and Holanchock, Howard (1994) Intermediate Care Programs for Inmates with Psychiatric Disorders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Volume 22, Number 1.
Dvoskin, Joel A. (1994)
14

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 9569
The Structure of Prison Mental Health Services. In Rosner, Richard (Editor), Principals and Practice of Forensic Psychiatry. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Cohen, Fred and Dvoskin, Joel A. (1993) Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Corrections: A glimpse. New York Law School Journal of Human Rights. Vol.X.
Dvoskin, Joel A., Smith, Hal, and Broaddus, Raymond (1993) Creating a Mental Health Care Model. Corrections Today. Vol. 55, No. 7.
Dvoskin, Joel A., Steadman, Henry J. and Cocozza, Joseph J. (1993) Introduction. In Steadman, Henry J. and Cocozza, Joseph J. (Editors), Mental Illness in America's Prisons. Seattle: National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System.
Clear, Todd R., Byrne, James M. and Dvoskin, Joel A. (1993) The Transition from being an inmate. In Steadman, Henry J. and Cocozza, Joseph J. (Editors), Mental Illness in America's Prisons. Seattle: National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System.
Cohen, Fred and Dvoskin, Joel A. (1992) Inmates with Mental Disorders: A Guide to Law and Practice (Part 2). Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter, Volume 16, No. 4.
Cohen, Fred and Dvoskin, Joel A. (1992) Inmates with Mental Disorders: A Guide to Law and Practice (Part 1). Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter, Volume 16, No. 3.
Heilbrun, K.S., Radelet, M.L. and Dvoskin, J.A. (1992) Debating Treatment of Those Incompetent for Execution. American Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 149, No. 5.
Way, Bruce B., Dvoskin, Joel A., Steadman, Henry J. (1991) Forensic Psychiatric Inpatients Served in the United States: Regional and System Differences. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Volume 19, No. 4.
Steadman, H.J., Holohean, E.J., Jr., Dvoskin, J.A. (1991) Estimating Mental Health Needs and Service Utilization among Prison Inmates. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Volume 19, No. 3.
McGreevy, M.A., Steadman, H.J., Dvoskin, J.A. & Dollard, N. (1991) Managing Insanity Acquittees in the Community: New York State's Alternative to a Psychiatric Security Review Board. Hospital and Community Psychiatry. Volume 42, No. 5
15

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 9570
Dvoskin, Joel A. (1991) Allocating Treatment Resources for Sex Offenders. Hospital and Community Psychiatry. Vol. 41, No. 3.
Dvoskin, Joel A. (1990) What Are the Odds on Predicting Violent Behavior? The Journal of the California Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Volume 2, No. 1.
Perlin, M.L. and Dvoskin, J.A. (1990) AIDS Related Dementia and Competency to Stand Trial: A Potential Abuse of the Forensic Mental Health System. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Volume 18, No. 4.
Dvoskin, J.A. (1990) Jail-Based Mental Health Services. In Steadman, H.J. (Editor), Effectively Addressing the Mental Health Needs of Jail Detainees, National Institute of Corrections: Boulder, Colorado.
Way, B.B., Dvoskin, J.A., Steadman, H.J., Huguley, H.C. & Banks, S. (1990) Staffing of Forensic Inpatient Services in the United States. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, Volume 41:2.
Dvoskin, Joel A. and Steadman, Henry (1989) Chronically Mentally Ill Inmates: The Wrong Concept for the Right Services. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Volume 12, Nos. 2/3.
Dvoskin, Joel A. (1989) Multiple Murder as Social Protest? Contemporary Psychology, Volume 34, No. 5.
Dvoskin, Joel A. (1989) The Palm Beach County, Florida Forensic Mental Health Services Program: A Comprehensive Community-Based System. In Steadman, H.J., McCarty, D.W., and Morrissey, J.P. The Mentally Ill in Local Jails: Planning for Essential Services. New York: Plenum.
Dvoskin, Joel A. (Editor) (1988) Special Issue: Forensic Administration. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Vol. 11, No. 4.
Dvoskin, Joel A. (1988) Confessions of a Reformed Forensic Illiterate. Contemporary Psychiatry, Volume 7, No. 2.
16

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 9571
Roth, L.H., Aldock, J.D., Briggs, K.K., Dvoskin, J.A., Parry, J.W., Phillips, R.M, Silver, S.B., and Weiner, B.A. (1988)
Final Report of the National Institute of Mental Health Ad Hoc Forensic Advisory Panel. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, Volume 12, No. 1. Steadman, H.J., Fabisiak, S., Dvoskin, J.A., and Holohean, E.J., Jr. (1987) Mental Disability Among State Prison Inmates: A statewide survey. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, Volume 38, No. 10.
Dvoskin, J.A. and Powitsky, R. (1984) A Paradigm for the Delivery of Mental Health Services in Prison. Boulder, CO: National Academy of Corrections.
Koson, Dennis F. and Dvoskin, Joel A. (1982) Arson-A diagnostic study. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vol. X, No. 1.
Dietz, Park E. and Dvoskin, Joel A. (1980) Quality of life for the mentally disabled. Journal of Forensic Sciences, JPSCA, Volume 25, No. 4.
Dvoskin, Joel A. (1979) Legal alternatives for battered women who kill their abusers. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law - Special Issue on Crime and Sexuality, Volume IV, No. 6.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Psychological Association (Fellow) American Association of Correctional Psychologists American Psychology - Law Society (Fellow) American Correctional Association National Association of State Mental Health Forensic Directors - Chairman 1986-1988 American Correctional Health Association American Jail Association (former)
17

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 9572
Joel A. Dvoskin, Ph.D., ABPP (Forensic)
Phone: 520-577-3051 Cell: 520-906-0366
E-Mail: joelthed@aol.com Web site: joeldvoskin.com
August 4, 2018
Independent Audit Report in the Matter of Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission et al versus Commissioner, Indiana
Department of Corrections
Joel A. Dvoskin, Ph.D. ABPP (Forensic)
August 4, 2018
Introduction
In April 2018, I was contacted by John Dallas, Vice President of Operations for Wexford of Indiana, LLC. Wexford is the contractor that provides health and mental health services to the Indiana Department of Corrections (the Department). Mr. Dallas asked me to conduct tours of four Indiana Prisons (one of which is operated under contract with the GEO Group).
During my tours, the staff and leadership of Wexford and the Department were cordial and candid. At no time was I denied access to inmates, staff at all levels, and facility and leadership. While I reviewed the data produced by the Department and Wexford regarding compliance with the Settlement Agreement, I did not take their accuracy for granted, and confirmed the data with inmates and correction officers in each prison.
In this report, as agreed in my discussions with Mr. Dallas, I will provide two different kinds of observations. First, I will speak directly to the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Second, as agreed with Mr. Dallas, I will provide suggestions for further improvement of the mental health services provided in the four prisons I toured. I very much appreciate the openness displayed by the Department and Wexford in considering the additional suggestions, but they should in no way be deemed to represent departures from or non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement.
Finally, I wish to thank the leadership of both Wexford and the Department for their kindness and hospitality. It was very clear to me that they shared the desire of the

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 9573

plaintiffs to provide high quality mental health and psychiatric services to their inmates.

Sources of Information

During June 26-28, 2018, I visited four of Indiana’s prisons, as follows:

June 26, 2018 June 27, 2018 June 27, 2018 June 28, 2018

Wabash Valley Prison New Castle State Prison (operated by the GEO Group) Indiana Reformatory Indiana Women’s Prison

For each prison, I was provided with recent data regarding the offering of out-of-cell therapeutic programming, including but not limited to structured groups and individual therapy. These reports included explanations of exceptions, i.e., those inmates who were not offered at least 10 hours of therapy each week, along with an explanation. I was also given a list of approximately 20 inmates in the State that remained in Restrictive Housing Units (RHU) despite being deemed to have a serious mental illness (SMI). Each of these exceptions was due to an overriding security concern and was approved at the highest levels of the Department. I was also provided with a copy of the Settlement Agreement and was given access to the relevant Departmental policies and procedures.

Prior to my visit, I was able to speak by telephone with Kenneth Falk, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. I also spoke with Mr. Dallas, representing Wexford, and Dr. Deanna Dwenger, who supervises the programs I was to assess.

At each prison, I first met with the Warden and members of the executive team. They explained to me the manner in which the prison was operated, with special attention to the relationship between custody, correctional programs, and mental health programs. I was provided a brief tour of each prison, before focusing on the RHU and the four mental health units. I was given complete and unfettered access to inmates and staff. Whenever I requested privacy, it was provided to me, whether I was talking with inmates, correctional officers, or other staff.

During these tours I looked to see if there were inmates with SMI who were not identified. Given the brevity of my conversations with each inmate, it was not possible to diagnose anyone; my goal was to see if anyone required evaluation by the mental health and psychiatric staff.

At the time the Settlement Agreement was signed, it appears that there was a large number of inmates with mental illness in restrictive housing. Because of the Settlement Agreement, this no longer appears to be the case. With the exception of a small number (approximately 20) of security exceptions, inmates with SMI are moved to various mental health units instead of restrictive housing, or

2

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 9574
shortly after arriving there. When the Settlement Agreement was signed, many of the inmates in the four mental health units had been transferred from segregation. Today, as a result of the Settlement Agreement and the Department’s enthusiastic adherence to it, many of the inmates now housed in the mental health programs were never in restricted housing or were there for a short time. This has allowed for the Department to continue loosening the restrictions placed on these inmates in the SNU and the IRT programs, and I predict that the same thing will happen, albeit to a lesser degree, in the New Castle Psychiatric Program.
In my opinion, the Settlement Agreement was exceptionally clear and well-written, which made my job of assessing compliance much easier. The definitions of SMI contained in the Settlement Agreement were, in my opinion, reasonable and consistent with modern psychiatric treatment of these conditions.
Key Requirements of the Settlement Agreement
1. Except in specifically delineated exceptional circumstances, no seriously mentally ill prisoners shall be placed in segregation/restrictive housing (including protective custody) if they are known to be seriously mentally ill prior to such placement, or if they become seriously mentally ill subsequent to such placement.
2. Otherwise, seriously mentally ill prisoners must be placed in a setting where they could receive at least 10 hours a week of therapeutic programming, not including the time spent out of cell for recreation, showers, or other purposes permitted generally to offenders not in the certified class. Therapeutic programming can include formal group therapy, individual therapy, therapeutic milieu activity, and other activity as determined by mental health professionals as part of an individualized treatment plan.
3. DOC will maintain sufficient staff to manage the mental health units … and to identify seriously mentally ill prisoners and divert them from placement In segregated/restrictive housing.
4. Prisoners will be allowed to attend group therapy sessions without restraints unless necessary for security reasons.
5. Prisoners will receive individual therapy provided by a mental health professional at least once a month.
6. The agreement also delineates certain exceptions to the DOC Disciplinary Code when mental health professionals determine that the incident in question was the result of the prisoner’s mental illness.
3

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 9575
7. During the time that the prisoner is confined (in a suicide-safer cell), the DOC is not required to provide the prisoner with the minimum adequate treatment noted above. In that event, consistent with DOC policy, mental health will monitor the prisoner and the prisoner will be provided appropriate mental health services and treatment. (Please note, I strongly recommend to the parties that this section be changed. I will discuss this recommendation below.)
Findings
Simply put, the Department and Wexford are in full compliance with the substantive requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Moreover, the Department and Wexford have internalized these requirements and support them enthusiastically. Overall, I found the leadership on both the DOC side and the Wexford side to be outstanding. Based on my observations, I truly believe that these conditions would continue to be met even if there were no Settlement Agreement. My specific findings will follow.
Wabash Valley Prison
At Wabash Valley, I met with the executive team, who seem very proud of the improvements in mental health care that have been achieved during the past few years. I observed good communication and cooperation between the custody staff and the mental health staff. Warden Brown, like the other three wardens I met, is impressive in regard to his leadership as well as his commitment to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Officers are selected to work in the Special Needs Unit (SNU) based on their interpersonal skills and willingness to work with this population. The Warden assured me that if Wexford staff felt that an officer was inappropriate for this work, he or she would be moved to another assignment. According to both the prison’s executive team and the Wexford leadership, this has not been a problem.
I talked to several inmates who were on the list of exceptions, meaning that they were housed in RHU despite their SMI due to security concerns.
One inmate made a series of serious allegations of mistreatment; however, they had been made in writing to and investigated by the prison administration, and they were not confirmed by other inmates. He reported to me that he has a very long history of severely self-injurious behavior. This inmate was one of the exceptions to the policy, and had reportedly been removed from the SNU and placed in RHU because he has been successfully encouraging other inmates to cut themselves.
I walked the RHU range and had confidential, cell-front conversations with a number of inmates. One inmate appeared to me to be exhibiting pressured speech,
4

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 9576
possibly suggesting a need for additional evaluation and treatment. I referred him to Dr. Dauss, who quickly arranged for him to receive a psychiatric evaluation. Surprisingly, the RHU was relatively quiet and free of any unpleasant smells. Interactions between inmates and staff appeared respectful and calm.
The Settlement Agreement implied the necessity of identifying RHU inmates with serious mental illness, or those who had developed acute emotional problems after being sent to the RHU. The Department and Wexford have developed a reasonable, though minimal, system of “rounds” in RHU. This practice has become the standard of practice in many states, and consists of regular cell front visits, and the ability of clinicians or inmates to request private meetings out of cell. The frequency of these visits within IDOC is based upon the mental health designation of the inmates. Inmates at level A (no known mental illness) must be visited every thirty days. Inmates at levels B through E and visited at least once per week, and inmates with a designation of SMI are visited at last twice per week. In my opinion, this meets the minimum requirement of the Settlement Agreement. However, in my opinion, the Department would be well served to visit every RHU inmate at least once per week. (See below.) For example, in some other states, these “rounds in segregation occur as often as 5 days perweek.
The cell used for suicide watch did not have a toilet. Instead, there was a hole in the floor that can be flushed. I found this to be offensive, degrading, and humiliating. While it is not contrary to the Settlement Agreement, I recommend that the Department consider changing these conditions as explained below.
I toured the Special Needs Unit (SNU). As everyone is aware, the physical plant of the unit is not ideal for this purpose. However, I was impressed with the way that Department and Wexford staff have adapted to it to create a reasonably therapeutic program. In large part, this is due to the professionalism of the officers and therapists who work there. With only a very few and temporary exceptions, all inmates were offered at least the 10 hours of therapeutic programming that is required by the Settlement Agreement. Exceptions were based on security concerns that were temporary and were being addressed by the treatment team. Almost all of the inmates in the SNU are assigned inmate mentors, who are carefully selected and trained for this function.
The cell block in which the SNU is located consists of two levels of cells surrounding a large common area. The surfaces are entirely hard, creating a great deal of noise and echoing that creates a challenge for treatment groups. I recommended to the Warden that he consider breaking up the space with upholstered “pony walls” that will allow for more than one group at a time, and will help alleviate the sound pollution and echo. The unit housing the SNU was clean, free of unpleasant smells, and its showers were clean and completely free of mold.
The right side of the SNU was called the Assessment and Orientation (A&O) part of the program. Most inmates remain here for a relatively short time. While this side of
5

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 9577
the SNU operates in an approximately similar manner as the other side, the inmates are supervised a bit more closely. Some inmates, especially those who have recently arrived n the SNU, are taken to group in handcuffs until they demonstrate the ability to behave safely.
The left side of the SNU was managed on a phase program. Inmates in the left side of the SNU were taken to the chow hall for meals. Some inmates at phases 4 and 5 were taken to group therapy in a different building. Inmates at phase 5 are allowed to have television in their cells. However, if they are not adequately involved in programming, they could be demoted to a lower lever and denied access to their televisions.
I was especially concerned that the Settlement Agreement discussed “milieu therapy,” with no real definition of what that would encompass. My concern in reading the Settlement Agreement was that a prison could substitute unstructured time in the day room for truly therapeutic programs. This was not the case in the SNU. The therapists were actively involved in helping the inmates to learn how to socialize appropriately, and took special care to engage more solitary inmates with others as they played cards, board games, or simply engaged in conversation. The manner in which this “milieu therapy” was conducted was appropriate and therapeutic, and very much conformed with the spirit of the Settlement Agreement.
The therapists and correctional officers working in the SNU were outstanding. They engaged with the inmates in a professional and empathic manner. Moreover, they demonstrated an enthusiasm for the program that was inspiring.
An appropriate number of inmates were receiving involuntary medication, pursuant to the appropriate level of due process. Although I am not a psychiatrist, I did not observe signs that large numbers of inmates were overmedicated. People placed on involuntary medications are required to be seen 7 days after the first injection, and at clinically appropriate intervals (at least once every thirty days) thereafter.
New Castle Correctional Facility
New Castle C.F. is a unique facility of approximately 3200 inmates. It has the only protective custody unit in Indiana, and its general population is largely made up of sex offenders. The facility is operated by a contract with GEO, and sex offender treatment is provided by contract with Liberty Healthcare. Warden Butz explained that the dormitories are organized by types of inmates. For example, there is a dorm for incarcerated veterans, a sober housing dorm for people who are recovering from substance abuse, a dorm for inmates that are heavily involved in education, etc.
At New Castle, I met with the executive team. As was the case at Wabash Valley, they seemed very proud of the improvements in mental health care that have been
6

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 9578
achieved during the past few years. Again, I observed good communication and cooperation between the custody staff and the mental health staff. Warden Butz is an extremely impressive leader with a strong commitment to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Officers are selected to work in the Special Needs Unit (SNU) based on their interpersonal skills and willingness to work with this population. The Warden assured me that if Wexford staff felt that an officer was inappropriate for this work, he or she would be moved to another assignment. According to both the prison’s executive team and the Wexford leadership, this has not been a problem.
According to the Warden, there are only 31 RHU beds at New Castle. I was particularly impressed by the Warden’s statement, "We only lock people up when we are afraid of them." The Warden also reported, "We haven't done a cell extraction over two years."
Correctional officers who work in the “New Castle Psych” (NCP) program or in the RHU receive training as Certified Treatment Specialists (CTS.) While I did not review the entire training curriculum, the description of the training sounded appropriate.
Communication between mental health staff and correctional officers seems to work well. Observations by correctional officers are communicated orally or in writing to the mental health staff, who in turn document the observation in a progress note in the medical record. In addition, there are shift reports between custody and the mental health team.
As was the case at Wabash Valley and is explained below, the rooms used for seclusion or suicide watch are not equipped with toilets. Instead, there are flushable holes in the floor of the cell. (See below.)
The therapists and correction officers working in the NCP Program were outstanding. They engaged with the inmates in a professional and empathic manner. Moreover, they demonstrated an enthusiasm for the program that was inspiring.
An appropriate number of inmates were receiving involuntary medication, pursuant to the appropriate level of due process. Although I am not a psychiatrist, I did not observe signs that large numbers of inmates were overmedicated. People placed on involuntary medications are required to be seen 7 days after the first injection, and at clinically appropriate intervals (at least once every thirty days) thereafter.
The New Castle Psych Program (NCP) consists of 128 beds, divided into eight ranges of 16 beds each. The NCP houses those inmates with the most acute and severe mental health needs. Many of them had behaved in a manner that was dangerous to others. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, such inmates are no longer routinely housed in RHU. The NCP is a more therapeutic and less punitive alternative. Importantly, the same officers are assigned to the NCP every day, which contributes
7

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 9579
to the teamwork with the mental health staff and decreases the likelihood of counter-therapeutic interactions.
While the Settlement Agreement only requires that 10 hours of therapeutic programming be offered, good correctional and mental health practice carefully monitors the number of hours that are received. Thus, it is important to minimize the number of inmates who refuse to participate in treatment. One particularly talented therapist, Ms. Heimann, has gained a reputation as the "refuser whisper." Through a combination of skill and empathy, she seems to be able to successfully encourage inmates to participate. I suggested to Dr. Dwenger that these skills can be taught to other therapists throughout the state, which would further enhance the rate of participation in the treatment that is offered.
I was also pleased to see that Ms. Heimann conducts a spirituality group. People with the most severe psychiatric disabilities have physical, cognitive, and emotional problems that are frequently the subject of psychiatric and mental health treatment. It is less common to find clinical attention to their spiritual needs. According to several inmates, this non-denominational group helps them to think about the meaning of their lives and their place in the world.
I noted that the restraint beds used in this program pose the possibility of a suicide risk, however, this risk is mitigated when the inmates are under constant supervision.
One inmate, with a history of chronic self-injury, reported that he was confined to the padded suicide watch cell for "months." He reported that he felt punished for harming himself, and complained that he was allowed only boxer shorts despite the fact that the suicide watch cell was cold. He reported that he requested crayons, a radio, and more therapy, but was denied while he was housed in the suicide watch cell. When I asked staff about these reports, custody staff reported that the suicideresistant "smocks” could be torn apart and used as a ligature, which is why he was not allowed a smock. I suggested that they consider buying a better quality smock and suicide-resistant blankets, and mentioned several companies who provide these items.
Suicide watch is enhanced by the presence of inmate "companions," who are tasked with watching the suicidal inmate constantly. Unfortunately, these inmates are precluded from engaging in conversation with the suicidal inmates, making the word "companion" ironic and inaccurate. So long as these inmates are welltrained, well supervised, and clearly told that they are not therapists, there is no good reason for them to silently stare at the inmates that the prison is trying to keep alive.
The NCP Program offers the required number of hours of therapeutic programming. Although I was only briefly able to sit in on a group, based on inmate reports the quality of therapy appears good.
8

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9580
Indiana Reformatory
At the Indiana Reformatory (IR), I met with Warden Dusan Zatecky and the executive team. As was the case with the other facilities, they seem very proud of the improvements in mental health care that have been achieved during the past few years. Again, I observed good communication and cooperation between the custody staff and the mental health staff. There was a complete commitment, from the top down, to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Officers are selected to work in the Indiana Reformatory Treatment Unit (IRT) based on their interpersonal skills and willingness to work with this population. I observed no problems with the behavior and demeanor of the correctional staff assigned to the IRT, and was again assured that such a problem would be quickly remedied if it arose.
At IR, I noted that Protective Custody (PC) inmates are housed in the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU), as the facility does not have a PC unit. Most of the inmates who are deemed to be appropriate for PC are transferred to other institutions. Most of the time, these transfers are voluntary. However, when inmates are unwilling to explain the reason that they believe themselves to be at risk, they may be temporarily housed in the RHU, usually for less than 60 days.
The IRT is similar to the SNU at Wabash Valley in many ways. Inmates housed there can be classified at any custody level. The main difference between the two programs is that the disorders of the inmates housed in the IRT are deemed to be more likely to be primarily characterological rather than psychotic. The belief is that inmates with severe character disorders, even if they are legitimately classified as SMI, are likely to take advantage of the more debilitated inmates housed in the SNU. I think this is a reasonable belief, and this plan appears to be working well.
The IRT consists of 156 people in 194 beds. There are four different buildings, separated by the privilege phase the inmate has achieved. Some of the inmates in this program are transferred from the NCP program, while others are transferred directly from general population. When the program first opened, there was a problem with a prevalence of predatory inmates. The situation was dealt with, mainly through the use of appropriate clinical consequences.
While the IRT is housed in separate buildings, the program is "semi-integrated" with the general population, including a shared chow hall. This arrangement increases the chances that at least some inmates with serious mental illness will be able to eventually rejoin the general population.
Unit C1 consists of 24 cells and is quite restrictive. There are four inmate mentors who work with the inmates housed in these cells. The inmates are offered 10 hours per week of group activities as required by the Settlement Agreement; however, they come out in restraints that include an uncomfortable "black box" that prevents
9

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 9581
inmates from freeing themselves from handcuffs. In my opinion, the use of the black box is unnecessarily punitive and a strong disincentive for participating in treatment. I recommend that its use be discontinued unless an inmate has demonstrated an ability to get out of handcuffs or presents other compelling security concerns. Luckily, it appears that this status is relatively short-term, as the length of stay in C1 was reported to average less than two months. Finally, for the inmates who did come out for group, their reports were generally positive about the quality of the groups. I was told that Bible study groups do not count as therapeutic program for the purposes of the Settlement Agreement. I recommend that Bible study and other organized spiritual activities should count as therapeutic programs, as they are extremely valuable and therapeutic.
There were several good things about the C1 unit. There are four inmate mentors who spend time talking with the C1 inmates. I met several of the mentors, and they appeared to be experienced, mature, and helpful. I recommend that the Department consider carefully expanding this mentor program. Mature, experienced inmates have credibility that is very different from that of officers and clinicians. Inmates in C1 also stated that the staff generally dealt with them in a fair and respectful manner.
On a less happy note, the acoustics in this building are terrible. Unfortunately, I can't think of any good recommendation to fix this problem. On the other hand, the buzzer that signifies meals is extremely loud and unpleasant, and sounds very much like a fire alarm. Apparently, because of the noise and poor acoustics of the unit, it was felt that this type of signal was necessary. I would recommend seeking a better solution for announcing meals.
For inmates in C-1, the exercise areas are stark and barren of any equipment at all. Again, this is a disincentive for inmates to accept the recreation time, and increases boredom and anger. I recommend at the facility consider installing some safe, basic exercise equipment in these outdoor exercise areas.
Inmates in C1 are cuffed and shackled whenever they leave their cells. I understand why some inmates need to be restrained when they are in a particularly acute or violent state, however there are other ways to accomplish this. For example, the state of New York has developed a "Re-start Chair," which allows an inmate to freely and relatively comfortably participate in programs, with no ability to reach staff or other inmates.
The groups are led by likeable, enthusiastic, and competent counselors. A suggestion is to remind is counselors to avoid long, unfamiliar words and closed-end questions that allowed inmates to provide one-word answers without actually participating. Amazingly, several inmates complained about the groups as being "too short." I can think of no greater compliment to group therapists. That being said, I do recommend some additional training for the people doing group therapy.
10

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 9582
There were some complaints from inmates that their dayroom recreation periods, especially in the evening. are sometimes cut with no reason being given. When I asked about this, staff usually gave a sensible and credible reason; however I recommend spending a little more time explaining this to inmates, and perhaps making it up the next night. When I suggested this to the custody supervisor, he stated, “I don’t do give-backs.” I did not have time to explore this response, and I’m not sure I understand it. If inmates are entitled to something, but can’t receive it through no fault of their own (e.g., temporary staff shortage) why would it not be fair to make it up to them the next day?
On the same topic, out of cell time in phases 3 and 4 appear to be only 2-3 hours per day. Further, I was told that the number of hours does not increase when an inmate graduates from phase 3 to phase 4. I recommend that the facility consider increasing the out of cell time in both phases 3 and 4, with phase 4 receiving more time than phase 3.
Overall, I again found the leadership on both the DOC side and the Wexford side to be outstanding.
Indiana Women’s Prison (IWP)
At IWP, I met with Warden Laurie Johnson and her executive team. Again, I found great communication between mental health and custody staff. There are three women's prisons in Indiana, but inmates in need of mental health services, including those covered by the Settlement Agreement, are transferred to IWP. The women's SNU is unique, in that the more secure area (similar to NCP) is housed in the same building as the SNU. This combination makes good sense, in light of the smaller number of women in the program.
The Restrictive Status Housing Unit (RSHU) consists of 25 beds. To the credit of the correctional officers assigned there, the unit was clean and quiet. On the other hand, it appeared that inmates have limited access to books and other safe diversions while housed in restrictive housing. One woman, for example, spoke only limited English, and wanted a book in Spanish that she could read to alleviate her boredom. Apparently, none of the mental health staff speaks Spanish, which poses a real problem for Spanish-speaking inmates with serious mental illness. In this woman's case, this problem could be somewhat alleviated by using a translator and perhaps assigning a Spanish-speaking inmate mentor to spend some time with her.
Officially, rounds in segregation follow departmental policy, in that inmates with a mental health designation of A are only required to be "rounded" by a mental health professional once per month. It appears that the actual performance is better than that. In fact, at IWP, all inmates in restricted housing are provided 10 hours per
11

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 9583
week of out of cell time. Nevertheless, I repeat my recommendation that policy should require that every inmate throughout IDOC in restricted housing should be rounded by a mental health professional at least once per week.
I saw one woman who is receiving involuntary medication yet appears to be in severe and acute distress. The prisons have no ability to transfer anyone to the state hospital, and while this should be very rarely needed, here was a case that seemed to obviously require such a transfer. As a former state hospital administrator, I understand why departments of mental health are cautious about accepting correctional transfers into a limited number of state hospital beds. I do, however, suggest that IDOC negotiate for a small number of beds at the state hospital, to be used only in the most extreme circumstances.
Currently, the SNU houses 30 inmates in 46 beds. As was the case at IP, several general population inmates also lived there and serve as mentors. Again, I was impressed by this program and suggest consideration of its expansion.
The Warden explained that they hand-select the officers who were to be assigned to the SNU, and all of them receive CTS training, as described above. As was the case in the other facilities, I was consistently impressed with the professionalism, competence, and therapeutic orientation of the correctional officers assigned to the mental health units. This was especially true in IWP, where I observed a number of extremely skillful interventions.
Generally, I found the staff open and sensitive to the problems related to trauma, which are extremely prevalent especially (but certainly not exclusively) among women inmates. However, I strongly recommend that all of the clinicians who work in Indiana's prisons receive additional training on trauma-informed therapies. While I did not get a chance to review the CST curriculum, I recommend reviewing it to ensure that trauma-related training is included in the training for officers who work in mental health and restrictive housing units.
I met one inmate with a severe eating disorder. Speaking with the staff, it became clear that they could profit from some additional sophisticated training on the treatment of eating disorders.
Although it is perhaps tangential to the official purpose of my visit, I would be remiss if I did not mention the "Wee Ones” program that allows new mothers to remain with their babies for up to 30 months. The program is extremely well run, with excellent management and good support from the prison administration, which takes justifiable pride in the program. While not officially a mental health program, I can assure you that a program like this has immense emotional and behavioral value to these women inmates. My only recommendation is to publish a description of the “Wee Ones” program so that it can be emulated by other prison systems.
12

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 9584
Findings and Recommendations regarding the Settlement Agreement
Simply put, the Department and its contractor (Wexford) are in diligent compliance with all aspects of the Settlement Agreement.
I do, however, recommend changes to item 56 of the Settlement Agreement, which reads, "During the time that the prisoner is confined (in a suicide-safer cell), the DOC is not required to provide the prisoner with the minimum adequate treatment noted above. Consistent with DOC policy, mental health will monitor a prisoner on suicide watch and the prisoner will be provided “appropriate mental health services and treatment.”
While there is a vague mention of providing “appropriate mental health services and treatment" to inmates on suicide watch, in practice it appears that the quality and quantity of mental health treatment is actually lower when inmates are on suicide watch. Ironically, suicidal inmates are in need of more, not less treatment during periods of suicidal crisis.
There is a widespread belief in American corrections that inmates on suicide watch must be housed alone in a cell 24 hours per day until they are no longer deemed to be suicidal. This practice flies in the face of what we know about suicide prevention. There is no evidence whatsoever that being locked in a room alone is appropriate psychological treatment for suicidal ideation or behavior. Further, as noted below, if the circumstances of suicide watch are perceived as punitive, it will dissuade truly suicidal inmates from coming forward and asking for help. If therapeutic activities are adequately supervised, then there is no reason that a suicidal inmate cannot participate in some therapeutic activities, especially if they are being constantly watched by a staff member. I would suggest that the department adopt a presumption that inmates on suicide watch fully participate in treatment unless it is clinically determined that such participation would be counter-therapeutic or dangerous to the inmate or others.
Please note, I was told by several staff members that the problem of malingered suicidal behavior is best solved by making sure that suicide watch is not a pleasant experience. Sadly, this belief is common among many correction institutions across the country. The belief is that unpleasant or even punitive conditions of suicide watch will decrease false claims of suicidality. Even if this is true, it will also have the same effect on people who are truly suicidal, thus inadvertently increasing the risk of suicide. Further, it doesn’t work, as malingering continues to be a problem. It is worth considering why a person would feign suicidal intent. For example, if the inmate is seeking suicide watch due to fear of something or someone in their housing unit, it is no wonder that unpleasant conditions do not deter them from asking to be safely locked up. Finally, no clinician can reliably distinguish between
13

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 9585
feigned and real suicidal intent; indeed, the two often co-exist. In summary, people who claim to be suicidal need more treatment, not less, and conditions that are reasonably perceived to be punitive are inappropriate as part of a suicide prevention program.
Throughout the system, I was impressed with the relatively low number of nonparticipants among inmates in the various mental health units. In large part, this appears to be due to the friendly and likable mental health staff who provide these programs, and the encouragement and support provided by many of the custody officers.
I was also pleased to hear of system-wide efforts by the Department to reduce the overall use of restrictive housing, both by reducing admissions to RHU and by reducing lengths of stay.
Recommendations Outside of the Settlement Agreement
It is interesting to note that the implementation of the Settlement Agreement has significantly changed the manner in which IDOC uses restrictive housing, at least as it applies to inmates with serious mental illness. As a result, these programs are no longer best understood as a way to get inmates out of restrictive housing. Basically they have become very appropriate ways to meet the mental health needs of inmates. I congratulate the parties for this achievement.
At New Castle and Wabash Valley, the cells used for suicide watch did not have toilets. Instead, there was a hole in the floor that can be flushed. I found this to be offensive, degrading, and likely to be experienced as punitive. I also believe it can inadvertently increase the risk of suicide. When the circumstances of suicide watch are reasonably perceived to be punitive, it decreases the likelihood that truly suicidal inmates will ask for the help they need. While it is not contrary to the Settlement Agreement, I recommend that the Department consider changing these conditions. All of the cells used for suicide watch should be equipped with a secure toilet/sink combination unit. Flushable holes in the floor are an anachronism; to my knowledge, no prison or psychiatric hospital built in this century has included such a cell. In my opinion, this practice is likely to cause inmates unnecessary humiliation and a feeling of shame that is unnecessary and counter-therapeutic. If an inmate attempts self-injury by banging his or her head against the sink/toilet, it would justify transferring them to a room equipped for top-of-bed restraints.
The restraint beds are equipped with metal rings to which restraints are attached. However, these rings are far enough off of the floor to allow an inmate to commit suicide by hanging. In my opinion, this precludes the use of these rooms for
14

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 9586
seclusion, unless the inmate is under constant supervision by staff. To its credit, the Department has appropriately mitigated this risk by placing restrained inmates on constant observation. There are, however, much safer beds available for this purpose, where the restraints can be attached at floor level.
It was unclear to me how often the suicide prevention committees are meeting. This is an important function. In addition to reviewing the data on suicide deaths and attempts, this Committee should be tasked with proactively searching for physical spaces and practices that could be altered to reduce the risk of suicide even further. Examples would include creation of a “punch list” of suicide hazards to be used for cell inspections, such as identifying loose fixtures that might allow for the attachment of a ligature, and identifying sharp metal edges on beds and other furniture. Obviously, these inspections are especially important in cells used for suicide watch, mental health treatment, and restrictive housing. To cite another example, the committee might survey the correctional staff to look for ways to improve pre-service and inservice suicide prevention training.
The common area of the SNU at Wabash Valley is ill suited for groups, and virtually precludes conducting more than one group at a time. In many of California’s prisons, they have created multiple group rooms by strategically placing upholstered “pony walls.” This configuration works very well, and allows the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to successfully conduct multiple groups at the same time. I recommend that the Department consider altering the large day rooms at Wabash Valley SNU by adding upholstered "pony walls," similar to those used in some California prisons.
When inmates with SMI appear to be making no progress, it would be good to conduct a formal case conference, including some of the most experienced and well-trained clinicians throughout the system. In some cases, these case conferences might include outside consultants with specialty skills such as the treatment of eating disorders.
In speaking with staff at each facility, it is clear that the rounds in segregation are more frequent than officially required by policy. For people with the lowest mental health needs rating (level A), there is an official requirement of mental health rounds in segregation once every 30 days, unless the inmate requests a visit. I realize this comports with ACA standards, but in my opinion it is not adequate. That being said, in my conversations with clinicians, it appears that inmates in Restrictive Housing are visited by a mental health professional at least once a week. My recommendation is to make this a requirement by policy. I also recommend that the policy explicitly state that either an inmate or mental health staff member can request an audibly private meeting, as opposed to a cell-front visit.
I also noted that the mental health codes (A-F) do not correlate to the designation of Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI). I am not certain, but I wonder if this discrepancy may
15

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 9587
be confusing to inmates or staff. If this is the case, my recommendation is to consider incorporating the SMI designation into the system of mental health codes. On the other hand, if the dual system seems to be working well, there may be no need to change it.
I reviewed the seclusion and restraint policy, which looks good except for the designation of seclusion and restraint as "therapeutic." There is nothing therapeutic about seclusion or restraint, although it is sometimes necessary to protect inmates or staff. I would also suggest adding to the policy more specific rules regarding the frequency of staff observation for inmates in seclusion and restraint, and a revisiting of the roles of “companions” (See below).
I was especially pleased with one part of the suicide watch policy, which requires follow-up of any inmate who was on suicide watch at 24 hour, one week, two week, and one month intervals.
Suicide watch is enhanced by the presence of inmate "companions," who are tasked with watching a suicidal inmate constantly. Unfortunately, these inmates are precluded from engaging in conversation with the suicidal inmates, making the word "companion" ironic and inaccurate. So long as these inmates are well trained, well supervised, and clearly told that they are not therapists, there is no good reason for them to silently stare at the inmates that they are trying to keep alive. Forced solitude is not a legitimate treatment for a suicidal crisis.
I was a bit confused by the fact that “case plans” and “mental health treatment plans” were completely separate. Since I am not sure exactly how this is working, I refrain from making a specific recommendation. However, it is important to make sure that these plans are either integrated or at least complementary.
As noted earlier, I was impressed with the "mentor" program, which is sometimes a good way to encourage the most difficult inmates to consider participating in treatment programs. Often, experienced inmates have credibility that mental health and correctional professionals do not. If my understanding is correct, this program is not in place at NCP. Of course, these mentors must be carefully selected, trained, and supervised. If it is not already the case, I suggest consideration of expanding this program.
Generally, I found the staff open and sensitive to the problems related to trauma, which are extremely prevalent among all inmates. However, I strongly recommend that all of the clinicians who work in Indiana's prisons receive additional training on trauma-informed therapies. While I did not get a chance to review the CST curriculum, I recommend reviewing it to ensure that trauma -related training is included in the training for officers who work in mental health and restrictive housing units.
16

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 613-2 Filed 09/04/18 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 9588
Summary and Conclusion
As stated above, the Department and Wexford are in full compliance with the substantive requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Moreover, the Department and Wexford have internalized these requirements and support them enthusiastically. Overall, I found the leadership on both the DOC side and the Wexford side to be outstanding. Based on my observations, I truly believe that these conditions will continue to be met even when there is no longer a Settlement Agreement. I am very grateful to the leadership of IDOC, Wexford, as well as the staff and inmates at the 4 prisons I visited. They treated me with hospitality and respect, and responded to me questions with integrity and candor. Finally, I want to congratulate the Plaintiffs, especially Mr. Falk, and the legal team and leadership of IDOC for the collaborative manner in which this case was resolved. The Settlement Agreement was clear and reasonable, and has resulted in prisons that are safer and healthier for inmates and staff alike. Respectfully submitted,
Joel A. Dvoskin, Ph.D.
17

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 689 Filed 03/08/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 9885

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY )

SERVICES COMMISSION, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 1:08-cv-01317 TWP-MJD

Parties’ Further Status Report

The parties, by their counsel, file their Further Status Report in this matter.

1. On February 28, 2020, counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant were given a tour

of the Pendleton Treatment Unit by staff from both the Department of Correction

(“DOC”) and Wexford of Indiana, LLC.

2. As previously reported, the structure where treatment was provided to the

prisoners in the Treatment Unit was destroyed by fire in September of 2018.

3. The hope was that the structure would be completely rebuilt and reopened for use

in 2019.

4. Unfortunately, the project has been delayed, although construction is now

occurring.

[1]

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 689 Filed 03/08/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 9886
5. It is anticipated that the structure will be opened and ready to provide services by June of 2020. 6. In the absence of the building, most treatment groups are meeting in the prisoner living units, although some are being provided in a separate building. 7. Because there is not enough physical space for the groups to meet as frequently as desired and as set out in the parties’ Private Settlement Agreement, the required 10 hours of out-of-cell treatment a week are not currently being provided at Pendleton. 8. Also at times correctional staff are not available at Pendleton to facilitate movement of prisoners. This also negatively impacts the ability to provide group therapy. 9. As a result of these circumstances, some prisoners in the Treatment Unit are only receiving 3-5 hours a week of group therapy. 10. Currently the unit is staffed to be able to provide the required 10 hours of out-ofcell treatment a week and the DOC anticipates that once the new building is completed, the 10-hour-a-week standard will once again be met. 11. The new building will contain 8 classrooms as well as 11 offices for treatment staff. 12. In order to address prisoners with both mental health and addiction issues, the D building within the Treatment Unit, previously housing seriously mentally ill prisoners, now houses prisoners with substance abuse, as well as mental health, issues and the treatment provided to these prisoners addresses both needs.
[2]

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 689 Filed 03/08/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 9887
13. During the tour, DOC and Wexford staff discussed the treatment of seriously mentally ill prisoners throughout the DOC, including at the psychiatric unit at the New Castle Correctional Facility. 14. In order to properly track mentally ill prisoners and provide for their treatment, there is state-wide review of prisoners with DOC and Wexford staff every Friday. 15. The list of seriously mentally ill prisoners deemed to be too dangerous to be moved out of restrictive housing remains low, approximately 16 at the time of the tour at Pendleton. These prisoners are formally reviewed by mental health staff at their institutions every other week and by classification staff every month to determine if they can be safely moved out of restrictive housing. 16. The DOC staff person ultimately responsible for approving the determination that the prisoner is too dangerous to move out of restrictive housing rigorously reviews requests that a prisoner be determined to meet this category and rejects most such requests. Generally, prisoners who fall into this category do so because of a lengthy history of assaultive behavior on staff. 17. The DOC and Wexford are currently reviewing various policies and protocols concerning prisoners with potential suicidal behavior so as to better assure prisoner safety. 18. The DOC continues to provide plaintiffs’ counsel with access to prisoner medical records and responses to questions raised by plaintiffs’ counsel on behalf of their clients.
[3]

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 689 Filed 03/08/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 9888
19. While the inability of the Pendleton Treatment Unit to provide the minimum weekly treatment hours required by the Private Settlement Agreement is obviously of concern, plaintiffs’ counsel has no doubt about the commitment that the DOC and Wexford have to providing the prisoners with treatment and attempting to meet the terms of the Private Settlement Agreement. 20. In Docket Number 649 in this action, the parties agreed to extend the Private Settlement Agreement for a period of one year after the settlement agreement was terminated in the case of Mast v. Donahue, No. 2:05-cv-00037-JPH-DLP. 21. The Mast settlement was terminated on July 23, 2019. (Dkt. 164, No. 2:05-cv-0037JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind. July 23, 2019)). 25. Therefore, at the current time, the Private Settlement Agreement in this case will expire on July 23, 2020. 26. In light of the importance of the Pendleton Treatment Unit in the treatment of seriously mentally ill prisoners within the DOC, and in light of the fact that the Unit has been operating at a reduced capacity because of the fire and the destruction of the building in which treatment was provided, plaintiffs have proposed that the Private Settlement in this case be extended an additional one year, to July 23, 2021. This would allow the DOC to achieve and maintain full compliance with the terms of the Private Settlement Agreement before its termination.
[4]

Case 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD Document 689 Filed 03/08/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 9889

27. The DOC is considering this proposal and the parties will report to the Court the result of plaintiffs’ request.
WHEREFORE, the parties file their status report.

Kenneth J. Falk No. 6777-49 Gavin M. Rose No. 26565-53 ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org grose@aclu-in.org

s/ Bryan R. Findley (w/permission) Bryan R. Findley No. 34447-30 Deputy Attorney General IGCS-5th Floor 302 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 317/232-6217 fax: 317/232-7979 Bryan.Findley@atg.in.gov
Attorney for Defendant

s/ Thomas E. Crishon (w/permission) Melissa L. Keyes No. 30152-49 Thomas E. Crishon No. 28513-49 Indiana Disability Rights 4701 N. Keystone Ave. – Suite 222 Indianapolis, IN 46205 317/722-5555 fax: 317/722-5564 mkeyes@indianadisabilityrights.gov tcrishon@indianadisabilityrights.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

[5]

 
 Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 1 of 49
MANDATE,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08−cv−01317−TWP−MJD

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION et al v. COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Assigned to: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore Case in other court: 7th Circuit, 11−01504 − Mandate
7th Circuit, 14−02455 − Mandate
7th Circuit, 14−02634 − Mandate Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/01/2008 Date Terminated: 03/24/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner Petitions − Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question

INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION on behalf of its clients and constituents

represented by Gavin Minor Rose ACLU OF INDIANA 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 (317) 635−4059 ext.106 Fax: 317−635−4105 Email: grose@aclu−in.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA 1031 E. Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 (317) 635−4059 x104 Fax: (317) 635−4105 Email: kfalk@aclu−in.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Keyes INDIANA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICES 4701 N. Keystone Ave. Suite 222 Indianapolis, IN 46205 317−722−5555 Fax: 317−722−5564 Email: mkeyes@indianadisabilityrights.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas E. Crishon INDIANA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICES 4701 North Keystone Ave. Suite 222 Indianapolis, IN 46205 800−622−4845 Fax: 317−722−5564 Email: tcrishon@indianadisabilityrights.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JOSHUA HARRISON

represented by Gavin Minor Rose (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth J. Falk

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 2 of 49

Plaintiff GREGGORY SIMS
Plaintiff JAMES PANOZZO on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas E. Crishon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gavin Minor Rose (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth J. Falk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas E. Crishon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gavin Minor Rose (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth J. Falk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas E. Crishon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
Interested Party GREG TAYLOR

represented by Bryan Findley INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL 302 West Washington Street Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 317−232−6217 Email: bryan.findley@atg.in.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GREG TAYLOR 883235 NEW CASTLE − CF NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY − Inmate Mail/Parcels 1000 Van Nuys Road NEW CASTLE, IN 47362 PRO SE

Date Filed 10/01/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, filed by INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION.(JD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 3 of 49

10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/17/2008
10/20/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/31/2008 11/17/2008 11/24/2008
11/24/2008
11/25/2008

2 CIVIL COVER SHEET, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (JD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
3 RECEIPT #IP009057 in the amount of $ 350.00 (JD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
4 Summons Issued as to COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (JD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (JD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Debra Jean Dial on behalf of Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (JD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Gary W. Ricks on behalf of Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (JD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by David R. Smith on behalf of Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (JD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Karen T. Davis on behalf of Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (JD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Gavin Minor Rose on behalf of Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (JD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
11 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (JD) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
12 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION served on 10/1/2008. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
13 Letter from Inmate Steve Bodnar. (LBK) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by David A. Arthur on behalf of Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
15 NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Eric James Beaver on behalf of Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
17 PETITION TO ADD COMPLAINT ON THE NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAXIMUM SECURITY MENTAL HEALTH UNIT filed by non−party Inmate Steve Bodnar. (LBK) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
18 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to 12/15/2008 , Second Enlargement, to answer complaint, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
19 ENTRY denying 17 petition to add complaint of non−party Steve Bodnar. Counsel for plaintiff is requested to contact Mr. Bodner to determine whether and how his concerns relate to the claims in this case. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 11/24/2008. c/m. (LBK) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
20 NOTICE to the Court Concerning Complaint of Non−party, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION (Falk,

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 4 of 49

11/25/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 12/22/2008 12/24/2008 01/08/2009 01/14/2009
01/22/2009 01/23/2009 02/11/2009 02/16/2009 02/23/2009 02/25/2009 02/26/2009 03/04/2009

Kenneth) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
21 ORDER granting deft's 18 Motion for Extension of Time to File response to complaint to 12/15/08. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/25/08. (SWM) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
23 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
24 MOTION for Extension of Time to February 2, 2009 to file response to 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
25 ORDER granting pltf's 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Response due by 2/2/2009. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/24/08. (SWM) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
26 MOTION for Order of FBI Investigation filed by John Thomas. (LBK) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
27 ENTRY − Part I: Non−party John Eric Thomas' motion for order requiring his transfer from an Indiana prison to federal custody, for an order requiring the FBI to conduct an investigation re: conditions at that prison and for other relief (dkt 26) is denied. Part II: In a portion of the filing referred to herein, Mr. Thomas recites that it "has come to [his] attention" that certain prison officials "shall be killed in the near future" at the prison where he is confined. The seriousness of this statement dictates that a copy of this Entry and a copy of the non−party's filing (dkt 26) shall be forwarded to the U.S. Marshal for this district. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 1/14/2009. c/m. (LBK) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
28 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to February 17, 2009 to file response to 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
29 ORDER granting pltf's 28 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Response due by 2/17/2009. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/23/09. (SWM) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
30 MOTION FOR INVESTIGATION filed by non−party John Eric Thomas. (LBK) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
31 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Thomas Gallagher)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/16/2009)
33 MOTION for Order re: Pretrial Conference Scheduling, filed by John Eric Thomas. (LBK) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
32 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to March 6, 2009 to file reply to 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
34 ORDER granting deft's 32 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Reply due by 3/6/2009. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/26/2009. (SWM) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
35 MOTION to order the US Attorney to Indict prison officials, filed by John Johnson and John Eric Thomas. (WJC) (Entered: 03/06/2009)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 5 of 49

03/06/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009 03/26/2009 03/30/2009
04/03/2009 04/08/2009 04/09/2009
04/09/2009 04/10/2009 04/13/2009 04/30/2009 05/01/2009

36 REPLY in Support of Motion re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
37 MOTION for Pretrial Conference and Order Parties to Submit Case Management Plan, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
40 MOTION FOR GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION, filed by Non−Party John E. Thomas. (LBK) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
38 ORDER granting pltf's 37 Motion to set Initial Pretrial Conference and Order parties to submit CMP. By separate Entry the parties are ORDERED to appear for an initial pretrial conference and submit their CMP. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/26/2009. (SWM) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
39 ENTRY regarding CMP and Initial Pretrial Conference. SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 4/9/2009 03:00 PM in room #361 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. The parties are hereby ORDERED to confer with one another to prepare and jointly submit a case management plan no later than 3 days prior to the initial pretrial conference (see Entry for other details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/30/2009.(SWM) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
41 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Case Mgt Summary)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
42 ENTRY FOR APRIL 8, 2009. The initial pretrial conference, TIME ONLY, set for April 9, 2009 is RESET for 9:00 A.M. in Room 361, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/8/2009.(MRI) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
43 ORDER: CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED AS AMENDED. Dispositive motions due 11 months after denial of motion to dismiss. If the required conference under LR 37.1 does not resolve discovery issues that may arise, the parties are advised to request a phone status conference prior to filing any motion to compel or for protective order. Additionally, the parties are advised to not only number but to add a descriptive identifier for any exhibits which are electronically filed (see Order for example and other details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/9/2009.(SWM) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
44 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 4/9/2009 and CMP approved as amended. Telephone status conference set for May 20, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. Counsel shall call the court at the number provided.(SWM) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
45 ENTRY ON FINAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULE AND TRIAL SETTING. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/16/2010 at 09:00 AM in room #330 before Judge David Frank Hamilton. Jury Trial set for 4/26/2010 at 09:00 AM in room #344 before Judge David Frank Hamilton. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 4/10/2009.(LBK) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
46 SCHEDULING ENTRY: The jury trial scheduled in this action is VACATED and RESET as a court trial on Monday, April 26, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., in Room 344, United States Courthouse, Indianapolis, Indiana. The final pretrial conference remains set for Friday, April 16, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., in Room 330. Issued by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 4/13/2009.(WJC) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
47 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
48 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures CORRECTED, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/01/2009)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 6 of 49

05/06/2009 05/20/2009
05/28/2009 06/03/2009 06/16/2009
06/17/2009 06/23/2009 07/09/2009 07/17/2009 07/21/2009 07/23/2009 07/23/2009
07/27/2009 07/28/2009 07/29/2009 07/29/2009
08/04/2009
08/07/2009

49 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
50 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/20/2009 and plaintiff intends to begin discovery. Parties to call the court if any disputes arise. Telephone status conference set for July 24, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. Counsel to call the Court at the number provided.(SWM) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
51 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, filed by non−party William Jones. (LBK) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
52 MOTION Demanding This Court to Immediately Appoint a Special Prosecutor to Investigate Prison Officials and Correctional Officers, filed by non−party John Eric Thomas. (WJC) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
53 ENTRY denying 52 Mr. Thomas' motion demanding the immediate appointment of a special prosecutor. This court has no jurisdiction to grant or even consider the action sought by the defendant. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 6/16/2009. (WJC) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
54 MOTION for Appointment of Special Prosecutor, filed by nonparty John Eric Thomas. (LBK) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
55 Letter from non−party John Thomas requesting special prosecutor. (LBK) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
56 MOTION TO APPOINT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. (LBK) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
57 MOTION TO APPOINT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, filed by nonparty John Eric Thomas. (LBK) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
58 ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. For the reasons discussed herein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 22 is DENIED. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 7/21/2009. (LBK) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
59 ENTRY FOR JULY 23, 2009. The telephonic status conference, TIME ONLY, set for July 24 is RESET for 11:30 A.M. Counsel shall call the Court at 317−229−3670. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 7/23/2009.(MRI) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
60 SCHEDULING ORDER: The telephonic status conference set for July 24, 2009 is VACATED AND RESET for July 28, 2009, at 11:00 A.M. Counsel shall call the Court at the number provided. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 7/23/09.(SWM) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
61 MOTION to Appoint Special Prosecutor filed by John Eric Thomas. (LBK) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
62 Minute Entry for telephone status conference held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Parties to submit revised case management plan within 20 days. Defendant's answer is due 8/17/09, by agreement of the parties. (LBK) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
63 MOTION for Reconsideration re 58 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
64 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 63 MOTION for Reconsideration re 58 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
65 MOTION for Extension of Time to to file response to 63 MOTION for Reconsideration re 58 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
66 ORDER granting plaintiff's 65 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to defendants Motion to Reconsider until 20 days after the final resolution of the case of Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family and Social Services

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 7 of 49

08/13/2009 08/14/2009 08/14/2009
09/18/2009 09/18/2009 10/05/2009 10/23/2009 11/06/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/20/2009 11/25/2009 11/28/2009 12/02/2009 12/02/2009

Administration (No. 08−3183) in the Seventh Circuit. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/7/2009. (MAC) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
67 Joint MOTION to Modify Case Management Deadlines, Joint MOTION for Continuance of Trial and Final Pretrial Conference, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
68 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, filed by COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION.(Arthur, David) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
69 ORDER granting parties' 67 Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Deadlines and to Continue Trial and Final Pretrial Conference. The previously ordered case management deadlines are modified and the new deadlines noted in the parties' joint motion are APPROVED. Bench Trial RESET for 11/15/2010 09:00 AM in room #344 before Judge David Frank Hamilton. Final Pretrial Conference RESET for 11/5/2010 09:00 AM in room #330 before Judge David Frank Hamilton. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/14/08. (SWM) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
70 MOTION TO APPOINT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, filed by non−party John Eric Thomas. (LBK) Modified to correct filing party on 9/29/2009 (LBK). (Entered: 09/28/2009)
71 CORRECTED DOCUMENT − Please disregard docket text re 70 Motion to Appoint Special Prosecutor which contained erroneous filer information. Document has been reattached to this entry. Corrected docket text: Motion to Appoint Special Prosecutor filed by non−party John Eric Thomas. (LBK) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
72 ENTRY − John Thomas' most recent motions for the appointment of a special prosecutor (dkt 51, dkt 54, dkt 57, dkt 61 and dkt 71) are each denied for the reasons stated in the Entry issued on June 17, 2009. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 10/5/2009. c/m (TMA) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
73 MOTION to Appoint Special Prosecutor, filed by non−party John Eric Thomas. (LBK) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
74 ORDER denying 73 Motion for Appointment of Special Prosecutor filed by John Thomas. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 11/6/2009. (LBK) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
75 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint to Add Additional Plaintiffs, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit to Proposed Amended Complaint, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
76 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 75 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint to Add Additional Plaintiffs, filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
77 Witness List (Preliminary), filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, Exhibit List (Preliminary), filed by Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
79 MOTION to Appoint Special Prosecutor filed by non−party John Eric Thomas. (LBK) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
78 Reassignment of Case to Judge Richard L. Young. Judge David Frank Hamilton no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number ( 1:08−cv−1317−RLY−JMS), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (PG) (Entered: 11/28/2009)
80 ORDER granting pltf's 75 Motion to Amend Complaint to Add Additional Pltfs. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/2/2009. (SWM) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
81 AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One − Offender Grievance Response Report (Joshua Harrison), # 2 Exhibit Two − Offender Grievance Response Report (Greggory Sims), # 3 Exhibit Three −

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 8 of 49

12/02/2009 12/03/2009 12/06/2009 12/09/2009 12/09/2009 12/09/2009 12/09/2009 12/10/2009 12/11/2009
12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/16/2009

Offender Grievance Program Formal Grievance (James D, Panozzo))(SWM) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
82 ENTRY denying 79 Motion for the appointment of a special prosecutor. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 12/2/2009. (PG) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
83 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
84 NOTICE of Appearance by Gavin Minor Rose on behalf of Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 12/06/2009)
85 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
86 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 85 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
94 MOTION by John Eric Thomas to grant status as Intervening Party. (PG) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
95 MOTION Demanding Court to Appoint a Special Prosecutor filed by John Eric Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(PG) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
87 Joint MOTION to Extend Deadlines for Expert Disclosures and Settlement Demand, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
88 ORDER granting 87 Joint Motion to extend certain CMP deadlines (see Order for amended deadlines). The parties are to report within 7 days whether the remainder of the CMP including the currently scheduled trial date of November 10, 2009 are realistic in light of the current case status. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/11/09. (SWM) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
89 NOTICE of Appearance by Debra Jean Dial on behalf of Plaintiff JOSHUA HARRISON. (Dial, Debra) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
90 NOTICE of Appearance by David R. Smith on behalf of Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Smith, David) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
91 NOTICE of Appearance by Karen T. Davis on behalf of Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Davis, Karen) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
92 NOTICE of Appearance by Gary W. Ricks on behalf of Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Ricks, Gary) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
93 NOTICE of Appearance by Debra Jean Dial on behalf of Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Dial, Debra) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
96 NOTICE of initial enlargement of time to and including January 13, 2010, to respond to amended complaint, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, re 81 Amended Complaint. (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 12/16/2009)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 9 of 49

12/21/2009
12/21/2009
12/22/2009
01/13/2010 01/27/2010
01/27/2010 01/28/2010 01/29/2010
02/03/2010
02/04/2010
02/04/2010 02/09/2010 04/27/2010 04/27/2010 04/28/2010 05/11/2010

97 Exhibit List (Preliminary), filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Witness List (Preliminary), filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
98 MOTION to Adjust Case Management Deadlines and Report Concerning Trial Date, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
99 ORDER entered regarding parties' 98 Report Concerning Trial and Motion to adjust case management deadlines. The magistrate judge recommends continuing the trial date in this case until July 2011. Dispositive motions due by 12/21/2010 (see Order for other established deadlines). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/22/09. (SWM) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
100 ANSWER to 81 Amended Complaint, filed by COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION.(Arthur, David) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
101 MOTION for Summary Ruling to Grant Class Certification Motion, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
104 MOTION by John Eric Thomas to inform court of change of address.. (PG) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
103 Petitioner John Eric Thomas' MOTION Demanding Court to Appoint Special Prosecutor. (PG) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
102 SCHEDULING ORDER: Bench Trial reset for 7/25/2011 09:00 AM in room #349 before Judge Richard L. Young. Final Pretrial Conference reset for 7/14/2011 09:00 AM in room #353 before Judge Richard L. Young. The Court allots five (5) days to try this case.(PG) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
105 Joint MOTION (SECOND) to Adjust Case Management Deadlines, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
106 ENTRY denying 35 Motion to Indict prison officials; denying 40 Motion for grand jury investigation; denying 94 Motion to intervene; and denying 95 Motion for appointment of special prosecutor. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 2/4/2010. (PG) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
107 ORDER granting Parties' 105 Joint Motion to adjust case management deadlines. Dispositive motions due by 12/21/2010 (see Order for other established deadlines). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/4/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
108 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 106 Entry sent to John Johnson. (PG) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
109 ORDER granting Individual Pltfs' 85 Motion to Certify Class (See Order for details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/27/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
*** CONTINUATION OF DOCKET NUMBER 109 *** ORDER granting pltfs' 101 Motion for summary ruling to grant class certification. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/27/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
110 MOTION demanding Court to Immediately Appoint Special Prosecutor − PETITIONER JOHN ERIC THOMAS. (MAC) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
111 MOTION for Extension of Time to to file response to 63 MOTION for Reconsideration re 58 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/11/2010)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 10 of 49

05/11/2010
05/12/2010
05/12/2010 05/12/2010 05/18/2010 05/19/2010 05/25/2010 05/27/2010 06/01/2010 06/04/2010 06/08/2010 06/15/2010 06/16/2010 06/21/2010 06/28/2010 08/10/2010

112 MOTION for Extension of Time to May 18, 2010 for the Parties to File Report as to Class Notice, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
113 ORDER granting plaintiffs 111 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 63 MOTION for Reconsideration re 58 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction to 20 days after the Supreme Courts denial of certiorari in Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, No. 08−3183 (7th Cir.), or 20 days after the issuance of a decision by the Supreme Court if it accepts certiorari, and for all other proper relief. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/12/2010. (MAC) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
114 ORDER granting plaintiffs 112 Motion for Extension of Time to File Report as to Class Notice to 5/18/2010. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/12/2010. (MAC) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
115 MOTION Demanding Pretrial Conference by John Eric Thomas.. (PG) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
116 REPORT −JOINT− Concerning Class Notice by JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed class notice)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
117 ORDER re 116 Joint Report. The notice of the pendency of this action shall be given to the class as set out in the parties Joint Report Concerning Class Notice. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 5/19/2010.(PG) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
118 MOTION to Intervene filed by John Eric Thomas. (PG) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
119 STIPULATION (JOINT) to Enter Qualified Protective Order, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
120 Qualified Protective Order Pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Indiana Statutes: GRANTED Joint 119 STIPULATION **SEE ORDER**. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/1/2010.(DWH) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
122 Submission of letter regarding conditions by Charles Mosier. (PG) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
121 Witness List Preliminary−Amendment, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
124 DECLARATION of John Eric Thomas. (PG) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
123 Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:08−cv−1317−RLY−DML), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (DH) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
125 ENTRY denying 115 Motion for pretrial conference; denying 118 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 6/21/2010. (PG) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
126 Reassignment of Case to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Judge Richard L. Young no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:08−cv−01317−TWP−DML), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (AAM) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
127 Entry Concerning Selected Matters: The motion of Mr. Thomas to inform the court that he has been moved 104 is granted. The motion of Mr. Thomas demanding the appointment of a special prosecutor 103 is denied because Mr. Thomas is not a party to this action and the relief he seeks is not related to the claims or development of the

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 11 of 49

08/11/2010 08/19/2010 08/20/2010
08/26/2010 08/26/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 09/15/2010 09/17/2010 09/17/2010 09/21/2010 10/01/2010
10/05/2010 10/05/2010

case. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/10/2010. (DWH) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
128 ORDER denying 110 Motion for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor. Mr. Thomas is not a party to this action and the relief he seeks is not related to the claims or development of this case. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/11/2010. (JD) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
129 MOTION to Intervene, filed by JOHN ERIC THOMAS (NON−PARTY). (JD) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
130 ORDER denying 129 Motion to Intervene. It is unclear whether Mr. Thomas is a member of the above class. If he is, his motion to intervene is unnecessary. It is clear, however, that the concerns in his motion to intervene are outside the scope of the claims asserted by the class, and for this additional reason, his motion to intervene is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/20/2010. (JD) (Entered: 08/23/2010)
131 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Debra J. Dial on behalf of INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION (Smith, David) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
132 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Gary W. Ricks on behalf of INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION (Smith, David) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
133 MARGINAL ENTRY APPROVING NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Debra J. Dial. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/27/2010.(JD) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
134 MARGINAL ENTRY APRROVING NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Gary W. Ricks. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/27/2010.(JD) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
135 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to October 15, 2010 to Make Settlement Demand, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
136 ORDER granting 135 Motion for Extension of Time to 10/15/10 to make settlement proposal to defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 9/17/2010. (TMA) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
137 MOTION to Investigate Defendants filed by JOHN ERIC THOMAS (Non Party). (JD) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
138 ORDER denying 137 Motion to Investigate Defendants. The motion lacks a coherent statement of reasonable specification for the relief sought. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/21/2010. (JD) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
139 ENTRY DENYING 63 Motion for Reconsideration − As the parties are aware there can be no ruling or substantive development of the defendants motion to reconsider until the Supreme Court acts on the Petition for Certiorari in Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, No. 10−131. Sound docket management dictates that the motion to reconsider (dkt 63) be denied without prejudice at this time. The defendant may file any similar motion up to thirty days after the Supreme Court enters its final disposition of No. 10−131. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/1/2010. (JD) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
140 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 11/18/2010 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 10/5/2010. (TMA) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
141 Unopposed MOTION to Adjust Certain Case Management Deadlines, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/05/2010)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 12 of 49

10/06/2010 10/28/2010 10/29/2010 11/01/2010 11/12/2010
11/15/2010 11/16/2010
11/16/2010
11/16/2010 11/17/2010 11/19/2010
11/22/2010 11/23/2010
12/08/2010

142 ORDER granting 141 plaintiffs' Further Motion to Adjust Certain Case Management Deadlines. (See Order.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 10/6/2010. (TMA) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
143 MOTION Demanding for Three−Judge District Court filed by JOHN ERIC THOMAS, NON−PARTY.. (JD) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
144 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
145 ORDER granting 144 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Eric James Beaver withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 11/1/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
146 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to November 30, 2010 (Further Motion) to Make Settlement Demand, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
147 ORDER granting 146 Motion for Extension of Time to 11/19/10 to make settlement proposal to defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 11/15/2010. (TMA) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
148 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to November 30, 2010 (Renewed and Corrected) to Make Settlement Demand, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
149 SCHEDULING ORDER: Due to the reassignment of the presiding judge in this case, please note the following changes: Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/14/2011 11:00 AM in room #330, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Bench Trial set for 7/25/2011 09:00 AM in room #344, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (JD) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
150 TRIAL PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (JD) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
151 ORDER granting 148 Motion for Extension of Time to 11/30/10 to make settlement demand. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 11/17/2010. (TMA) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
152 Joint MOTION Allowing Disclosure of Identities of Interviewees and Providing for a Protective Order, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
153 ORDER granting 152 parties' Joint Motion Allowing Disclosure of Identities of Interviewees and Providing for a Protective Order. (See Order) Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 11/22/2010. (TMA) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
154 Minute Order. for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Status Conference held on 11/23/2010. The parties, by counsel, appeared for a telephone status conference on November 18, 2010, with the magistrate judge. Counsel are requested to submit (not file) their respective settlement proposals to the magistrate judge by email to JudgeLynchChambers@insd.uscourts.gov. In person Status Conference set for 2/15/2011 10:00 AM in room #524, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch.(MAC) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
155 Letter from Emmett C. Booher, Jr. (NON−PARTY) requesting a copy of the docket sheet. (JD) (Entered: 12/08/2010)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 13 of 49

12/14/2010 12/17/2010 01/07/2011 02/02/2011
03/02/2011 03/02/2011 03/02/2011 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 03/07/2011
03/09/2011 03/10/2011
03/14/2011 03/22/2011 03/28/2011

157 Letter from Vince Walter requesting copies of docket sheet and complaint (PG) (Entered: 12/27/2010)
156 Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:08−cv−1317−TWP−MJD), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (DWH) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
158 AFFIDAVIT of John Eric Thomas, filed by JOHN ERIC THOMAS, Non−Party. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Relief Requested, # 2 Exhibit B− Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C− Certificate of Service)(JD) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
159 SCHEDULING ENTRY: This matter is currently set for an in person status conference on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. The court now changes the date and time to Monday, February 14, 2011 at 11:30 a.m., in Room 257. All other requirements of the Minute Entry dated 11/23/10 (Dkt. 154) are still in order and effect. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/2/2011.(SWM) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
160 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 2/14/2011. The parties report they are ready to proceed with trial as scheduled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
161 MOTION and NOTICE OF APPEAL, filed by NON−PARTY, JOHN ERIC THOMAS. (JD) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
*** DOCKET 161 HAS BEEN REDOCKETED HERE USING THE "NOTICE OF APPEAL" EVENT TO OPEN APPEAL DATABASE − NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 138 Order on Motion, filed by NON−PARTY, John Eric Thomas. (TMA) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
162 SEVENTH CIRCUIT APPEAL INFORMATION SHEET re Notice of Appeal − Instructions for Attorneys − Parties' Short Record, Instructions, and Designation of Record information attached. (TMA) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
163 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re Notice of Appeal. − for Court of Appeals Use Only. (TMA) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
164 USCA Case Number 11−1504 for Notice of Appeal filed by John E. Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 PLRA Fee Notice and Order)(TMA) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
165 ENTRY − John E. Thomas seeks to have a 3−judge panel convened to adjudicate his claims. That request 143 is DENIED. The circumstances warranting a 3−Judge panel are not present here. More important, however, is that Mr. Thomas is not a party to the case. A nonparty cannot inject himself into a case without intervening. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/7/2011. (JD) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
166 AFFIDAVIT Under Oath, filed by NON−PARTY, JOHN ERIC THOMAS. (JD) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
167 MOTION for Extension of Time to April 13, 2011 to File Final Witness and Exhibit List (Agreed), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
168 ORDER granting parties' 167 Motion for Extension of Time to File final witness and exhibit list to 4/13/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/14/2011. (SWM) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
169 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, filed by John Eric Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Forwarding Order)(TMA) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
170 ORDER denying 169 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/28/2011. c/m (cc: USCA re CA ##11 − 1504.) (TMA) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 14 of 49

03/31/2011 04/08/2011 04/13/2011
04/13/2011
04/13/2011 04/13/2011 04/13/2011 04/26/2011 05/04/2011
05/05/2011
05/27/2011 05/27/2011 06/02/2011

171 AFFIDAVIT Under Oath, filed by NON−PARTY, JOHN ERIC THOMAS. (JD) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
172 NOTICE of Appearance by Wade J. Hornbacher on behalf of Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Hornbacher, Wade) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
173 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 7/5/2011 *** SEALED Final Witness and Exhibit List, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # (1) Prisoners in segregation, # (2) Prisoners in New Castle Psychiatric, # (3) Prisoners in Wabash Valley SNU)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 7/6/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 04/13/2011)
174 Witness List FINAL (Redacted), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS, Exhibit List Final (Redacted), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
175 Unopposed MOTION to Seal 173 Unredacted Version of FInal Witness and Exhibit List, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 4/14/2011 (JD). (Entered: 04/13/2011)
176 NOTICE of Amendment and Correction to Certification in Plaintiffs' Final Witness List, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
177 Witness List, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Exhibit List, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
178 SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/3/2011 05:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conf is to discuss pltfs motion to seal. Counsel shall attend the conf by calling the phone number to be provided by the court in an email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 4/26/2011.(CBU) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
180 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/3/2011. Plaintiffs' pending Motion to Seal (Dkt. 173) was addressed. Plaintiffs are to provide supplemental authority in support of their motion. The Court will hold the motion in abeyance pending receipt of the additional authority. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
181 MANDATE of USCA as to Notice of Appeal − IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSEDfor failure to pay the required docketing fee pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant pay the appellate fee of $455.00 to the clerk of the district court. The clerk of the district court shall collect the appellate fees from the prisoner's trust fund account. (No paper record to be returned.) (TMA) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
182 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Kathryn Burns, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report by Kathryn Burns, # 2 Exhibit Deposition of Kathryn Burns)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
183 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 182 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Kathryn Burns, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
184 ENTRY and Notice − The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in recent weeks. 2011 WL 1529809 (U.S. April 25, 2011). The allotted 30−day period has expired and no renewed motion to reconsider has been filed. In light of these

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 15 of 49

06/03/2011
06/07/2011 06/10/2011
06/27/2011 06/27/2011 06/27/2011 06/27/2011 06/27/2011 06/27/2011 06/27/2011 06/27/2011 06/28/2011 06/29/2011

circumstances, the court deems the subject of the motion to reconsider to be fully resolved. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/2/2011.(JD) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
185 RESPONSE in Opposition re 182 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Kathryn Burns, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Deposition Notice to Dr. Burns))(Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
186 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Writ)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
187 REPLY in Support of Motion re 182 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Kathryn Burns, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Interrogatory answers, # 2 Exhibit Letter concerning interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit Letter concerning interrogatories)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
188 ORDER granting 186 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/27/2011. (JD) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
189 ORDER TO PRODUCE INMATE AT COURT PROCEEDING − Michael Parrish shall be produced at the time and place specified in this Order. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/27/2011.(JD) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
190 ORDER TO PRODUCE INMATE AT COURT PROCEEDING − Michael Kiker shall be produced at the time and place specified in this Order. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/27/2011.(JD) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
191 ORDER TO PRODUCE INMATE AT COURT PROCEEDING − David Kist shall be produced at the time and place specified in this Order. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/27/2011.(JD) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
192 **RESCINDED PER DOCKET NO. 215 ** ORDER TO PRODUCE INMATE AT COURT PROCEEDING − Jacob Lawrence shall be produced at the time and place specified in this Order. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/27/2011.(JD) Modified on 7/19/2011 (JD). (Entered: 06/27/2011)
193 ORDER TO PRODUCE INMATE AT COURT PROCEEDING − Darius Dodson shall be produced at the time and place specified in this Order. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/27/2011.(JD) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
194 ORDER TO PRODUCE INMATE AT COURT PROCEEDING − Michael Woods shall be produced at the time and place specified in this Order. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/27/2011.(JD) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
195 NOTICE of Appearance by Jan P. Mensz on behalf of Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Mensz, Jan) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
197 ENTRY granting 182 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Kathryn Burns. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/28/2011. (JD) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
196 NOTICE of Filing of Deposition Summaries by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Wiles I, # 2 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Wiles II, # 3 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Basinger, # 4 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Buss, # 5 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Vaisvilas, # 6 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Pearson, # 7 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Chilton, # 8 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Burdine, # 9 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Johnson, # 10 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Allen, # 11 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Ball, # 12 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Brennan, # 13 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Sims, # 14 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Bertsche, # 15 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Thomson, # 16 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Loehr, # 17 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Young, # 18 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Waltman, # 19 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Petty, # 20 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Chavoya, # 21 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Randall, # 22 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Voris, # 23 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Gibson−Pettibon, # 24 Exhibit Dep.

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 16 of 49

06/29/2011 06/29/2011 06/29/2011 06/29/2011
06/30/2011 06/30/2011
06/30/2011 06/30/2011 07/05/2011 07/07/2011
07/07/2011 07/07/2011 07/07/2011 07/08/2011 07/08/2011
07/11/2011

Summary − Boyan, # 25 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Matias, # 26 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Peckham, # 27 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Prober, # 28 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Walls, # 29 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Baume, # 30 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Storms, # 31 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Martin, # 32 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Hyatte, # 33 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Khan, # 34 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Zatecky, # 35 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Ray, # 36 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Smith, # 37 Exhibit Dep. Summary − Murney) (Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
198 TRIAL BRIEF by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
199 Witness List, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
200 Proposed Findings of Fact by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
202 MOTION to Make Exhibits Confidential and Restrict from Public Vieiwing, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
203 STIPULATION s of Fact, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
204 Exhibit List (trial), filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Witness List (trial), filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
205 Proposed Findings of Fact by COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Findings and Conclusions)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
206 TRIAL BRIEF by COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
207 ORDER granting pltfs' 175 Motion to Seal Dkt. Number 173. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/5/2011. (SWM) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
208 MOTION to Separate and Exclude Witnesses Pursuant to Fed.R.Ev. 615, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
209 STIPULATION of Fact (SECOND), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
210 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 194 Order to Produce sent to MICHAEL WOODS. (JD) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
211 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 193 Order to Produce sent to DARIUS DODSON. (JD) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
Clerk's Remark − 194 Order to Produce as to MICHAEL WOODS and 193 Order to Produce as to DARIUS DODSON mailed to corrected address. (TRG) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
212 SCHEDULING ORDER − The final pretrial conference scheduled for Thursday, July 14, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. is now RESET for Friday, July 15, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 330, Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/8/2011.(JD) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
213 STIPULATION (Evidentiary Stipulations), filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 07/11/2011)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 17 of 49

07/14/2011 07/19/2011
07/19/2011 07/19/2011
07/20/2011 07/20/2011 07/20/2011 07/21/2011 07/22/2011 07/25/2011 07/27/2011

214 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas D. Quigley on behalf of Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Quigley, Thomas) (Entered: 07/14/2011)
215 ORDER re 192 ORDER TO PRODUCE INMATE AT COURT PROCEEDING − Jacob Lawrence − You were previously ordered to produce Jacob Lawrence, # 200237, at a court proceeding to be conducted on July 27, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. That Order (Dkt. No. 192 ) is rescinded. Jacob Lawrence is not to be produced as a witness in this case. Any questions or information concerning this Order should be brought to the attention of a pro se clerk. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/19/2011.(JD) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
216 Minute Order for Final Pretrial Conference held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/15/2011 − Parties appeared by counsel for the Final Pretrial Conference. This eight day bench trial is scheduled to commence on July 25, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. The trial of this case was discussed. A separate order will issue regarding the rulings made and directions given. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/19/2011. (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.)(JD) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
217 Entry Concerning Conference of July 15, 2011 − The bench trial setting of July 25, 2011, is confirmed. Counsel shall report to the court by 8:30 a.m. on the first day of trial. The parties agree to waive the presentation of opening statements. The parties' request to make final statements is GRANTED. The plaintiffs shall have 30 calendar days after the transcript of the trial is available to them in which to file a post−trial brief. The defendant shall have 30 calendar days after service of the plaintiffs' post−trial brief in which to file its post−trial brief. Plaitiffs' 208 Motion for Separation of Witnesses is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' 202 Moiton Regarding Confidentialty remains UNDER ADVISEMENT. A written ruling will be issued on such motion not later than July 22, 2011. The proposed exhibits were reviewed. There is a stipulation as to authenticity. At the beginning of trial, any of those exhibits to which there is a stipulation of both authenticity and admissibility, should be offered into evidence. **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/19/2011.(JD) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
218 REDACTION re 220 SEALED Third Stipulation of Fact, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 7/21/2011 (JD). (Entered: 07/20/2011)
219 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Unredacted Version of Stipulation, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
220 **SEALED PER DOCKET NO 221 ** SEALED Third Stipulation of Fact, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 7/21/2011 (JD). (Entered: 07/20/2011)
221 ORDER granting 219 Motion to Seal Unredacted Version of Stipulation − The unredacted version of the parties' Third Stipulation of Fact is filed under seal. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/21/2011. (JD) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
222 ENTRY − Plaintiffs' 202 Motion to Make Exhibits Confidential and Restrict from Public Viewing. **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/22/2011. (JD) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
223 Minute Order for Bench Trial held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/25/2011 (Day 1) − Plaintiff and Defendant appear by counsel. Plaintiff begins presentation of its case in chief. Witnesses are sworn, testimony is given and exhibits are admitted. Parties are ordered to return on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Court is adjourned for the day. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.)(JD) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
224 Minute Order for Bench Trial held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/26/2011 (Day 2) − Plaintiff and Defendant appear by counsel. Plaintiff continues presentation of its case in chief. Witnesses are sworn, testimony is given and exhibits are admitted. Parties are ordered to return on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Court is

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 18 of 49

07/28/2011
07/29/2011
07/29/2011
08/08/2011 08/16/2011 08/25/2011 08/25/2011 08/25/2011 08/26/2011

adjourned for the day. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.)(JD) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
225 Minute Order for Bench Trial held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/27/2011 (Day 3) − Plaintiff and Defendant appear by counsel. Plaintiff continues presentation of its case in chief. Witnesses are sworn, testimony is given and exhibits are admitted. Defendant objects to the Plaintiff's Exhibits as noted in the Entry. Counsel for Defendant requests that he have until August 19, 2011 to supplement those records if needed. The Court acknowledges Defendant's objection and grants the request to submit supplements to the exhibits by August 19, 2011. The Plaintiff rests its case in chief. Parties are ordered to return on Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Court is adjourned for the day. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.)(JD) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
226 Minute Order for Bench Trial held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/28/2011 (Day 4) − Plaintiff and Defendant appear by counsel. The Court hears argument regarding Plaintiff's objection to the presentation of evidence by Defendant's witness, Dr. Misetic. The Defendant begins presentation of its case in chief. Witnesses are sworn, testimony is given and exhibits are admitted. The Court grants Defendant's request to allow Dr. Misetic to testify on a limited basis. Parties are ordered to return on Friday, July 29, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Court is adjourned for the day. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.)(JD) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
227 Minute Order for Bench Trial held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/29/2011 (Day 5) − Plaintiff and Defendant appear by counsel. The Defendant continues presentation of its case in chief. Witnesses are sworn, testimony is given and exhibits are admitted. The Defendant rests its case in chief. The Court orders the exhibits SEALED temporarily as of today. The parties are ordered to submit redacted exhibits in portable document format (pdf) on compact discs. The Court sets the following deadlines: Parties shall submit a proposal regarding redaction of exhibits by August 11, 2011; Parties shall supplement the exhibits by August 26, 2011; The Transcript shall be filed by August 29, 2011; Plaintiff's post−trial brief is due by September 30, 2011; Defendant's post−trial brief is due by October 31, 2011; Plaintiff's post− trial reply brief is due by November 21, 2011. Court is adjourned. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.)(JD) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
228 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order Regarding Redaction of Exhibits by All Parties (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
229 ORDER − All exhibits in this cause shall remain, and are hereby placed, under seal through and including October 29, 2011. Plaintiff's 201 Exhibit List is hereby placed under seal, and the plaintiffs are ordered to file a redacted version of their Exhibit List for public viewing on or before October 29, 2011. On or before October 29, 2011, the parties shall submit to the Court two (2) versions of all exhibits in.pdf format on compact discs Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/16/2011.(JD) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
230 STIPULATION to Supplement the Record, filed by ALL PARTIES. (Attachments: # **SEALED PURSUANT TO DKT. NO. 236 ** (1) Exhibit Amended Exhibit List, # (2) Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) Modified to reflect all parties as the filer on 8/26/2011 (JD). Modified on 9/2/2011 (JD). (Entered: 08/25/2011)
231 NOTICE of submission of disc, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION (Arthur, David) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
232 SEALED Supplemental Exhibits Under Seal (Notice), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit No. 246, # 2 Exhibit No. 247, # 3 Exhibit No. 248)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
233 NOTICE of Correction of Certificate of Service, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 19 of 49

08/26/2011 08/30/2011 09/02/2011
09/06/2011 09/08/2011 09/08/2011 09/08/2011 09/08/2011 09/08/2011 09/08/2011

235 Submission of disc contianing unredacted supplemental exhibits, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (TRG) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
234 ORDER − The Court Reporter has notified the Court that the transcript will be filed on Tuesday, September 6, 2011. Therefore, the briefing deadlines are adjusted as follows: Plaintiffs' post−trial brief is now due October 7, 2011; Defendant's post−trial brief is now due November 7, 2011; and Plaintiff's post−trial reply brief is now due November 28, 2011. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/30/2011.(JD) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
236 ENTRY ON STIPULATION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD − The supplemental records offered by the defendants and stipulated to by the plaintiffs are admitted into evidence and become a part of the record of the trial herein. Exhibits 246, 247 and 248, offered by the plaintiffs and stipulated to by the defendant are admitted into evidence. Defendant's objections as noted in the Entry are WITHDRAWN. The amended exhibit list attached to the stipulation to supplement the record contains the full names of inmates whose medical records were placed into evidence in this case. It is hereby placed under seal, and the plaintiffs are ordered to file a redacted version of the amended exhibit list for public viewing on or before October 29, 2011. Exhibits admitted into evidence by this order shall remain, and are hereby placed, under seal through and including October 29, 2011. By October 29, 2011, the defendant shall file another set of the unredacted supplemental exhibits admitted into evidence by this order with exhibit stickers numbered in accordance with paragraph 6 of the stipulation, in addition to the redacted set of supplemental exhibits as directed in document no. 229. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/2/2011.(JD) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
237 Letter dated 8/31/2011 from Michael Kiker regarding tour of New Castle Correctional Facility. (JD) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
238 *** SEE DKT. NUMBER 254 FOR REDACTED TRANSCRIPT *** TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol.1 held on 7−25−2011 before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (161 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Fred Pratt (Telephone: (317) 916−8209). Please review the USDC Transcript Policy for more information on redaction procedures. Redaction Statement due 9/29/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/7/2011. (Pratt, Fred) Modified on 12/7/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 09/08/2011)
239 *** SEE DKT. NUMBER 255 FOR REDACTED TRANSCRIPT *** TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol.2 held on 7−26−2011 before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (228 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Fred Pratt (Telephone: (317) 916−8209). Please review the USDC Transcript Policy for more information on redaction procedures. Redaction Statement due 9/29/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/7/2011. (Pratt, Fred) Modified on 12/7/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 09/08/2011)
240 *** SEE DKT. NUMBER 256 FOR REDACTED TRANSCRIPT *** TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol.3 held on 7−27−2011 before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (228 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Fred Pratt (Telephone: (317) 916−8209). Please review the USDC Transcript Policy for more information on redaction procedures. Redaction Statement due 9/29/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/7/2011. (Pratt, Fred) Modified on 12/7/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 09/08/2011)
241 *** SEE DKT. NUMBER 257 FOR REDACTED TRANSCRIPT *** TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol.4 held on 7−28−2011 before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (211 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Fred Pratt (Telephone: (317) 916−8209). Please review the USDC Transcript Policy for more information on redaction procedures. Redaction Statement due 9/29/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/7/2011. (Pratt, Fred) Modified on 12/7/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 09/08/2011)
242 NOTICE of FILING of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 thru Vol. 4 held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7−25−11, 7−26−11, 7−27−11, 7−28−11 (Pratt, Fred) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
243 *** SEE DKT. NUMBER 258 FOR REDACTED TRANSCRIPT *** TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol.5 held on 7−29−2011 before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (93 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Fred Pratt (Telephone: (317) 916−8209). Please review the USDC Transcript Policy for more information on redaction procedures. Redaction Statement due 9/29/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 20 of 49

09/08/2011 09/14/2011 09/26/2011 09/29/2011
09/29/2011
09/30/2011 10/07/2011
10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/14/2011 10/19/2011 10/19/2011 10/19/2011 10/19/2011

12/7/2011. (Pratt, Fred) Modified on 12/7/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 09/08/2011)
244 NOTICE of FILING of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol.5 held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7−29−2011 (Pratt, Fred) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
245 NOTICE of Intent to Redact, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS (Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 09/14/2011)
246 MOTION for Telephone Conference, filed by NON−PARTY, JOHN ERIC THOMAS. (JD) (Entered: 09/27/2011)
247 **SELAED PURSUANT TO DKT. NO 252 **Joint MOTION to Redact 238 Transcript, 241 Transcript, 240 Transcript, 239 Transcript, 243 Transcript, SEALED MOTION (), filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rose, Gavin) Modified on 10/12/2011 (JD). (Entered: 09/29/2011)
248 Joint MOTION to Seal Document 247 Joint MOTION to Redact 238 Transcript, 241 Transcript, 240 Transcript, 239 Transcript, 243 Transcript SEALED MOTION, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
249 MOTION to Commute Sentence Regards to Class−Action Lawsuit Against New Castle, filed by Non−Party, LEROY R JEFFERS. (Attachments: # 1 ACLU Memorandum, # 2 ECT Deprived History, # 3 9/30/2011 Entry Directing the Clerk to Docket this Motion)(JD) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
250 TRIAL BRIEF (Plaintiffs' Post−Trial Brief) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Frequency of Mental Health Contact), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Suicides in DOC), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Hallucinations in Segregation), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Use of Force Incidents), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Mental Health Contacts at New Castle Psychiatric Unit), # 6 Exhibit 6 (NY Private Settlement Agreement))(Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
251 ORDER granting 247 Motion to Redact 238 Transcript, 241 Transcript, 240 Transcript, 239 Transcript, 243 Transcript. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/12/2011. (JD) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
252 ORDER granting 248 Joint MOTION to Seal Document 247 Joint MOTION to Redact. The Clerk of the Court is directed to seal parties' Joint Motion to Redact Transcript (Dkt. # 247 ). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/12/2011.(JD) Modified document link on 10/17/2011 (JD). (Entered: 10/12/2011)
253 MOTION for Relief/Writ, filed by LEROY R. JEFFERS, NON−PARTY. (JD) (Entered: 10/18/2011)
254 REDACTED Version of previously filed 238 TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol.I held on 7−25−11 before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (161 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Fred Pratt (Telephone: (317) 916−8209). (Pratt, Fred) Released on 12/7/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 10/19/2011)
255 REDACTED Version of previously filed 239 TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol. II held on 7−26−11 before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (228 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Fred Pratt (Telephone: (317) 916−8209). (Pratt, Fred) Released on 12/7/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 10/19/2011)
256 REDACTED Version of previously filed 240 TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol. 3 held on 7−27−11 before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (228 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Fred Pratt (Telephone: (317) 916−8209). (Pratt, Fred) Released on 12/7/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 10/19/2011)
257 REDACTED Version of previously filed 241 TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol. 4 held on 7−28−11 before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (211 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Fred Pratt (Telephone: (317) 916−8209). (Pratt, Fred) Released

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 21 of 49

10/19/2011 10/19/2011 10/27/2011
10/28/2011 10/31/2011
10/31/2011 10/31/2011 11/02/2011 11/02/2011 11/02/2011 11/07/2011 11/22/2011 11/30/2011 12/02/2011 04/06/2012

on 12/7/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 10/19/2011)
258 REDACTED Version of previously filed 243 TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings Vol. 5 held on 7−29−11 before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (93 pages.) Court Reporter/Transcriber: Fred Pratt (Telephone: (317) 916−8209). (Pratt, Fred) Released on 12/7/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 10/19/2011)
259 NOTICE of FILING of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Transcript of Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 thru Vol. 5 held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7−25−11, 7−26−11, 7−27−11, 7−28−11, 7−29−11 (Pratt, Fred) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
260 Unopposed MOTION to Substitute Redacted Exhibit List for ECF No. 230−1 and to Seal ECF No. 230−1 (and Notice of Tender of Redacted Exhibit List), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted Exhibit List, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
261 MOTION to Seal Exhibits, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
262 Entry Discussing Motion filed by Leroy Jeffers: For the reasons explained above, therefore, Mr. Jeffers is not entitled to the relief sought in his motion to commute sentence, and that motion 249 is denied ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/31/2011. (DW) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
263 NOTICE of Tender of Compact Discs Containing Trial Exhibits in this Cause, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS (Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
270 Submission of compact discs containing electronic versions of the exhibits submitted at trial, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (TRG) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
264 ORDER granting 260 Motion to Substitute Redacted Exhibit list − The Clerk is directed to file plaintiffs' Redacted Exhibit List, which was attached to their Motion (ECF No. 260 ). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/2/2011. (JD) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
265 REDACTION to 230 Stipulation, Exhibit 1 − Amended Exhibit List, filed by All Parties. (JD) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
266 ORDER granting 261 Motion to Seal Exhibits − Exhibits 74, 75, 76, 78, 82, 93 and 94 should be and are hereby placed under seal. No person other than the staff of this court and counsel of record may access these exhibits. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/2/2011. (JD) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
267 TRIAL BRIEF (defendant's post−trial brief) by COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
268 TRIAL BRIEF (POST TRIAL REPLY) by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/22/2011)
269 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Jan P. Mensz, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
271 ORDER granting 269 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. Attorney Jan P. Mensz withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 12/2/2011. (SWM) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
272 ORDER denying 246 Motion for Telephone Conference. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/6/2012. (JD) (Entered: 04/06/2012)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 22 of 49

04/06/2012 05/01/2012
05/02/2012 05/14/2012 06/05/2012 08/01/2012 12/31/2012
01/16/2013
01/16/2013 01/18/2013
01/22/2013 02/01/2013
02/06/2013 02/06/2013

273 ORDER denying 253 Motion MOTION for Relief/Writ. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/6/2012. (JD) (Entered: 04/06/2012)
274 NOTICE to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Karen T. Davis, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Smith, David) Modified on 5/1/2012 (TRG). Added additional Plaintiffs on 5/2/2012 (JD). (Entered: 05/01/2012)
275 MARGINAL NOTATION OF APPROVAL re 274 NOTICE to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Karen T. Davis. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/2/2012.(JD) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
276 ***PLEASE DISREGARD − INCORRECT FILING*** NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information. Consistent with Local Rule 5−3, Karen T. Davis hereby notifies the Clerk of the court of changed in contact information. (Davis, Karen) Modified on 5/15/2012 (TRG). (Entered: 05/14/2012)
277 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas E. Crishon on behalf of Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Crishon, Thomas) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
278 Letter from JOHN MILLER, non−party, requesting status of case. (JD) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
279 ENTRY FOLLOWING BENCH TRIAL − The Plaintiffs have prevailed as to their Eighth Amendment claim. Appropriate further proceedings will be conducted as to the relief to which the Plaintiffs are entitled and as to any ancillary matters. For now, no partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim resolved in this Entry. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/31/2012.(TRG) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
280 SCHEDULING ORDER: This matter is scheduled for a conference to discuss relief on February 8, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 344, Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Indianapolis, Indiana. Further instructions and an agenda for the conference are forthcoming in a separate entry. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/16/2013.(DW) (Entered: 01/16/2013)
281 MOTION Demanding Federal Civil Rights Investigation into Mental Health Patients Incarcerated Offenders Assigned/Housed in Custody Control Unite at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, filed by JOHN ERIC THOMAS, pro se non−party. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Request for Health Care)(JD) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
282 ENTRY AND ORDER − A copy of the motion demanding investigation filed by John Eric Thomas on January 16, 2012, shall be included with Mr. Thomas' copy of this Entry. The 281 Motion Demanding Investigation is DENIED. Mr. Thomas may contact counsel for the plaintiff class with his concerns if they relate to this case. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/18/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
283 Letter to the Court from EUGENE WELLS, non−party. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Eugene Wells) (JD) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
284 ENTRY and NOTICE − Counsel for the parties shall report not later than noon on Wednesday, February 6, 2013, what steps they believe must be taken and subjects they believe must be addressed in fashioning the proper remedial aspects of the case. The parties' report should incorporate what pertinent events, if any, have transpired since the decision was issued on December 31, 2012. The animating principle from this point forward should be one of cooperation to the greatest extent possible. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/1/2013. (JD) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
285 STATUS REPORT JOINT− by All Parties. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
286 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information. Consistent with Local Rule 5−3, David Ross Smith hereby notifies the Clerk of the court of changed contact information. (Smith, David) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 23 of 49

02/08/2013
02/21/2013 02/28/2013 03/20/2013 04/16/2013 05/08/2013 05/08/2013 05/09/2013 05/10/2013 05/13/2013
05/21/2013 06/26/2013
07/10/2013 07/25/2013 07/26/2013 09/11/2013

287 MINUTE ENTRY for Status Conference held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/8/2013 − Plaintiff appeared by counsel Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin Minor Rose, and David Ross Smith. Defendant appeared by counsel, David A. Arthur and Thomas D. Quigley. The parties reported to the Court regarding their progress. The parties agree that no later than 30 days and 60 days after the February 8, 2013 conference defendant's counsel will provide plaintiffs' counsel with written status reports specifying the progress being made in addressing the constitutional violation found by the Court. Thereafter, the parties should report back to the Court in 90 days or on May 9, 2013. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter Cathy Jones.)(JD) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
288 MOTION for a Copy of the Complaint and Order dated 12/31/2012, filed by JOHN ERIC THOMAS, pro se non−party. (JD) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
289 Copy of Letter to Mr. Falk from CLIFTON MASSEY. (JD) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
290 MOTION Demanding United States Department of Justice and/or FBI to Investigate the Federal Civil Rights Violations, field by non−party JOHN ERIC THOMAS, pro se. (JD) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
291 MOTION for Injunctive Relief, filed by JOHN ERIC THOMAS, prose non−party. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − 3/11/2013 Request for Interview, # 2 Exhibit B − 3/13/2013 Request for Interview, # 3 Exhibit C − 3/15/2013 Request for Interview, # 4 Exhibit D − 3/20/2013 Request for Interview)(JD) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
292 REPORT pursuant to Entry for February 8, 2013, Docket No. 287, by COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First report to counsel, # 2 Exhibit Second report to counsel, # 3 Exhibit Third report)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
293 MOTION for Investigation, filed by JOHN ERIC THOMAS, pro se non−party.. (JD) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
294 REPORT to the Court and Motion for Attorneys' Conference by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified event type on 5/10/2013 (JD). (Entered: 05/09/2013)
295 Letter dated 4/25/2013 from MICHAEL PAUL KIKER, prose non−party. (JD) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
296 ORDER granting 294 Motion for Conference − Counsel shall appear on June 26, 2013 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 344 to discuss the status of final relief in this cause. The defendant shall appear by counsel and shall bring with them to the conference any and all persons necessary to allow the Court to determine the DOC's precise plans to comply with this Court's December 31, 2012, Entry. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/13/2013.(JD) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
297 Letter dated 5/16/2013 from ROBERT HOLLEMAN, prose non−party. (JD) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
298 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/26/2013: Plaintiffs appeared by counsel Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin Minor Rose and Thomas E. Crishon. Defendant appeared by counsel, David A. Arthur, Thomas D. Quigley, and Wade J. Hornbacher. Parties shall file a status report within ninety days. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter David Moxley.)(TRG) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
299 Letter regarding treatment, from BRYON MCCLAIN, pro se non−party. (JD) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
300 MOTION for copies by non−party, filed by TERRY TRIPP.. (JKS) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
301 MOTION / Letter Requesting Assistance by non−party, filed by JOHN M. COALE II. (JKS) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
302 MARGINAL ENTRY denying Non−Party John Thomas' 288 Motion for copy of Complaint and Order (see Entry). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/11/2013. (SWM) (Entered: 09/11/2013)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 24 of 49

09/13/2013 09/16/2013 09/20/2013 09/23/2013
09/24/2013 10/24/2013 10/25/2013
11/04/2013
11/05/2013 11/05/2013 11/18/2013
12/26/2013 01/13/2014

303 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Wade J. Hornbacher, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hornbacher, Wade) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
304 ORDER granting 303 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Wade J. Hornbacher. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/16/2013. (JD) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
306 Letter re Case from Michael Kiker. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (CKM) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
305 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to October 24, 2013 to File Status Report, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
307 ORDER granting 305 Motion for Extension of Time to 10/24/2013 to file their status report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/24/2013. (CBU) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
308 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) and REQUEST FOR STATUS HEARING by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
309 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 11/8/2013 09:00 AM in room #344, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. IT IS ORDERED that the defendant shall bring to the hearing and any all staff or other persons necessary to inform the Court as to the current status of this matter. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/25/2013.(CKM) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
310 SCHEDULING ORDER−The current status conference is RESCHEDULED−Status Conference reset for 11/7/2013 09:00 AM in room #344, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. PLEASE MAKE NOTE OF THIS CHANGE. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/4/2013.(CBU) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
311 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of status conference, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
312 ORDER granting 311 Motion for Continuance−Status Conference reset for 11/18/2013 10:00 AM in room #344, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Please make note of this change. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/5/2013.(CBU) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
313 MINUTE ENTRY for status conference held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/18/2013: Plaintiff appeared by counsel Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin Minor Rose, and David Ross Smith. Defendant appeared by counsel David A. Arthur and Thomas D. Quigley. The Court Reporter was David Moxley. This matter was before the Court for a status conference regarding Parties Joint Status Report (Dkt. 308). Parties shall file a written status report by January 30, 2014. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter David Moxley.)(TRG) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
314 Letter from ROBERT HOLLEMAN, regarding conditions and plans at The Pendleton Correctional Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JD) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
315 ENTRY − The motions/demands for an investigation filed by state prisoner John Eric Thomas (Dkts. 290 , 291 , 293 ) are DENIED. The request of non−party TERRY TRIPP to be supplied with a copy of specified materials (Dkt 300 ) is GRANTED. A copy of the amended complaint (Dkt. 81 ) and a copy of the Entry issued on December 31, 2012, shall be included with Mr. Tripp's copy of this Entry. The letter/motion from JOHN M. COALE, II (Dkt. 301 ) has been considered. Mr. Coale's concerns should be addressed directly to counsel for the plaintiff class. The letter from Bryon McClain seeking assistance from the court has been considered. If Mr. McClain is a member of the plaintiff class, the relief granted may impact his facility and programming assignments. However, no specific development of his treatment and programming will be undertaken at this time based on his letter. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 25 of 49

01/27/2014 01/28/2014
01/29/2014 02/03/2014 02/10/2014 02/12/2014 02/13/2014
02/14/2014 02/25/2014 03/10/2014 03/12/2014 03/13/2014 03/18/2014 03/27/2014 04/08/2014 04/14/2014
04/23/2014

on 1/13/2014. Copies Mailed. (JD) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
316 Request to be Released from Segregation by Khalfani Malik Khaldun. (no c/s) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Attachment 4, # 5 Envelope)(CKM) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
317 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to February 14, 2014 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
318 ORDER granting 317 Motion for Extension of Time to File to February 14, 2014. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/29/2014. (TRG) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
319 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 315 Order on Motion sent to JOHN M. COALE, II. (JD) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
320 Letter dated 1/30/2014 from DANNY YOUNG, prose non−party. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JD) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
322 MOTION for Assistance. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Envelope)(NMT) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
321 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to March 14, 2014 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
323 ORDER granting 321 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The time for the parties to file their Status Report is extended to, and including, March 14, 2014. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/14/2014. (TRG) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
324 NOTICE of Demand for Investigation, filed by John Eric Thomas, non party. No c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (MGG) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
325 Correspondence REQUESTING COPY of Case Document, filed by Shane Kerusn. Copy/Copies provided via US Mail. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (NMT) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
326 STATUS REPORT −JOINT− by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
327 ORDER re 326 Status Report − A further status report shall be filed not later than sixty days from this date. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/13/2014.(MGG) Modified on 3/13/2014 (MGG). (Entered: 03/13/2014)
328 Letter from Darrius Ingram Re: Statement as to Mental Health Treatment at Walbash Valley Correctional Facility. No c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (MGG) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
329 Letter from Bryon McClain regarding case information (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (CBU) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
330 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by John Eric Thomas (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
331 MOTION to Force The Indiana Department of Correction to Adhere and Follow the Courts Ruling and Agreement to Transfer Seriously Mentally Ill Prisoners, filed by MICHAEL GALUSHA non−party. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Request for Remittance, # 3 Authorization to Release/Request Information, # 4 Correspondence from the ACLU, # 5 Offender Grievance Documents, # 6 Grievance Appeal Documents, # 7 Medical Records, # 8 Medical Records, # 9 Request for Health Care Documents, # 10 Parts of Findings from Bench Trial, # 11 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
332 MOTION for copies in this case of Judge's rulings and a docket sheet filed by Jerry Clemons. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 04/24/2014)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 26 of 49

05/09/2014 05/14/2014 05/22/2014 05/23/2014 05/29/2014 06/02/2014
06/03/2014
06/05/2014
06/20/2014 06/24/2014 06/24/2014 06/26/2014 06/30/2014

333 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to May 27, 2014 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
334 ORDER granting 333 Motion for Extension of Time to 5/27/2014 to file their next status report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/14/2014. (CBU) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
335 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to June 26, 2014 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
336 ORDER granting 335 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to June 26, 2014 to file their next status report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/23/2014. (MGG) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
337 MOTION FOR FEDERAL INVESTIGATION − filed by John Eric Thomas. c/s (Attachments: # 1 Attachments, # 2 Envelope)(ADH) Modified on 6/2/2014 (MGG). (Entered: 05/30/2014)
338 ENTRY − Discussing Selected Matters; Before the Court for consideration are several motions and selected matters filed by members of the plaintiff class and others. Mr. Tripp's Motion for Assistance (Dkt. 322) is DENIED. Inmate John Eric Thomas has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and for Temporary Restraining Order. That Motion (Dkt. 330) is DENIED. Motion to Force the Indiana Department of Correction to Adhere and Follow the Courts Ruling and Agreement to Transfer Seriously Mentally Ill Prisoners in the DOC in Segregation/Continual Confinement to Psychiatric Unit/Housing at Pendleton, Indiana, Motion (Dkt. 331) is DENIED. Inmate Jerry Clemons has filed a Request for Access to Public Record. Mr. Clemons' request for a copy of certain materials (Dkt. 332) is GRANTED. The clerk shall include a copy of the docket sheet and a copy of IPAS v. Commissioner, 2012 WL 6738517 (S.D..Ind. Dec. 31, 2012), with Mr. Clemons' copy of this Entry. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/2/2014. Copies Mailed. (CKM) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
339 ENTRY − Mr. Thomas' request for proceedings or investigation based on the particular circumstances of his confinement at the Pendleton Correctional Facility (Dkt. 337 ) is DENIED. The reason for this ruling is that the court discerns no concern in the filing which warrants development or treatment separate from that of the plaintiff class as a whole. If, however, Mr. Thomas seeks relief outside the scope of the claims in this action, he must do so by filing a separate action in an appropriate forum. Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/3/2014. (MGG) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
340 ENTRY − The Request to be Released from Segregation by Khalfani Malik Khaldun has been considered. The circumstances of Mr. Khaldun's classification and confinement within the Indiana Department of Correction were or are being litigated in the Marion Superior Court in No. 40D02−1105−PL−018463. There is no reason to duplicate that effort here. Mr. Khaldun's request (dkt. 316) is therefore denied. Copy mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/5/2014. (ADH) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
341 MOTION demanding a Federal Investigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supporting documents, # 2 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
342 ORDER denying 341 Motion demanding a Federal Investigation. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/24/2014 (dist made) (CBU) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
343 Letter from Jack Primmer seeking relief. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (CBU) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
344 STATUS REPORT FOURTH − JOINT− by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
345 MARGINAL ORDER OF APPROVAL re 344 Fourth Joint Status Report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/30/2014.(MGG) Modified on 6/30/2014 (MGG). (Entered: 06/30/2014)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 27 of 49

07/01/2014
07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/02/2014
07/02/2014 07/03/2014 07/09/2014 07/14/2014 07/15/2014 07/16/2014 07/23/2014
07/23/2014
07/23/2014 07/23/2014 07/23/2014 07/24/2014

346 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 338 Order on Motion and 339 Order on Motion (No fee paid with this filing) filed by John Eric Thomas (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CBU) Modified on 7/2/2014 (CBU). Modified on 7/2/2014 to create link to additional document (LBT). (Entered: 07/02/2014)
347 DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal re 346 Notice of Appeal filed by John Eric Thomas (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−/Request of Healthcare, # 2 Exhibit C−Classification Appeal, # 3 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
348 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT filed by John Eric Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
349 DOCKETING STATEMENT re 346 Notice of Appeal filed by John Eric Thomas (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
350 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis filed by John Eric Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
351 SEVENTH CIRCUIT APPEAL INFORMATION SHEET re 346 Notice of Appeal − Instructions for Attorneys − Parties' Short Record, Instructions, and Designation of Record information attached. **Docket Sheet containing sealed entries emailed to counsel of record.** (Copy mailed to pro se non−party appellant, John Eric Thomas) (LBT) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
352 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 346 Notice of Appeal. − for Court of Appeals Use Only. **Docket Sheet containing sealed entries emailed to USCA.** (LBT) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
353 USCA Case Number 14−2455 for 346 Notice of Appeal filed by Non−party, John Eric Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 PLRA Fee Notice and Order)(LBT) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
354 ENTRY − 350 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. See Entry for details (USCA #14−2455). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/9/2014 (copy mailed to John Eric Thomas). (LBT) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
355 Letter regarding Inmate Situation fromfrom Sean Poulton. No c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (MGG) Modified on 7/15/2014 (MGG). (Entered: 07/15/2014)
356 Letter regarding handling of his court mail from Bryon McClain. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (MGG) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
357 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, filed by John Eric Thomas. No c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Afffidavit and accompanying Attachments, # 2 Envelope)(MGG) Modified on 7/24/2014 (MGG). (Entered: 07/17/2014)
358 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 342 Order Denying Motion Demanding a Federal Investigation. (No fee paid with this filing). C/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(MGG) Modified on 7/24/2014 (MGG). (Main Document 358 replaced on 7/24/2014) (MGG). Modified on 7/24/2014 to link to Doc #342 (JLM). (Entered: 07/24/2014)
359 DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal re 358 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Eric Thomas. C/s. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Request for Healthcare, # 2 Exhibit B− Offender Trust System, # 3 Exhibit C− Classification Appeal, # 4 Envelope)(MGG) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
360 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT filed by John Eric Thomas. C/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(MGG) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
361 DOCKETING STATEMENT re 358 Notice of Appeal, filed by John Eric Thomas. C/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(MGG) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
362 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, filed by John Eric Thomas. No c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(MGG) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
363 SEVENTH CIRCUIT APPEAL INFORMATION SHEET re 358 Notice of Appeal − Instructions for Attorneys − Parties' Short Record, Instructions, and Designation of Record information attached. **Docket Sheet containing sealed entries emailed to counsel of record.** Copy sent to non−party John Eric Thomas via US Mail. (JLM) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 28 of 49

07/24/2014 07/25/2014 07/25/2014 07/25/2014 07/28/2014 07/28/2014 07/30/2014
08/13/2014 08/13/2014 08/28/2014
08/28/2014
08/28/2014 09/02/2014

364 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 358 Notice of Appeal. − for Court of Appeals Use Only. **Docket Report containing sealed entries emailed to USCA.** (JLM) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
365 USCA Case Number 14−2634 for 358 Notice of Appeal filed by Non−Party John Eric Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 PLRA Fee Notice and Order)(JLM) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
366 PLRA FEE ORDER of USCA as to 346 Notice of Appeal (USCA #14−2455) − Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secion 1915(g) appellant may not proceed in forma pauperis. It is ORDERED that the pro se appellant pay the required $505.00 fees to the clerk of the district court by no later than 8/11/2014 or this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). (JLM) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
368 PLRA FEE ORDER of USCA as to 358 Notice of Appeal (USCA #14−2634) − Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g) appellant may not proceed in forma pauperis. It is ORDERED that the pro se appellant pay the required $505.00 fees to the clerk of the district court by no later than 8/8/2014 or this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). (JLM) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
367 **Docketed per attached USCA Order** MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by John Eric Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Order)(JLM) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
369 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 338 ENTRY DISCUSSING SELECTED MATTERS sent to DARIUS INGRAM. (ADH) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
370 ENTRY − The requests to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis filed by non−party John Eric Thomas 357 , 362 , 367 are each denied because the relief sought in such motions would be inconsistent with the ruling of the Court of Appeals on 7/25/2014 in No. 14−2455 (USCA #14−2455 & 14−2634). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/30/2014. (JLM) Copy sent to John Eric Thomas via US Mail. Modified on 7/30/2014 (JLM). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
371 Letter from Richard Ramey (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (CBU) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
372 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, filed by John Eric Thomas. (Attachments: # (1) Inmate Trust Fund Information, # (2) Envelope)(CBU) Modified on 8/15/2014 (LBT). Modified on 8/15/2014 (LBT). (Entered: 08/14/2014)
373 MANDATE of USCA as to 358 Notice of Appeal (USCA #14−2634) − IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for failure to pay the required docketing fee pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant, JOHN ERIC THOMAS, pay the appellate fee of $505.00 to the clerk of the district court. The clerk of the district court shall collect the appellate fees from the prisoner's trust fund account using the mechanism of Section 1915(b). (LBT) Modified on 8/28/2014 (LBT). (Entered: 08/28/2014)
374 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 346 Notice of Appeal (USCA #14−2455). **Sealed and Restricted items will be sent as a Supplemental Record via email.** (Attachments: # 1 Pleadings (Doc 1−74), # 2 Pleadings (Doc 75−161), # 3 Pleadings (Doc 162−246), # 4 Pleadings (Doc 248−299), # 5 Pleadings (Doc 300−323), # 6 Pleadings (Doc 324−346), # 7 Pleadings (Doc 347−352), # 8 Pleadings (Doc 353−364), # 9 Pleadings (Doc 365−372), # 10 Oversized Doc 316, # 11 Oversized Doc 331, # 12 Unrestricted Transcript (Doc 254), # 13 Unrestricted Transcript (Doc 255), # 14 Unrestricted Transcript (Doc 256), # 15 Unrestricted Transcript (Doc 257), # 16 Unrestricted Transcript (Doc 258), # 17 Notice to Transmit Record on Appeal)(JLM) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
375 Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals via email re 346 Notice of Appeal (USCA #14−2455). (JLM) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
376 Order Directing Collection of Appellate Fees − The custodian of John Eric Thomas, the Superintendent of the Pendleton Correctional Facility, is directed to withhold sums from the inmate trust account of John Eric Thomas, #137153, and to forward such sums to the Court at Room 105, 46 East Ohio St., Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, consistent with paragraph 2 of this Entry. The appropriate cause number No. 1:08−CV−1317−TWP−MJD, should be placed on each payment sent to the Clerk. The

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 29 of 49

09/02/2014 09/04/2014
09/05/2014 09/08/2014 09/09/2014
09/10/2014 10/03/2014
10/06/2014 11/07/2014 11/10/2014
11/12/2014 11/13/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/18/2014

sums withheld and forwarded as provided in paragraph 1 shall be twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account. Such sums shall be forwarded to the Clerk each time the amount in the plaintiff's account exceeds Ten Dollars ($10.00) until the appellate fees are paid. As of the issuance of this Order, the balance of the appellate fees still due in this case is $505.00. Copies Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/2/2014.(MGG) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
377 ORDER denying 372 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (USCA #14−2634). Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/2/2014. (MGG) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
378 Entry Directing Further Proceedings − Counsel for the plaintiff class are directed to contact Pendleton inmate Kevin Chandler, DOC #138734, regarding issues associated with his custody and the issues in this case and to then take such action as is appropriate. Appropriate action could be consulting with defense counsel and/or prison authorities, could be filing a report or motion with the clerk, could be taking no action, or could be taking action not heretofore specified. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/4/2014.(MGG) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
379 Appeal Remark re 346 Notice of Appeal (USCA #14−2455) : Original record on appeal filed electronically by USCA. Contents of record : 9 vol. of pleadings; 2 vol. of oversized documents; and 5 vol. unrestricted transcripts. (JLM) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
380 Appeal Remark re 346 Notice of Appeal (USCA #14−2455) : Supplemental record on appeal filed electronically by USCA. Contents of record : 6 sealed documents. (JLM) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
381 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to 30 days to File Status Report (BELATED), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
382 ORDER granting 381 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall file their Status Report no later than 30 days from this date. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/10/2014. (MGG) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
383 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to November 10, 2014 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
384 ORDER granting 383 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall file their Status Report no later than November 10, 2014. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/6/2014. (MGG) Modified on 10/7/2014 (MGG). (Entered: 10/07/2014)
385 STATUS REPORT JOINT BRIEF by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
386 ORDER − The parties having filed their Joint Brief Status Report, and the Court having read the Report, and being duly advised, finds that good cause exists to grant it, and, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall file a further status report no later than December 10, 2014. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/10/2014. (AH) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
388 Letter from KEITH MCCANTS. (AH) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
387 Letter from KEVIN CHANDLER. (AH) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
389 Letter from Harry Harrison. (MGG) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
390 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson. (MGG) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
393 CONSENT to Prisoner E−Service by WVCF (Court Use Only). Pursuant to General Order 2013−1, documents submitted by WVCF (Court Use Only) to the court for filing will generate a Notice of Electronic Filing that will constitute official service upon registered users of CM/ECF. If any parties to the case are not registered CM/ECF users, the Clerk of the Court will mail the document via U.S. Postal Service on behalf of the inmate. NOTE: The E−Filing Program does not affect the obligation of other parties to serve copies of documents in accordance with the Federal Rules

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 30 of 49

11/18/2014 11/20/2014
11/20/2014 11/21/2014 12/03/2014 12/09/2014
12/10/2014 12/10/2014
12/10/2014 12/16/2014 12/23/2014 01/06/2015
01/08/2015 01/14/2015 02/08/2015
02/09/2015 02/17/2015

of Civil Procedure. (CBU) Modified on 11/21/2014 (CBU)(by Kody Perry) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
394 Letter from Kody Perry addressed to the Judge regarding conditions (CBU) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
391 MANDATE of USCA as to 346 Notice of Appeal (USCA #14−2455) − IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for failure to pay the required docketingfee pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant pay the appellate fee of $505.00 to the clerk of the district court. The clerk of the district court shall collect the appellate fees from the prisoner's trust fund account using the mechanism of Section 1915(b). Newlin v. Helman, 123F.3d 429, 433 (7th Cir. 1997). (LBT) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
392 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson (CBU) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
395 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson addressed to Judge Pratt with a copy of his grievance (CBU) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
396 REPORT of Class Counsel Concerning Contacts and Letters from Class Members by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
397 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to January 9, 2015 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
398 ORDER granting 397 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall have to, and including, January 9, 2015, to file their further status report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/10/2014. (MGG) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
399 CONSENT to Prisoner E−Service by PENDLETON CF (Court Use Only). Pursuant to General Order 2013−1, documents submitted by PENDLETON CF (Court Use Only) to the court for filing will generate a Notice of Electronic Filing that will constitute official service upon registered users of CM/ECF. If any parties to the case are not registered CM/ECF users, the Clerk of the Court will mail the document via U.S. Postal Service on behalf of the inmate. NOTE: The E−Filing Program does not affect the obligation of other parties to serve copies of documents in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (MGG) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
400 MOTION for Various Relief by Jeremiah Farmer, a purported member of the plaintiff class, filed by Jeremiah Farmer. (MGG) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
401 Letter to Judge Pratt from Richard Keith Johnson. (MGG) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
402 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson. No c/s. (BGT) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
403 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to February 9, 2015 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
404 ORDER granting 403 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall have to, and including, February 9, 2015, to file their further status report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/8/2015. (MGG) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
405 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson. (MGG) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
406 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to March 11, 2015 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/08/2015)
407 ORDER granting Parties' 406 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to 3/11/2015 in which to file their further status report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/9/2015. (BGT) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
408 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson (CBU) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 31 of 49

02/23/2015 03/02/2015 03/06/2015 03/09/2015
03/09/2015 03/09/2015 03/10/2015 03/10/2015 03/10/2015 03/17/2015 03/19/2015 03/20/2015
03/26/2015
04/07/2015 04/07/2015 04/09/2015 04/20/2015 04/21/2015

409 NOTICE of Tort Claim against Indiana Department of Correction, filed by Richard Keith Johnson. c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (MGG) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
410 AFFIDAVIT of Richard Johnson. (MGG) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
415 Correspondence REQUESTING COPY of Case Docket Sheet, filed by Richard Kelly. (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet) (CKM) (Entered: 03/12/2015)
411 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to March 25, 2015 to File Status Report (Second Further), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
412 Submission of Signature Requirement re 411 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to March 25, 2015 to File Status Report (Second Further) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
413 NOTICE of Appearance by Melissa Keyes on behalf of Plaintiff INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION. (Keyes, Melissa) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
414 ORDER granting Parties' 411 Second Joint Motion to Further Extend Time to File Status Report to 3/25/2015. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/10/2015. (BGT) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
416 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Intervenor RICHARD L. KELLY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(AH) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
417 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Intervenor RICHARD L. KELLY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Summons)(AH) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
419 MOTION to Submit Documents, filed by Intervenor RICHARD L. KELLY. (CKM) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
418 STATUS REPORT −JOINT− and MOTION to SET CASE for SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
420 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 3/25/2015 11:00 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of the conference is to discuss issues raised in their March 19, 2015 Status Report [Dkt. 41] and to schedule a settlement conference. Counsel shall attend the conference by calling the designated telephone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/20/2015.(CKM) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
422 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 3/25/2015. The parties reported on the status of their efforts to negotiate a resolution of this matter. Settlement Conference set for 8/12/2015 at 09:00 AM in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Status Conference set for 7/13/2015 at 10:30 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information*. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
423 MOTION for status of case, filed by Intervenor RICHARD L. KELLY. (CBU) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
424 Letter from L. Aderibigbe to the District Judge (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (CBU) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
425 Letter from Richard Johnson. (CKM) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
426 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
427 ORDER re 426 Status Report. The parties shall file their further status report no later than 30 days from their filing of their Joint Status Report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/21/2015.(MGG) (Entered: 04/22/2015)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 32 of 49

05/06/2015
05/07/2015 05/14/2015 05/15/2015 05/18/2015
05/19/2015 06/01/2015 06/01/2015 06/02/2015 06/15/2015
06/16/2015 06/18/2015
06/19/2015 06/29/2015 07/01/2015 07/02/2015
07/07/2015 07/14/2015

428 ORDER denying 416 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 417 Motion to Intervene; denying as moot 419 and 423 Motions. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/6/2015 (paper copies sent to Richard Kelly) (CBU) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
429 STATUS REPORT filed by Richard Kelly (CBU) (Entered: 05/08/2015)
430 MOTION for Court's assistance filed by Nicholas Steven Harwood. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
431 NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
432 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to June 19, 2015 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
433 ORDER granting 432 Joint Motion for Extension of Time. The time within which they must file their status report is extended to, and including, June 19, 2015.. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/19/2015. (MGG) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
434 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson to Judge Pratt (CBU) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
435 Letter from Richard Allen Lima addressed to Judge Pratt (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Receipt of Documents for PE filing program) (CBU) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
436 Letter from Richard Keith regarding his confinement. (MGG) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
437 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to June 29, 2015 to respond to interrogatories, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
438 ORDER − granting 437 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Defendant's time within which to respond to the interrogatories is hereby extended to June 29, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/16/2015. (CKM) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
439 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to July 20, 2015 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
440 ORDER granting Parties Joint 439 Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report to 7/20/2015. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/19/2015. (MAC) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
441 Joint MOTION for Protective Order , filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Agreement to be bound by protective order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
442 ENTRY − The filings of Mr. Farmer [dkt 400 ] and Mr. Harwood [dkt 430 ] are DENIED. Copies Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/1/2015. (MGG) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
443 UNIFORM STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 441 APPROVED AS AMENDED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/2/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Agreement to Protective Order)(SWM) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
444 MOTION for Relief from Sean Poulton. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(MGG) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
446 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 7/13/2015. The Court and parties discussed preparations for the upcoming settlement conference. The Court hereby modifies its Minute Entry for March 25, 2015 [Dkt. 422] to clarify that on or before August 10, 2015 the parties should jointly submit the current draft of their settlement agreement in Word format by electronic mail to MJDinsmore@insd.uscourts.gov. The draft settlement agreement

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 33 of 49

07/30/2015 07/31/2015
07/31/2015 08/03/2015 08/03/2015 08/05/2015 08/06/2015 08/10/2015
08/10/2015
08/10/2015
08/19/2015 08/19/2015 08/24/2015
08/25/2015

should highlight any areas of disagreement remaining to be negotiated. Also on or before August 10, 2015, the parties may submit confidential statements highlighting any issues with regard to the settlement agreement regarding which they would like to advise the Court in confidence; however, such confidential statements are not required, as the draft settlement agreement should highlight and explain in detail any remaining areas of disagreement. The parties further requested leave until after the settlement conference to submit their next joint status report. Accordingly, the time for the parties to submit their joint status report, which is presently due by July 20, 2015 [Dkt. 440], is hereby enlarged to and including August 26, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
447 MOTION (Petition) for Injunction, filed by Sidney G. Hopkins.(MAC) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
448 NOTICE of Appearance by Jan P. Mensz on behalf of Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Mensz, Jan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
450 Letter from RICHARD KEITH JOHNSON. (AH) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
449 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information. Consistent with Local Rule 5−3, Jan P. Mensz hereby notifies the Clerk of the court of changed contact information. (Mensz, Jan) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
451 Letter from OSWALDO SANTOS. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (AH) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
452 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by David R. Smith on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Smith, David) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
453 ENTRY of Notice of withdrawal of Appearance is Acknowledged. Attorney David Ross Smith terminated (marginal). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/6/2015.(CBU) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
454 ENTRY Directing Treatment of Document. The letters from inmates filed on July 31. 2015 and August 3, 2015, respectively, have been served on counsel of record for the parties. The Court does not find either the Motions or letters to be appropriate for development separate from the case as a whole. Accordingly, the Clerk shall terminate both motions. Counsel of record may take whatever action they deem appropriate, if any. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/10/2015. (MAC) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
455 Joint MOTION to Vacate Settlement Conference, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
456 ORDER granting Parties' 455 Joint Motion to Vacate Settlement Conference set for 8/12/2015. Status Conference set for 8/31/2015 03:20 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated telephone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/10/2015.(SWM) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
457 Letter from Terrance L. Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Consent) (MAC) Modified on 8/20/2015 (MAC). (Entered: 08/20/2015)
458 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson. (MAC) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
459 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/24/2015)
460 ORDER granting Joint 459 Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report to a time to be set during the 8/31/2015 telephonic conference. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/25/2015. (MAC) (Entered: 08/25/2015)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 34 of 49

09/01/2015 09/01/2015
09/04/2015
09/08/2015 09/08/2015 09/14/2015 09/21/2015 09/24/2015 09/25/2015
09/28/2015 10/01/2015 10/02/2015 10/13/2015
10/19/2015 10/23/2015
10/26/2015

462 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson. (MAC) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
463 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 8/31/2015. The parties reported on the status of their efforts to negotiate a resolution of this mater. It is further ordered that the time for the parties to file any further status reports in this matter is continued until further order of the Court. Status Conference set for 9/25/2015 at 10:30 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
464 ENTRY − The letter from Richard Keith Johnson filed on September 1, 2015 has been served on counsel of record for the parties. Counsel shall take whatever action, if any, is appropriate. The Court does not find Mr. Johnson's letter filed on September 1, 2015 to be appropriate for development separate from the case as a whole. In fact, Mr. Johnson's concerns are not rooted in his own treatment or mistreatment at the Pendleton Correctional Facility and the concerns expressed in his letter are substantially the same as presented in his filing of September 1, 2015 in No. 1:15−cv−00799−JMS−DKL. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/4/2015. Copy Mailed. (JD) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
465 CORRECTED Letter from Richard Keith Johnson filed on 9/1/2015. (BGT) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
466 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson. (MAC) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
467 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson. (MAC) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
469 Letter regarding Claims from William Holly c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (MAC) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
470 Letter Re Conditions of Confinement from Richard Keith Johnson. (JLS) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
471 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 9/25/2015. The parties reported on the status of a resolution of this matter. Status Conference set for 10/9/2015 at 02:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
472 MOTION for Copies, filed by Richard Keith Johnson. (JLS) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
474 Letter from Richard Keith Johnson. (MAC) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
475 MOTION for Copies, filed by Richard Keith Johnson. (JLS) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
476 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 10/9/2015. The parties reported on the status of a resolution of this mater. On or before November 6, 2015 the parties are to report any agreement on the amount of Plaintiff's attorney's fees. Status Conference set for 11/13/2015 at 10:30 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) Modified on 11/5/2015 (NLR). (Entered: 10/13/2015)
477 MOTION for Hearing filed by William Holly. No c/s (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(GSO) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
478 ENTRY − This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Hearing filed by William Holly, an inmate at the New Castle Correctional Facility. Specifically, Mr. Holly asks the Court to hold a hearing "to protect the rights of the defenseless psych patients held here at this facility." The Court has not mandated specific programming, treatment, or conditions of confinement of members of the plaintiff class. However, the Court recognizes that Mr. Holly's claims, if true, warrant consideration. If Mr. Holly believes himself to be a member of the plaintiff class he may contact attorneys for the class and seek their intervention. The motion for hearing [dkt 477], as submitted, is DENIED. Copy sent via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/23/2015. (JLS) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
479 ORDER − The motions of Richard Keith Johnson to be supplied with copies of materials he has filed during a certain period of time [dkt 472 and dkt 475] are denied.

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 35 of 49

10/30/2015 11/12/2015 11/13/2015
11/13/2015 11/16/2015 12/02/2015 12/14/2015 12/16/2015 12/17/2015 01/06/2016 01/07/2016
01/07/2016 01/13/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016
01/27/2016
01/27/2016

The reason for this ruling is that Mr. Johnson has been released from the custody of the Indiana Department of Correction, therefore copies need not be mailed to his previous address in Pendleton, Indiana. Copy sent via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/26/2015. (JLS) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
480 Motion from William Holly for Court to Take Action (cc list noted on document). (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JLS) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
482 Letter re: Case from William Holly no c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (MAC) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
483 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 11/13/2015. The parties report they have reached a resolution of this matter and plan to file their notice of settlement within the next thirty days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
484 Letter from Joseph Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) Modified on 11/16/2015 (JLS). (Entered: 11/16/2015)
485 MOTION (Letter) to not be transferred filed by Richard Ramey.. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(DW) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
486 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 479 Order on Motion sent to RICHARD KEITH JOHNSON. (JLS) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
487 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
488 Letter re: Case from William Holly. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (MAC) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
489 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint, filed by Interested Party WILLIAM HOLLY c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Proposed Amended Complaint, # 3 Envelope)(MAC) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
491 Letter, Claims from Willaim Holly. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
490 ENTRY CONCERNING SELECTED MATTERS − Having considered the filings from New Castle inmates Richard Ramey, Joseph Johnson and William Holly, and having also considered the parties' status reports filed in recent months, the Court finds that the concerns presented by these individuals do not warrant development separate from the case as a whole. The motions associated with these filings (Filing Nos. 480 and 485) are therefore DENIED. The Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed by New Castle inmate William Holly (Filing No. 489) is DENIED. Copies sent by U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/7/2016. (JLS) Modified on 1/8/2016 (JLS). (Entered: 01/07/2016)
492 Letter from George Sisk. (JLS) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
493 STATUS REPORT −JOINT− by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
494 ENTRY Acknowledges 493 Joint Status Report filed by Parties. (Marginal Notation). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/15/2016.(JLS) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
495 ENTRY Discussing Letter from Inmate George Sisk re 492 Letter. At present, Mr. Sisk's request for intervention or help must be denied. He may proceed as outlined above, however, and should of course continue to work with prison staff regarding his treatment. Copy to George Sisk via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/15/2016.(MAC) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
496 STIPULATION to Enter Into Private Settlement Agreement Following Notice to the Class and Fairness Hearing, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 3/18/2016 (TRG). (Entered: 01/27/2016)
497 Joint MOTION to Approve Form and Manner of Notice and to Set Matter for Fairness Hearing, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS.

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 36 of 49

01/27/2016
02/26/2016
02/26/2016 03/02/2016
03/08/2016 03/11/2016 03/14/2016 03/15/2016 03/15/2016 03/18/2016
03/24/2016

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed class notice, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
498 ORDER − The parties having filed their Joint Motion to Approve Form and Manner of Notice and to Set Matter for Fairness Hearing, and the Court having read the Joint Motion, and being duly advised, orders as follows: The notice attached to the Joint Motion is approved and it shall be given in the manner noted in the Joint Motion. This matter is set for a fairness hearing on March 18th, 2016 at 10 a.m. in Room 344, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. (See order for further details). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/27/2016.(JLS) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
499 CONSENT to Prisoner E−Service by DEREK FINGERS. Pursuant to General Order 2013−1, documents submitted by DEREK FINGERS to the court for filing will generate a Notice of Electronic Filing that will constitute official service upon registered users of CM/ECF. If any parties to the case are not registered CM/ECF users, the Clerk of the Court will mail the document via U.S. Postal Service on behalf of the inmate. NOTE: The E−Filing Program does not affect the obligation of other parties to serve copies of documents in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (JLS) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
500 OBJECTION to Settlement by DEREK FINGERS, c/s. (JLS) (Main Document 500 replaced on 3/1/2016) (JLS). (Entered: 02/29/2016)
501 Entry Concerning Prisoner's Consent to E−Filing − The clerk has processed the consent to prisoner e−filing from inmate Derek Fingers. This consent shall be disregarded, however, because the circumstances of this case are incompatible with prisoner e−filing. The pertinent "flag" shall therefore be removed from the docket. Mr. Fingers can be assured that he will be notified of all rulings in this matter, in the same fashion as the other plaintiff class members. A copy of Mr. Fingers' motion filed on February 26, 2016 shall be included with his copy of this Entry. Copy to Mr. Fingers via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/2/2016.(JLS) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
502 REPORT to the Court by Plaintiffs' Counsel Following Notice to the Class by JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Comments from prisoners)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
503 Statement of Inmate Robert Baston regarding proposed class settlement in IPAS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Envelope)(JLS) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
504 Submission of Proposed Order, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
505 REPORT −Supplemental− to the Court Following Notice to the Class by Plaintiffs' Counsel by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letters from prisoners)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
506 Statement of Inmate WILLIAM HOLLY, Regarding Proposed Class Settlement in IPAS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Envelope)(JLS) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
507 MINUTE ENTRY for fairness hearing held before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/18/2016: Parties appeared by counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel Kenneth J. Falk presented argument in support of final approval. Defendants' counsel David A. Arthur presented argument in support of Plaintiffs' motion as well and joins in the request for approval. The Court found that the private settlement agreement is adequate, fair and reasonable and entered into in good faith. The Court approved some terms of the settlement and others were taken under advisement. A separate ruling regarding final approval will issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter David Moxley.)(TRG) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
508 ENTRY CONCERNING SELECTED MATTERS − As a result of the hearing conducted on March 18, 2016 and the parties' filings associated with the resolution of

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 37 of 49

03/24/2016
08/01/2016 08/29/2016 08/29/2016 08/29/2016 09/20/2016
09/21/2016 09/21/2016 10/06/2016 10/06/2016 10/11/2016
10/13/2016
10/13/2016 10/18/2016

this action through the submission and aproval of a Private Settlement Agreement, the parties' Stipulation [dkt 496] is approved. The Court's findings, also issued this date, show that the proposed Private Settlement Agreement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Judicial policy favors voluntary settlement of class−action cases. Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977). That policy is fully served by approval of the proposed Private Settlement Agreement. Objections to the proposed Private Settlement Agreement are overruled. By approving the Private Settlement Agreement, moreover, the judgment will also provide for the dismissal of the action without prejudice after a period of three years. Judgment consistent with the foregoing, with the Private Settlement Agreement and with all other pertinent findings shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/24/2016. (JLS) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
509 CLOSED JUDGMENT − IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Private Settlement Agreement will remain actively in effect for three (3) years from the date of this Order. At that time, absent written agreement as noted in paragraph 71 of the Private Settlement Agreement, this case will automatically be dismissed without prejudice. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, inasmuch as all claims have been resolved against all parties, this Entry shall constitute the Final Judgment in this action and through its issuance the action shall be dismissed without prejudice, subject to all the provisions of the Private Settlement Agreement, which is approved and incorporated herein. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/24/2016.(JLS) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
510 Letter from KEITH A SHEPHERD, no c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
511 Letter from WILLIAM WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
512 Letter from WILLIAM HOLLY. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
513 Letter from TROY RAINS. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
514 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to October 11, 2016 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
515 ORDER granting 514 Motion for Extension of Time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall file their status report in this case no later than October 11, 2016. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/21/2016. (JLS) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
516 Petition to Show Cause from TYLER FERRELL, filed by Interested Party TYLER FERRELL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Envelope)(JLS) Modified on 9/27/2016 (TRG). (Entered: 09/23/2016)
517 Petition to Show Cause, filed by Interested Party TYLER FERRELL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(BRR) Modified on 10/11/2016 (TRG). (Entered: 10/07/2016)
518 Letter from Henry Mason About His Situation. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (GSO) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
519 MOTION for Extension of Time to October 18, 2016 to File Status Report (AGREED FURTHER), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
520 ORDER granting 519 Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall file their status report in this case no later than October 18, 2016. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/13/2016. (JLS) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
521 Correspondence REQUESTING COPY of Case Docket and Document(s), filed by TYLER FERRELL. Copies provided via US Mail. (JLS) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
522 STATUS REPORT Following Effective Date of Private Settlement Agreement(First Joint) by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/18/2016)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 38 of 49

10/19/2016
10/21/2016 11/14/2016 11/16/2016
11/18/2016 11/21/2016 11/22/2016
11/23/2016 12/04/2016 12/05/2016
12/08/2016
12/14/2016 12/16/2016 12/16/2016 12/16/2016 12/20/2016 12/20/2016
12/22/2016

523 Marginal Notation Acknowledges re 522 Status Report filed by JOSHUA HARRISON, JAMES PANOZZO, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, GREGGORY SIMS. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/19/2016.(JLS) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
524 MOTION Requesting Copies, filed by Interested Party TYLER FERRELL. (MAC) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
525 Letter from KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN Reporting Suicidal Feelings and Conditions. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
526 ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings − The Court has examined the November 15, 2016 filing of Indiana inmate Kevin McLaughlin, confined at the Pendleton Correctional Facility. Counsel for the parties have been notified of this filing. Counsel shall promptly investigate Mr. McLaughlin's concerns and urge prison administrators to take whatever action is appropriate. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/16/2016.(JLS) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
527 STATUS REPORT re: letter at dkt. no. 525 by COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
528 REPORT to the Court by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
529 Marginal Notation Acknowledges re 528 Report to the Court filed by JOSHUA HARRISON, JAMES PANOZZO, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, GREGGORY SIMS. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/22/2016.(JLS) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
530 Correspondence REQUESTING COPY of Case Docket Sheet, filed by TYLER FERRELL. Copy provided by Mail. (JLS) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
531 REPORT to the Court by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/04/2016)
532 MARGINAL Entry Acknowledges re 531 Report filed by JOSHUA HARRISON, JAMES PANOZZO, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, GREGGORY SIMS. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/5/2016.(JLS) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
533 Order Denying Relief Sought by Inmate Tyler Ferrell − The petitions to show cause [dkt 516 and dkt 517 ] filed by Tyler Ferrell, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, are each denied for the following reasons. (See Order.) Mr. Ferrell's request for a copy of the original complaint [dkt 524 ] is granted. Copy of Order and Complaint sent to Mr. Ferrell by U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/8/2016. (JLS) (Entered: 12/08/2016)
534 MOTION for Copies, filed by Interested Party TYLER FERRELL. (JLS) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
535 Letter from KEANDRE ARNOLD. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
536 MOTION to Clarify Modification, filed by Interested Party TYLER FERRELL, no c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JLS) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
537 Letter from TYLER FERRELL. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
538 MOTION for Court's Assistance, filed by Interested Party GREGORY A TAYLOR, no c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JLS) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
539 ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings − The Court has examined the December 20, 2016 filing [dkt. 538 ], of Indiana inmate Gregory Taylor, confined at the New Castle Psychiatric Center. Counsel for the parties have been notified of this filing. Counsel shall promptly investigate Mr. Taylor's concerns and urge prison administrators to take whatever action is appropriate. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/20/2016.(JLS) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
540 STATUS REPORT re: letter at dkt. no. 538 by COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 12/22/2016)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 39 of 49

12/30/2016 01/03/2017 01/03/2017
01/03/2017
01/03/2017 01/10/2017 01/12/2017 01/18/2017 01/18/2017 01/19/2017 01/26/2017 01/26/2017 01/27/2017 02/10/2017

541 REPORT to the Court by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/30/2016)
542 ORDER Acknowledges re 541 Report filed by JOSHUA HARRISON, JAMES PANOZZO, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, GREGGORY SIMS. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/3/2017.(JLS) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
543 Entry Directing Further Proceedings − The motion of Indiana inmate Gregory Taylor [dkt 538 ] is granted to the extent consistent with the report of counsel for the parties and with the further steps to be taken by prison administrators. The motion of Indiana inmate Gregory Taylor [dkt 538 ] is denied to the extent that any other action could be understood as being sought in such motion. Copy to Gregory Taylor via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/3/2017. (JLS) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
544 ENTRY CONCERNING SELECTED MATTERS − Mr. Ferrell seeks to be supplied with the "case cite" for this case. He notes that he is not thereby seeking to be provided with a copy of the docket sheet. The motion for this information [dkt 534 ] is granted to the extent that if the question is made more specific and if the information sought is in the public domain the requested information will be supplied. To be made more specific, Mr. Farrell may simply explain what material he seeks. Mr. Ferrell seeks clarification of two docket notations and to know the status of the petitions to show cause he filed on September 21, 2016 and on October 6, 2016. The petition to show cause was denied in Part I of the Entry of December 8, 2016. There was no substantive change to the petitions to show cause just referenced. The notations have to do with the designation of these filings on the docket. The motion to clarify modification [dkt 536 ] is granted consistent with the foregoing. Copy to Tyler Ferrell via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/3/2017. (JLS) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
545 Submission of Proposed Discrimination Complaint, filed by GREGORY A TAYLOR. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JLS) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
546 REPORT (FURTHER) to the Court Concerning Gregory Taylor by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
547 Marginal Notation Acknowledges re 546 Report filed by JOSHUA HARRISON, JAMES PANOZZO, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, GREGGORY SIMS. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/12/2017.(JLS) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
548 MOTION for Copies, filed by Interested Party TYLER FERRELL, c/s **STRICKEN PER COURT'S ENTRY 554 ** (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(JLS) Modified on 1/19/2017 (JLS). (Attachment 1 replaced on 1/19/2017) (JLS). Modified on 2/13/2017 (JLS). (Entered: 01/19/2017)
549 **STRICKEN PER COURT'S ENTRY 554 ** MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Interested Party TYLER FERRELL, no c/s. (JLS) Modified on 2/13/2017 (JLS). (Entered: 01/19/2017)
550 Letter to the Judge from Kevin McLaughlin. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
551 EMERGENCY Request for in Chamber: In Camera Inspection, filed by Rodney Perry, Sr., no c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 1−10, # 3 Exhibit 11−20, # 4 Exhibit 21−30, # 5 Exhibit 31, # 6 Envelope)(JLS) Modified on 1/27/2017 (JLS). (Entered: 01/27/2017)
552 Letter from GREGORY TAYLOR Expressing Concerns Regarding Conditions. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
553 Letter from Charles Moredock. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 01/30/2017)
554 ENTRY DIRECTING TREATMENT OF DOCUMENTS − Two of the items filed by Mr. Ferrell, Docket Item No. 549 and the 11 page exhibit to Docket Item 548 , are stricken from the docket in this action and shall be re−docketed in the habeas action pending as No. 2:16−cv−399−LJM−DKL. The motion portion of Docket Item 548 remains pending in this action. From that filing, only the exhibit is stricken. Copy to Tyler Ferrell via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/10/2017.(JLS)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 40 of 49

02/10/2017
02/13/2017
02/15/2017 02/16/2017 02/16/2017 02/23/2017 02/23/2017 02/27/2017 02/28/2017
03/01/2017 03/01/2017
03/01/2017 03/02/2017
03/06/2017 03/08/2017

Modified on 2/13/2017 (JLS). (Entered: 02/13/2017)
555 Entry Granting Motion for Copies − Mr. Ferrell's motion for copies [dkt 548 ] is granted. A copy of the amended complaint [dkt 81 ] shall be included with Mr. Ferrell's copy of this Entry. Copy to Tyler Ferrell via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/10/2017. (JLS) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
556 ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings − Counsel for the parties shall submit a proposed Notice to be displayed or otherwise communicated to members of the plaintiff class describing the nature of the disposition of this action, describing the procedures class members should follow if they have questions or concerns relating to their present confinement, and making clear that the Court did not order injunctive relief and did not retain jurisdiction over any of the claims here. This shall be done within 21 days from the issuance of this Entry. When approved, the proposed Notice shall be promptly posted in the housing and programing areas of the plaintiff class. The proposed Notice will be signed by counsel and by the undersigned. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/13/2017.(JLS) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
557 Letter from Kevin McLaughlin Regarding New Castle Correctional Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
558 Submission of Claims From GREGORY TAYLOR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Envelope)(JLS) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
559 Letter from Jeffrey Strain Regarding Mental Health Treatment. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
560 Letter from Charles DuBoise. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
561 MOTION to Hold Defendants in Contempt, no c/s. (JLS) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
563 Letter from Charles Moredock. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
562 Letter Regarding Conditions from KEANDRE ARNOLD. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) Modified on 3/1/2017 (JLS). (Attachment 1 replaced on 3/1/2017) (JLS). Modified on 3/1/2017 (JLS). (Attachment 1 replaced on 3/1/2017) (JLS). (Entered: 02/28/2017)
564 Letter for Help from Devaris Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
565 Joint MOTION Concerning Notice to the Class and Plaintiffs' Submission of Proposed Notice, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Class Notice, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
566 Submission of Further Proceedings, filed by Interested Party GREGORY A TAYLOR. (JLS) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
567 ORDER − The parties, having filed their Joint Motion Concerning Notice to the Class and Plaintiffs' Submission of Proposed Notice, and the Court having read the motion and proposed notice and being duly advised finds that the motion should be approved and the notice given in the manner proposed. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/2/2017. (JLS) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
568 MOTION for Court's Assistance, no c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit (JLS) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
569 ENTRY AND NOTICE − The pending motions [dkt 551 , 561 , 568 ] are denied as moot. The clerk shall supply a copy of this Entry and Notice and a copy of the Order issued on March 2, 2017 to the inmates who filed the foregoing motions. A copy of the same materials shall be sent to inmates who filed letters or other materials identified as dkts 552 , 553 , 557 , 558 , 559 , 560 , 562 , 563 , 564 , 566 . Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/8/2017. (JLS) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 41 of 49

03/14/2017 03/15/2017 03/20/2017 03/20/2017
03/21/2017 03/24/2017 04/06/2017 05/15/2017 05/16/2017 05/16/2017 05/17/2017 05/22/2017
05/23/2017 06/12/2017
06/26/2017 06/26/2017

570 Joint MOTION to Modify Form of Notice, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
571 MOTION to Enforce, filed by Keandre Arnold, no c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JLS) (Entered: 03/16/2017)
572 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to May 23, 2017 to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
573 ORDER approves 570 Joint Motion to Modify and this Court's Order of March 2, 2017 (Dkt. 567 ) is modified by replacement of paragraph (c) in the original order with the following: c. Within 15 days and at least once every six months thereafter until the dismissal of this case as contemplated by the parties' Private Settlement Agreement, a statement will be provided on the closed circuit television channel in the DOC facilities that have such a channel that refers interested prisoners to the complete notice that is posted as required in this Order so that interested prisoners may inform themselves and so that they will be instructed to contact plaintiffs' counsel with questions and concerns, not the Court. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/20/2017. (JLS) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
574 ORDER granting 572 Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report. The parties shall have to, and including, May 23, 2017, to file their status report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/21/2017. (JLS) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
575 Letter from Robert Bratton. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
576 Submission of Mental Health Care. (JLS) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
580 Letter from MICHAEL WORDEN Regarding Mental Health Program. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
577 MOTION to be added to Joint Class, filed by Roger Pringle, c/s. (JLS) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
578 Letter from KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN Regarding Settlement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
579 Letter from KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN Regarding Mistreatment. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (JLS) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
581 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to July 7, 2017 to Extend Time to File Status Report (Further Motion), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
582 ORDER granting 581 Motion for Extension of Time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall have to, and including, July 7, 2017, to file their status report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/23/2017. (JLS) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
583 ENTRY AND NOTICE − The pending motions 571 577 are denied as moot. Requests for assistance from inmates Robert Bratton Dkt. 575 , Michael Worden Dkt. 580 , and Kevin McLaughlin Dkt. 578 , 579 are denied. No relief sought in such materials is available directly from the Court. The clerk shall supply a copy of this Entry and Notice and a copy of the Order issued on March 2, 2017 to the inmates who filed the foregoing motions or requests. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/12/2017. Copies Mailed. (CKM) Modified on 6/13/2017 to correct link to Doc. 571 (LBT). (Entered: 06/12/2017)
584 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. 583 Order on Motion sent to MICHAEL WORDEN. (Return to Sender not Deliverable as Addressed) (CKM) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
585 Mail Returned as undeliverable. 583 Order on Motion sent to KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN. (Return to Sender Not Deliverable As Address Unable to Forward ) (CKM) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 42 of 49

07/05/2017 07/10/2017 07/17/2017 07/17/2017 07/28/2017 08/01/2017 09/22/2017
10/02/2017
11/17/2017 11/20/2017 11/30/2017
01/03/2018 01/05/2018 01/08/2018 01/08/2018 01/08/2018

586 STATUS REPORT Second−Joint− Following Effective Date of Private Settlement Agreement by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
587 MARGINAL ENTRY acknowledging 586 Status Report filed by JOSHUA HARRISON, JAMES PANOZZO, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, GREGGORY SIMS. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/10/2017.(MEJ) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
588 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Thomas D. Quigley, former Deputy Attorney General, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
589 ORDER granting 588 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. Attorney Thomas D. Quigley withdrawn. The appearance of David A. Arthur, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for the above defendant remains in effect. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/17/2017. (MEJ) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
590 MOTION for Supplement, filed by Interested Party KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN. (MAT) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
591 ENTRY AND NOTICE − 590 Motion is denied as moot. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/1/2017. (Copies mailed to Kevin McLaughlin) (MEJ) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
592 MOTION for Extension of Time to January 5, 2018, and all subsequent status reports be due six months after the prior report is filed (AGREED), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
593 ORDER − 592 Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report is granted. The time for the parties to file their next status report is extended to January 5, 2018, and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all subsequent status reports shall be filed no later than six months after each prior report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/2/2017. (MEJ) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
594 Letter from Willie Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (MEJ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
595 Letter from Byron Hubbard. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (MEJ) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
596 ORDER − The Court has received two letters filed with the Clerk (Dkt. 594 and Dkt. 595 ). The clerk shall include a copy of the Proposed Class Notice issued on March 2, 2017 at Dkt. 565−1 with the distribution of this order. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/30/2017. (Copy mailed to Willie Lane and Byron Hubbard) (MEJ) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
597 MOTION for Extension of Time to February 5, 2018 to File Status Report (AGREED), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/03/2018)
598 ORDER − 597 Motion for Extension of Time is granted. The parties shall have to, and including, February 5, 2018, to file their status report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/5/2018. (MEJ) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
599 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information. Consistent with Local Rule 5−3, Gavin Minor Rose hereby notifies the Clerk of the court of changed contact information. (Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
600 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information. Consistent with Local Rule 5−3, Kenneth J. Falk hereby notifies the Clerk of the court of changed contact information. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
601 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information. Consistent with Local Rule 5−3, Jan P. Mensz hereby notifies the Clerk of the court of changed contact information. (Mensz, Jan) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 43 of 49

02/02/2018 02/05/2018 03/06/2018 03/07/2018 04/20/2018 06/12/2018 06/15/2018
08/03/2018 08/08/2018 08/10/2018 08/24/2018
09/04/2018 09/06/2018 09/25/2018 09/25/2018 09/27/2018

602 MOTION for Extension of Time to March 7, 2018 (AGREED FURTHER), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
603 ORDER − 602 Motion for Extension of Time is granted. The parties shall have to, and including, March 7, 2018, to file their status report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/5/2018. (MEJ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
604 STATUS REPORT −THIRD JOINT REPORT FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE DATE OF PRIVATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT− by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
605 ORDER − Acknowleding 604 Status Report filed by JOSHUA HARRISON, JAMES PANOZZO, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, GREGGORY SIMS. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/7/2018. (MEJ) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
606 Letter from Howard Sanders. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (NAD) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
607 MOTION for Investigation, filed by Interested Party DEREK FINGERS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent)(NAD) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
608 Entry Denying Motion for Investigation 607 − Non−party Derek Fingers asks the Court to investigate the mental health treatment given to inmates in the Indiana Department of Correction. The Court does not, however, perform independent investigations. If class counsel believes an investigation is needed, they will take the appropriate actions. Mr. Fingers's motion for investigation, dkt. 607 , is therefore denied. Copy mailed via US Mail to Mr. Fingers. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/15/2018. (NAD) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
609 NOTICE of Appearance by Lauren N. Rodriguez on behalf of Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Rodriguez, Lauren) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
610 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information. Consistent with Local Rule 5−3, Gavin Minor Rose hereby notifies the Clerk of the court of changed contact information. (Rose, Gavin) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
611 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information. Consistent with Local Rule 5−3, Jan P. Mensz hereby notifies the Clerk of the court of changed contact information. (Mensz, Jan) (Entered: 08/10/2018)
612 ORDER − The Court has received a letter on behalf of an inmate who may be a member of the class in this case. The clerk is directed to forward the letter to class counsel and counsel for the defendants. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/24/2018.(NAD) Modified on 8/27/2018 Order mailed via US Mail per distribution list(NAD). (Entered: 08/24/2018)
613 STATUS REPORT (Fourth Joint) Following Effective Date of Private Settlement Agreement by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dr. Dvoskin CV, # 2 Exhibit Dr. Dvoskin report)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
614 MARGINAL ENTRY − Acknowledging 613 Fourth Joint Status Report Following Effective Date of Private Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/6/2018.(NAD) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
615 Submission of Consent to Efile, filed by Interested Party SHANE CATES. (NAD) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
616 MOTION to Join Class of Similarly Situated Persons, filed by Interested Party SHANE CATES. (NAD) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
617 NOTICE to the Court, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 44 of 49

09/27/2018 09/28/2018 09/28/2018 09/28/2018 10/02/2018
10/09/2018
10/09/2018 10/10/2018 10/10/2018 10/11/2018 10/12/2018
10/16/2018 10/16/2018 10/16/2018 10/16/2018 10/16/2018

618 Submission of Information, filed by Interested Party DEREK FINGERS. (NAD) (Entered: 09/27/2018)
619 MARGINAL ENTRY − Acknowledging 615 Consent to E−Filing. Copy to Mr. Cates via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/28/2018.(NAD) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
620 MARGINAL ENTRY − Acknowledging 617 Notice to the Court. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/28/2018.(NAD) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
621 MARGINAL ENTRY − Mr. Fingers' 618 Notice is acknowledged and served on counsel for the parties. 9−28−2018 TWP (copy to Mr. Fingers via US Mail). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/28/2018.(NAD) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
622 ENTRY − The motion to join class of similarly situated persons, filed by interested person Shane Cates on September 25, 2018, dkt. 616 , is neither granted nor denied because this case has been resolved through entry of a Private Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which any interested prisoners are directed to contact class counsel with any questions or concerns about the case. The Court cannot provide any relief pursuant to the Private Settlement Agreement. Class counsel can be contacted at the ACLU of Indiana, 1031 E. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202 or at (317) 635−4059. Copy to Mr. Cates via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/2/2018. (NAD) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
623 ORDER − The Court has received a letter on behalf of an inmate who may be a member of the class in this case. The clerk is directed to docket the letter and forward it to class counsel and counsel for the defendants. Further, in the event the inmate is seeking to file an action for civil rights violations, the clerk is directed to also forward a copy of the pro se litigant's form: Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint. Copies per distribution list. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/9/2018.(NAD) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
624 Letter from Ricky Underhill. (NAD) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
625 MOTION to Join Class of Similar Situated Persons filed by Ronnie Bee Cislo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Letter from ACLU regarding assistance dated 7/10/18, # 2 Exhibit B − Letter from Indiana Disability Rights, # 3 Exhibit C − Letter from ACLU regarding assistance dated 9/24/18)(NAD) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
626 MOTION to Order Contempt filed by Ronnie Bee Cislo. (NAD) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
627 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Lauren N. Rodriguez, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
628 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE − Granting 627 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. The appearance of Lauren N. Rodriguez, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of Defendant, Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction, is withdrawn. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/12/2018. (APD) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
629 ORDER neither granted nor denied interested person Ronnie Bee Cislo's 625 Motion to join class; denying 626 Motion to order contempt because no defendant in this case in presently in contempt. (See Order). Copy to Cislo via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/16/2018. (MAC) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
630 MOTION to Order Contempt, filed by Interested Party SHANE CATES. (MAC) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
631 DECLARATION of Shane Cates re 630 Motion for Order of Contempt by SHANE CATES. (MAC) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
632 Submission of Consent to E−Filing, filed by Interested Party MICHAEL STAFFORD. (MAC) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
633 MOTION for Joinder in Class of similarly situated persons, filed by Interested Party MICHAEL STAFFORD. (MAC) (Entered: 10/17/2018)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 45 of 49

10/16/2018 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 10/22/2018
11/20/2018 01/11/2019 01/14/2019 02/13/2019 02/19/2019 02/20/2019 02/21/2019
03/01/2019
03/01/2019 03/07/2019

634 DECLARATION of Michael Stafford re 633 Motion for Joinder by MICHAEL STAFFORD. (MAC) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
635 ORDER denying Shane Cates 630 Motion to Order Contempt. Copy to Cates via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/18/2018. (MAC) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
636 ORDER neither grants nor denies Michael Stafford's 633 Motion for Joinder in Class. Copy to Stafford via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/18/2018. (MAC) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
637 Letter from Aaron Reed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope). (MAC) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
638 ENTRY DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS − The Court has examined the October 18, 2018 filing [dkt. 637], of Indiana inmate Aaron Reid, confined at the Pendleton Correctional Facility. The Court is unaware if Mr. Reid is a member of the class in the above matter. In an abundance of caution, the Counsel for the parties are being notified of this filing. The Court requests that counsel promptly investigate Mr. Reid's mental health concerns and urge prison administrators to take whatever action is appropriate for his safety. Copy to Reid via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/22/2018.(NAD) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
639 Submission of E−Service Consent by non−party Bruce Smith. (NAD) (Entered: 11/21/2018)
640 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance , filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mensz, Jan) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
641 ORDER − granting 640 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. Attorney Jan P. Mensz withdrawn. The appearances of Kenneth J. Falk and Gavin M. Rose will remain in effect. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/14/2019. (NAD) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
642 Submission of Letter, filed by Interested Party KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(NAD) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
643 MARGINAL ENTRY − Acknowledging 642 Submission. Mr. McLaughlin's letter is Acknowledged. The Clerk has docketed the letter so that class counsel will receive notice of his concerns. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/19/2019.(NAD) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
644 MOTION for Extension of Time to March 22, 2019 to file Status Report (AGREED), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
645 ORDER − granting 644 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs, having filed their Agreed Motion to Extend Time to File Status Report, and the Court having read the motion and being duly advised finds that good cause exists to grant it, and, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall have to, and including, March 22, 2019, to file their status report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/21/2019. (NAD) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
646 ENTRY − The court has received a letter from inmate Michael Bailey, a possible member of the class in Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction. The clerk is directed to docket the letter under seal, in this action and forward a copy to class counsel and counsel for the state. Class counsel is requested to determine if Mr. Bailey is a member of the class and if so, to investigate Mr. Bailey's concerns. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/1/2019. Copy sent to Michael Baily via US Mail. (MAT) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
647 SEALED Letter from Michael Bailey. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(MAT) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
648 Letter to the Court from Quentin Taylor. (NAD) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 46 of 49

03/18/2019 03/19/2019
03/21/2019 03/25/2019 06/26/2019
06/26/2019 07/05/2019 07/16/2019 07/22/2019 07/22/2019 08/12/2019
08/21/2019 08/23/2019 08/29/2019 09/06/2019

649 STIPULATION to Extend Private Settlement Agreement, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
650 Acknowledgement of Stipulation − The parties having filed their 649 Stipulation to Extend Private Settlement Agreement, and the Court having read the Stipulation, states that it acknowledges that the Private Settlement Agreement in this case is now extended to the later of: One year from the date that the private settlement agreement in the case of Mast v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction, No. 2:05−cv−00037 LJM/WGH, is terminated; or The date a decision is made in the Mast case preventing the termination of the private settlement agreement in the case. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/19/2019.(NAD) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
651 STATUS REPORT by the Parties (Further) by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/21/2019)
652 MARGINAL ENTRY − Acknowledging 651 Status Report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/25/2019.(NAD) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
653 ENTRY − The court has received a letter from inmate Greg Taylor, a possible member of the class in Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction. The clerk is directed to docket the letter under SEAL in this action and forward a copy to class counsel and counsel for the state. Class counsel is requested to determine if Mr. Taylor is a member of the class and if so, to investigate Mr. Taylor's concerns. Copies per distribution list. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/26/2019.(NAD) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
654 SEALED Letter from Greg Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(NAD) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
655 MOTION to Come Into Class Action, filed by Interested Party GREG TAYLOR. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(NAD) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
656 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Interested Party GREG TAYLOR. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(NAD) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
657 MOTION for the Appointment of Masters, filed by Interested Party GREGORY A TAYLOR. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(NAD) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
658 Pleading for MOTION of Intervention, filed by Interested Party GREGORY A TAYLOR. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(NAD) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
659 ENTRY − Interested person Greg Taylor filed a motion to come into class action on July 5, 2019. On July 16, 2019, he filed a motion to intervene. On July 22, 2019, he filed a motion for the appointment of masters to tour the Michigan State Department of Correction psychiatric hospital, and another motion to intervene. These motions, dkts. [ 655 , 656 , 657 , and 658 are neither granted nor denied because this case has been resolved through entry of a Private Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which any interested prisoners are directed to contact class counsel with any questions or concerns about the case. The Court cannot provide any relief pursuant to the Private Settlement Agreement. Class counsel can be contacted at the ACLU of Indiana, 1031 E. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202 or at (317) 635−4059. Copy to Greg Taylor via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/12/2019. (NAD) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
660 Letter to Court from Justin Clark. (NAD) (Entered: 08/22/2019)
661 MARGINAL ENTRY − Acknowledging 660 Letter from Justin Clark. The Court notes that his correspondence was served on class counsel. Copy to Justin Clark via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/23/2019.(NAD) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
662 Letter to Court from Justin Clark. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter from IDOC to Mr. Clark and article from Therapytools.us) (NAD) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
663 Letter to the Court from Greg Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (NAD) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 47 of 49

09/06/2019 09/06/2019 09/13/2019
09/17/2019
09/27/2019 09/30/2019 10/15/2019
10/16/2019 10/16/2019 10/17/2019
10/17/2019
10/29/2019 11/06/2019 11/12/2019 11/12/2019 11/12/2019

664 Letter to the Court from Isaiah Hill. (NAD) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
665 Second Letter to the Court from Isaiah Hill. (NAD) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
666 ENTRY − The Court has received letters from inmates Isaiah M. Hill (Dkt. Nos. 664 and 665 ) and Gregory Taylor (Dkt. No. 663 ), possible members of the class in Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction. Class counsel is requested to determine if either inmate is a member of the class and if so, please determine what actions, if any, are required. Copies via US Mail per distribution list. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/13/2019.(NAD) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
667 DECLARATION of GREGORY A TAYLOR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − ACLU letter dated 7/29/19, # 2 Exhibit B − ACLU letter dated 8/15/19, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D − Article from NAMI regarding Aripiprazole, # 5 Exhibit E − Article from NAMI regarding Venlafaxine, # 6 Exhibit Letter from Gregory Taylor, Jr dated 8/28/19, Letter from U.S. Department of Justice dated 8/20/19, Dkt 13 in case 2:19−cv−118−JMS−DLP, # 7 Envelope)(NAD) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
668 Letter from ISAIAH M. HILL to the Court. (NAD) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
669 MARGINAL ENTRY, re 668 Letter. Class Counsel is copied on this letter, therefore the Court takes no action at this time. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/30/2019.(NAD) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
670 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to 30 days after the Court's Order (BELATED) to File Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/15/2019)
671 NOTICE of Appearance by Bryan Findley on behalf of Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Findley, Bryan) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
672 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of David A. Arthur, filed by Defendant COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion to Withdraw Appearance)(Findley, Bryan) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
673 ORDER − Plaintiffs, having filed their Unopposed Belated 670 Motion to Extend Time to File Status Report, and the Court having read the motion, and being duly advised, finds that good cause exists to grant it, and, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties hall file their joint status report no later than 30 days following the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/17/2019. (NAD) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
674 ORDER − granting 672 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the appearance of David A. Arthur on behalf of the Defendants are hereby withdrawn. Deputy Attorney General Bryan R. Findley on behalf of the Defendant remain in effect. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/17/2019. (NAD) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
675 MOTION For A Writ of Mandamus filed by ROGER PRINGLE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Miscellaneous documents)(NAD) (Entered: 10/29/2019)
676 Letter to the Judge from ROGER PRINGLE. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (NAD) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
677 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to December 18, 2019 (FURTHER MOTION), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/12/2019)
678 Submission of Consent to E−Service by non−party (Justin Clark). (NAD) (Entered: 11/12/2019)
679 Submission of Letter and Information to the Court. (NAD) (Entered: 11/12/2019)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 48 of 49

11/13/2019 11/18/2019
11/19/2019
12/11/2019 12/12/2019 01/10/2020 01/13/2020 02/11/2020 02/12/2020 03/08/2020

680 ORDER − Plaintiffs, having filed their Unopposed Further 677 Motion to Extend Time to File Status Report, and the Court having read the motion, and being duly advised, finds that good cause exists to grant it, and, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall file their joint status report no later than December 18, 2019. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/13/2019. (NAD) (Entered: 11/13/2019)
681 ENTRY ON 675 MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS − Roger Pringle is an inmate confined at Westville Correctional Facility. On October 29, 2019, he filed a motion for writ of mandamus in this action, seeking release from custody. Dkt. 675 . The issue in this class action related to the provision of mental health treatment to inmates in the Indiana Department of Correction. This class action was resolved through a private settlement agreement and dismissed without prejudice on March 24, 2016. Dkt. 509 . Mr. Pringle's post−judgment motion for writ of mandamus filed under this case number, dkt. 675 , is summarily denied because the claims he alleges therein have no bearing on the claims resolved through this class action. The clerk is requested to send a copy of this Entry to Mr. Pringle. Copy to Roger Pringle via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/18/2019. (NAD) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
682 ENTRY − Justin Clark, an inmate at the Pendleton Correctional Facility, has filed a letter in this closed action, in which he states that he has been "improperly diagnosed" and he is suffering from borderline personality disorder; he states that regardless of his diagnosis he is being denied even minimum adequate treatment. Dkt. 679 at 4. Mr. Clark is correct that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment for prison officials to have deliberate indifference or disregard to a prisoner's serious medical needs, including mental health needs. If Mr. Clark believes that his constitutional rights are being violated he has the option of initiating a new lawsuit on his own. The Clerk is directed to include a copy of the prisoner complaint form with this Entry. Copy of this Entry and blank Prisoner Complaint form sent to Mr. Clark via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/19/2019.(NAD) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
683 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to January 17, 2020 to file Status Report (Unopposed), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
684 ORDER − granting 683 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs, having filed their Second Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Status Report, and the Court having read the motion, and being duly advised, finds that good cause exists to grant it, and, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall file their joint status report no later than January 17, 2020. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/12/2019. (NAD) (Entered: 12/12/2019)
685 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to February 17, 2020 to File Status Report (UNOPPOSED), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
686 ORDER − granting 685 Motion for Extension of Time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall file their joint status report no later than February 17, 2020. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/13/2020. (NAD) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
687 Fourth MOTION for Extension of Time to March 18, 2020 to File Status Report (UNOPPOSED), filed by Plaintiffs JOSHUA HARRISON, INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JAMES PANOZZO, GREGGORY SIMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
688 ORDER − granting 687 Motion for Extension of Time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall file their joint status report no later than March 18, 2020. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/12/2020. (NAD) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
689 STATUS REPORT (FURTHER) by All Plaintiffs. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/08/2020)

Case: 1:08-cv-1317 As of: 03/15/2020 12:50 PM EDT 49 of 49
03/10/2020 690 MARGINAL ENTRY − Acknowledging 689 Parties' Further Status Report. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/10/2020.(NAD) (Entered: 03/10/2020)
Case #: 1:08−cv−01317−TWP−MJD